The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character

Rating:
Summary: A clear case of sides...
Review: "The Baltimore Case" tells a fascinating, frightening story well, but in far too many pages. The previous reviewer describes the details of the case, which are familiar to most biologists but still misunderstood by many in the sciences as well as by the general public. Mr. Kevles is a descriptive master. He lays out the facts of the case in as objective a manner as I think is possible and he makes the murkiest of quarrels clear (although more figures would have been useful), but his book is very repetitive, is excessively detailed, and by the final chapters a feeling of déjà vu permeates every page. That said, he provides a very important service by convincingly showing that the Baltimore case was primarily a congressional and media fiasco perpetrated under the guise of scientific justice. Some might say that scientists are placed on a pedestal by the non-scientific public and that it is a good thing for scientists to be monitored by "impartial" parties to "keep them honest". Maybe so, but in a country whose populace still fights the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools and rejects genetically-modified foods without a basic understanding of biology, whose congressional members only support applied research that is fodder for votes, and whose media have trouble reporting the most basic scientific discoveries accurately or without sensationalizing them, the policing of scientists should be done very carefully, and "The Baltimore Case" shows why. When ignorant and incompetent individuals like Feder and Stewart are allowed to impact science for transparently self-serving reasons, and powerful politicians like Dingell are given free reign to try, convict and punish dedicated individuals with ill-concealed intellectual jealousy, the entire scientific enterprise in the United States is placed in serious jeopardy. The scientific community, like any other, will turn defensive, in-fight, and self-destruct, and the public will view scientists with greater suspicion than ever. If, after Margot O'toole lodged her initial complaint, independent scientists had been allowed to validate the work under question, which was later shown to be unimpeachable, millions of dollars would have been saved and many years of anguish would have been avoided. Instead, intellectual laziness and administrative incompetence won out and a travesty ensued. Mr. Kevles should be congratulated for making this simple, refreshing fact clear.

Rating:
Summary: Will the politicans vanquish the scientists?
Review: As an engineer by training and profession, this book really makes my blood boil. It's basically the true story of some scientists at MIT who publish a paper on immunology. A student of one of the professors challenges that some of the data in the paper was faked, and an epic of Phyrric proportions ensues.

In the 10 years that this book covers, scientific careers are ruined, researchers are vilified in the media and in the court of public opinion, and (most troubling of all to me) our elected officials engage in a witch hunt of completely innocent scientists. In particular, Senator John Dingell (Michigan) and his staff are revealed as complete devils; the author has thoroughly documented and footnoted the evidence in the case, so there is really little doubt that Mr. Dingell is as pernicious as he is portrayed in this book. Unfortunately, Mr. Dingell is still a senator to this day and no doubt is still out "to get" the scientists involved. Fortunately for science (and society), history has proven the scientists involved innocent and they have all been restored to preeminent positions in the scientific community.

Be forewarned that this is quite a tomb, weighing in at hundreds of pages of meaty scientific and political reading. At times, I contemplated giving up on it, but as the story unfolded, I wanted to see just how far this tragic comedy would unfold. The subject matter (immunology) is far removed from the layperson and I found myself at times not understanding the concepts fully. Luckily, this book is more about the sociopolitical ramifications of the science, and thus not understanding the science does not detract from the novel.

Rating:
Summary: Will the politicans vanquish the scientists?
Review: As an engineer by training and profession, this book really makes my blood boil. It's basically the true story of some scientists at MIT who publish a paper on immunology. A student of one of the professors challenges that some of the data in the paper was faked, and an epic of Phyrric proportions ensues.

In the 10 years that this book covers, scientific careers are ruined, researchers are vilified in the media and in the court of public opinion, and (most troubling of all to me) our elected officials engage in a witch hunt of completely innocent scientists. In particular, Senator John Dingell (Michigan) and his staff are revealed as complete devils; the author has thoroughly documented and footnoted the evidence in the case, so there is really little doubt that Mr. Dingell is as pernicious as he is portrayed in this book. Unfortunately, Mr. Dingell is still a senator to this day and no doubt is still out "to get" the scientists involved. Fortunately for science (and society), history has proven the scientists involved innocent and they have all been restored to preeminent positions in the scientific community.

Be forewarned that this is quite a tomb, weighing in at hundreds of pages of meaty scientific and political reading. At times, I contemplated giving up on it, but as the story unfolded, I wanted to see just how far this tragic comedy would unfold. The subject matter (immunology) is far removed from the layperson and I found myself at times not understanding the concepts fully. Luckily, this book is more about the sociopolitical ramifications of the science, and thus not understanding the science does not detract from the novel.

