- Email: [email protected]
Washington Perspective
928
NEWS and COMMENT
Washington Perspective A cryptic announcement clouds the Gallo case
Did Dr Robert C. Gallo discover the AIDS virus, as he claims, or did he accidentally stumble upon or steal it in the course of collaboration with Luc Montagnier, of the Pasteur Institute? That’s the basic issue in the Gallo case. After nearly a year of inquiry by the National Institutes of Health, his supporters say he has now been exonerated; others say not so.
On Oct 5, an enigmatic announcement from the Acting Director of NIH, William F. Raub, stated that Gallo has been cleared of some charges concerning his claimed AIDS priority while other charges have been elevated by NIH to a more serious plane of scrutiny. The complexity of the Gallo case and the impenetrability of Raub’s words were manifested the next day in wondrously conflicting newspaper accounts. The New York Times reported that NIH "will open a full-scale investigation of possible misconduct in the laboratory of" Dr Gallo. Deriving a different meaning, the Washington Post reported that NIH "yesterday effectively cleared researcher Robert C. Gallo of the allegation that he stole the discovery of the AIDS virus from a fellow researcher". The words that spawned these divergent exegeses are the following, as taken directly from Raub’s announcement, including its several parenthetical items: The inquiry has resolved certain of the publicized allegations and issues or shown them to be without substance. In particular, the inquiry team has concluded that Dr Gallo had a substantial number of HIV detections and isolations from several different sources at the critical time that the HTLV-IIIB (the principal virus isolated by the Gallo laboratory) and LAV (the virus isolated by the Pasteur Institute) were being grown in Dr Gallo’s laboratory. I have determined, however, that certain issues identified during the inquiry phase warrant a formal investigation. The investigation will focus on several aspects of published reports from Dr Gallo’s laboratory, particularly the report published by Popovic et al., Science, May 1984. Subjects of the investigation are Dr Gallo and Dr Mikulas Popovic. The investigation also will include testing of a number of biological samples in an effort to determine the origins of HTLV-IIIB, the virus that Dr Gallo and his colleagues used to develop the blood test for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
A finding of misconduct in the Gallo case would sully science’s earnest claims of purity and an earned right to self-governance. In this case, as with the separate and still ticking case involving Nobelist David Baltimore’s aggressive defence of a disputed paper in the April, 1986, Cell, the establishment initially responded with internal
investigations that found, or at least reported, nothing amiss. NIH undertook the Gallo and Baltimore inquiries on the demand of Rep John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, the sulphurous chairman of the House Committee that writes the legislation for NIH. There is no reason to believe that, without Mr Dingell’s insistence, these matters would be on the NIH docket. The Gallo-Montagnier dispute was settled by political edict in 1987 when President Reagan and Premier Chirac shook hands on a diplomatic verdict of simultaneous discovery. The two scientists agreed to that version, thus quelling, though not killing, rumours that Gallo had robbed Montagnier of deserved scientific glory. At one point, the National Cancer Institute, where Gallo heads a major laboratory, sifted the charges against its celebrated investigator, and concluded they were baseless. However, in November, 1989, the priority dispute was exhumed in an unlikely place, the Chicago Tribune, which published a 50 000-word article, two years in preparation, that cast serious doubts on the justice of the Reagan-Chirac dictate. Written by John Crewdson, a highly respected journalist, the article concluded that Gallo’s claim to discovery originated either in theft or in accident-a conclusion denounced by Gallo as contradicted by an abundance of evidence. Mr Dingell then thundered at NIH from his influential roost on Capitol Hill, and an extraordinary process was set in motion. Early this year, the NIH Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) began an "inquiry" to determine whether the allegations concerning Gallo warranted an "investigation", the former being akin to a grand jury proceeding, the latter more like a trial that can lead to penalties. But, recognising the matter of appearance in NIH probing the integrity of one of its most honoured scientists, OSI asked the Institute of Medicine, the health-policy arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to recommend names for a professionally diversified and distinguished committee of oversight for the inquiry. The outcome was the appointment, by NIH, of a panel of consultants, now numbering nine, chaired by Frederic M. Richards, professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale University. The panel has not been tame. After several meetings at which it reviewed materials collected by the OSI "inquiry team"-which consists of OSI staff members-the panel reported it had seen enough to conclude that the inquiry should be upgraded to the more serious level of "investigation". The recommendation, arrived at in a meeting in June, was conveyed to Acting Director Raub in a letter stating that "This decision was based on the review of material at the meeting. Some data appeared to be missing from the data books. There is a possibility of selection and or misrepresentation of data. There is a need for the Panel to
929
plan experiments on the viral samples that have been sequestered or that can be located". In July, Raub rejected the recommendations of the Richards panel, but with words that appear significant in view of his Oct 5 decision to move an investigation in the Gallo case. An investigation is warranted where there is "substantial
reason to
believe scientific misconduct may
have occurred". Scientific delinquency has never amounted to more than a
fringe issue here in an otherwise functional and generally trusting relationship betwen science and politics. But it is an issue that persists as the guardians of scientific rectitude, official and self-appointed, pore over a small but unceasing flow of accusations of misdeeds in the laboratory. Ever since the revelations of the Darsee scandal at Harvard in 1981-involving flagrant fabrication of research data-the misconduct pot has alternated between simmer and boil. The main response from the institutions of science tends to be that misconduct is rare and under control. Perhaps so, but there can be little doubt that the steady procession of reports concerning unseemly scientific behaviour-often confirmed in grisly detail-can only erode political confidence in science’s capacity to govern itself. Daniel S.
Greenberg
Thiel says he did not consider it plagiarism, since he was directly concerned with the content of the journal articles. In a second case, the school has allowed Dr John Hiserodt, a specialist in cancer research at its Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, to resign. School officials are not commenting, but the Weiss subcommittee report says that Dr Hiserodt admitted falsifying data in an NIH grant application. In reply, Dr Hiserodt says "this so-called admission was obtained under extreme coercion (by the school), without due process and has not been accepted by NIH". Dr Hiserodt says he plans to sue the school for
damages. Also still unresolved is the case of Dr Erdem Cantekin, a scientist at the school who claims its acceptance of grants from pharmaceutical companies is biasing its research.! He says the school has isolated him for four years with nothing to do, most recently in a windowless office above a supermarket. University authorities at one point contemplated revoking his tenure but now say that he is welcome to resume his duties. They claim that Dr Cantekin was offered a more desirable office but refused. The NIH is investigating the case, but the Weiss subcommittee says that NIH is part of the problem, since it continues to provide grants to the school in violation of its own proposed guidelines on conflict of interest.
J. B. Sibbison
Round the World USA: Allegations of misconduct in
Pittsburgh When
allegations of scientific misconduct have been made against a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Congressional investigators say, school officials have tended in the past to protect the accused. On one occasion, a school official even threatened a whistleblower with a lawsuit if he failed to retract Congressional testimony that the school covered up misconduct of a professor who ultimately pleaded guilty in court to falsifying his research. There are now signs of change at the Pittsburgh School. A subcommittee in the House of Representatives, headed by Ted Weiss of New York, has just brought to light a case in which the school accepted complaints of misconduct and imposed a penalty. The case concerned Dr David Van Thiel, the school’s chief of gastroenterology. A faculty panel found that he committed "publication irregularities which can be considered to be a form of plagiarism". Lewis Popper, general counsel to the university, says the medical school has revoked Dr Van Thiel’s tenure but has allowed him to remain on the faculty under a three-year contract. The chronology of events, as the school describes them, began with the publication, in February, 1985, of Seminars M Liver Disease. Dr Van Thiel was guest editor of the issue and an author of three of the articles in the periodical.
Subsequently, he was the principal author of chapter five in the sixth edition of a book, Diseases of the Liver, edited by Leon and Eugene Schiff. The other co-authors are not involved in the case. "Extensive use of text, tables and figures from the first six articles in Seminars in Li’ver Disease appear in the chapter in Dueases of the Liver", wrote Dr George M Bernier, J r, dean of the university’s medical school, in a letter to the National Institutes of Health. "There is no acknowledgement or attribution of these articles". In his own defence, Dr Van
1. Sibbison JB. Congressional Lancet 1989; ii: 38.
inquiry into allegations of scientific fraud.
Germany: Painful unification of science "More freedom for creativity, but a far greater risk." With these words the new president of the East German Academy of Sciences summed up what he and his colleagues expect in the coming months. Prof Horst Klinkmann, the first and probably last president of the Academy to be democratically elected, is one of the few East German scientists with an international reputation. He is director of the Rostock clinic and a well-known nephrologist. Coming from outside the Academy he has the advantage of not being tied to the old,
rigid structures. The 24 000 members of the Academy expect him to make the dismantling of their institution as smooth and as painless for them as possible. For this giant centralised organisation, modelled on the Academy of Sciences in the Soviet Union, must certainly undergo radical change if it is to survive. Under the communist regime it was responsible for all scientific research and development in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), universities being mere teaching institutions. Many parts of the Academy served as development units for the socialist equivalent of companies. Findings suitable for commercial application were heavily supported to the detriment of truly original long-term fundamental research. Often achievements from abroad were
simply copied or re-invented.
The "sick dinosaur" of the Academy will not survive the unification in its old form. It has been given until the end of 1991 to complete its reforms. By then research must be decentralised and reintroduced into the universities, and the development groups must be taken over by private firms. A review by an international scientific committee should be completed by this deadline. The hope that West German research agencies would immediately take over some of the big institutes has not been
NEWS and COMMENT
Washington Perspective A cryptic announcement clouds the Gallo case
Did Dr Robert C. Gallo discover the AIDS virus, as he claims, or did he accidentally stumble upon or steal it in the course of collaboration with Luc Montagnier, of the Pasteur Institute? That’s the basic issue in the Gallo case. After nearly a year of inquiry by the National Institutes of Health, his supporters say he has now been exonerated; others say not so.