Rating:
Summary: ARE SCIENTISTS LIKE THE REST OF US?
Review: I literally couldn't put this book down, mostly because of what I liked best about it. It tells a compelling story about very intelligent people - at the simplest level, an Ann Rule sort of story without the murders, all the family background stuff and the law-enforcement personnel.

What I liked second best about the book is that Kevles' explanation of the science is succinct and clear and recapitulated every so often in virtually identical words. Consequently, I got a clearer idea from reading about how biology is done than I've ever got before. The biology being done was immunology, a transgenic mice experiment conducted by a research team led by David Baltimore at MIT in 1985.

What I liked third best about the book is that Kevles lets the story tell itself. (Or rather, he writes it so well it reads that way.) He knows he has a good one, and he doesn't force it. The book starts with immunology. Two hundred pages later it is subjecting John Dingell, chairman of the Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, to much-deserved criticism. And a hundred pages after that, the book is boring in on the non-existence of any OSI (the Office of Scientific Integrity of the National Institute of Health) administrative rules for the investigation and prosecution of alleged scientific fraud. The story changes from an Ann Rule sort personality disorder tale, to a problems of big science and politics in America tale, to a problems of applying documents examining and administrative law to science tale, with the change undeniably clear, for me, after David Baltimore's "confrontational" testimony before John Dingell's subcommittee's hearings beginning on May 4, 1989.

I read The Baltimore Case to raise the issue of a successful and talented biologist with a borderline psychopathic personality, but Kevles does not discuss the issue. Even so, The Baltimore Case constitutes a more significant revision than did The Double Helix of the popular myth that scientists are a happy bunch of truth-seekers - by depicting a scientist suffering from (at least) a personality disorder, it reinforces the impression that they are like the rest of us. But in fact, of course, scientists are not like the rest of us. They are more intelligent, and they are the elite of our time's elite, well-rewarded with money, status, and self-esteem for doing what they love to do. But to whom much is given, much should be expected. And Steven Weinberg and Richard Lewontin notwithstanding, scientists are collectively doing a dismal job of speaking out publicly on the issues of the day. In these most perilous times in the history of the human race, American scientists need to reconsider whether their collective good fortunes combined with their collective political reticence is distinguishable from moral cowardice.

It would be nice to see American physicists and mathematicians and chemists and life scientists organize "economics seminars" for themselves, sort of a "Mississippi Summer" for their minds. Not to become "experts" in a field where moral judgements are basic, but to better understand, themselves, where those moral judgements are taking us. Then our scientists might form a "Scientists for Sense Party," and the public in America could begin to hear what that party supports, whether or not we understand why.

The real questions is, is it too late for even our scientists to make a difference?

Rating:
Summary: A clear case of sides...
Review: If ever there was a clear case of people choosing sides based on what they believe a priori, this is it. While some authors (Judy Sarasohm for example) followed this case from both sides, Kevles obviously entered the discussion with a judgement to be excused. The case of Imanishi-Kari v. O' Toole is one that should have be decided in science, by scientists. But the intervention and face-saving by David Baltimore caused this case to linger half a decade beyond it's merit.

This book wends its way through the facts of the case in 512 pages, but prejudges it's view from page 1. Science isn't the question; in the original paper, the Tufts review, the MIT review, the NIH review or the Secret Service investigation.

Rather, the intent is clear from the beginning, politics has no place in science, except when practiced by Nobel laureates.

Read "Science On Trial" as well, to see an honest (but admittedly poor) author explain the entire case, instead of a biased view decrying the proper research.

Rating:
Summary: Science and the Politics of Science
Review: Kevles has written a masterful account of the Baltimore Case (Imanishi-Kari Case might be better). I can only second the glowing reviews already on this page. A few things that might interest the general reader: at the time of this book's publication, Baltimore-bashing was practically a national sport among scientists. Kevles set out to write a balanced account, and he has done so-- it is a good job all around, as Yale recognized when it gave him an endowed chair recently (Caltech's loss, alas!). Information subsequent to its publication only enhances Baltimore's stature. Unfortunately, like the French Dreyfus case that it resembled at times, too many prominent people said too many harsh things about Baltimore that they cannot retract. Contrary to at least one of the editorial reviewers, it is clear now that Kevles was too hard on Baltimore and company, but so many people attacked Baltimore(Nature's Maddox, Paul Doty, Jim Watson, W.Gilbert, J Darnell, G. Blobel, and a whole nascent federal bureaucracy, inter alia) that these contemporary anti-Dreyfusards will never be refuted. Be that as it may, read this account to get a detailed study of how scientists and government can go wrong, all while trying to do the right thing.