On Oct 5, an enigmatic announcement from the Acting Director of NIH, William F. Raub, stated that Gallo has been cleared of some charges concerning his claimed AIDS priority while other charges have been elevated by NIH to a more serious plane of scrutiny. The complexity of the Gallo case and the impenetrability of Raub’s words were manifested the next day in wondrously conflicting newspaper accounts. The New York Times reported that NIH "will open a full-scale investigation of possible misconduct in the laboratory of" Dr Gallo. Deriving a different meaning, the Washington Post reported that NIH "yesterday effectively cleared researcher Robert C. Gallo of the allegation that he stole the discovery of the AIDS virus from a fellow researcher". The words that spawned these divergent exegeses are the following, as taken directly from Raub’s announcement, including its several parenthetical items: The inquiry has resolved certain of the publicized allegations and issues or shown them to be without substance. In particular, the inquiry team has concluded that Dr Gallo had a substantial number of HIV detections and isolations from several different sources at the critical time that the HTLV-IIIB (the principal virus isolated by the Gallo laboratory) and LAV (the virus isolated by the Pasteur Institute) were being grown in Dr Gallo’s laboratory. I have determined, however, that certain issues identified during the inquiry phase warrant a formal investigation. The investigation will focus on several aspects of published reports from Dr Gallo’s laboratory, particularly the report published by Popovic et al., Science, May 1984. Subjects of the investigation are Dr Gallo and Dr Mikulas Popovic. The investigation also will include testing of a number of biological samples in an effort to determine the origins of HTLV-IIIB, the virus that Dr Gallo and his colleagues used to develop the blood test for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
A finding of misconduct in the Gallo case would sully science’s earnest claims of purity and an earned right to self-governance. In this case, as with the separate and still ticking case involving Nobelist David Baltimore’s aggressive defence of a disputed paper in the April, 1986, Cell, the establishment initially responded with internal
investigations that found, or at least reported, nothing amiss. NIH undertook the Gallo and Baltimore inquiries on the demand of Rep John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, the sulphurous chairman of the House Committee that writes the legislation for NIH. There is no reason to believe that, without Mr Dingell’s insistence, these matters would be on the NIH docket. The Gallo-Montagnier dispute was settled by political edict in 1987 when President Reagan and Premier Chirac shook hands on a diplomatic verdict of simultaneous discovery. The two scientists agreed to that version, thus quelling, though not killing, rumours that Gallo had robbed Montagnier of deserved scientific glory. At one point, the National Cancer Institute, where Gallo heads a major laboratory, sifted the charges against its celebrated investigator, and concluded they were baseless. However, in November, 1989, the priority dispute was exhumed in an unlikely place, the Chicago Tribune, which published a 50 000-word article, two years in preparation, that cast serious doubts on the justice of the Reagan-Chirac dictate. Written by John Crewdson, a highly respected journalist, the article concluded that Gallo’s claim to discovery originated either in theft or in accident-a conclusion denounced by Gallo as contradicted by an abundance of evidence. Mr Dingell then thundered at NIH from his influential roost on Capitol Hill, and an extraordinary process was set in motion. Early this year, the NIH Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) began an "inquiry" to determine whether the allegations concerning Gallo warranted an "investigation", the former being akin to a grand jury proceeding, the latter more like a trial that can lead to penalties. But, recognising the matter of appearance in NIH probing the integrity of one of its most honoured scientists, OSI asked the Institute of Medicine, the health-policy arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to recommend names for a professionally diversified and distinguished committee of oversight for the inquiry. The outcome was the appointment, by NIH, of a panel of consultants, now numbering nine, chaired by Frederic M. Richards, professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale University. The panel has not been tame. After several meetings at which it reviewed materials collected by the OSI "inquiry team"-which consists of OSI staff members-the panel reported it had seen enough to conclude that the inquiry should be upgraded to the more serious level of "investigation". The recommendation, arrived at in a meeting in June, was conveyed to Acting Director Raub in a letter stating that "This decision was based on the review of material at the meeting. Some data appeared to be missing from the data books. There is a possibility of selection and or misrepresentation of data. There is a need for the Panel to
929
plan experiments on the viral samples that have been sequestered or that can be located". In July, Raub rejected the recommendations of the Richards panel, but with words that appear significant in view of his Oct 5 decision to move an investigation in the Gallo case. An investigation is warranted where there is "substantial
reason to
believe scientific misconduct may
have occurred". Scientific delinquency has never amounted to more than a
fringe issue here in an otherwise functional and generally trusting relationship betwen science and politics. But it is an issue that persists as the guardians of scientific rectitude, official and self-appointed, pore over a small but unceasing flow of accusations of misdeeds in the laboratory. Ever since the revelations of the Darsee scandal at Harvard in 1981-involving flagrant fabrication of research data-the misconduct pot has alternated between simmer and boil. The main response from the institutions of science tends to be that misconduct is rare and under control. Perhaps so, but there can be little doubt that the steady procession of reports concerning unseemly scientific behaviour-often confirmed in grisly detail-can only erode political confidence in science’s capacity to govern itself. Daniel S.
Greenberg
Thiel says he did not consider it plagiarism, since he was directly concerned with the content of the journal articles. In a second case, the school has allowed Dr John Hiserodt, a specialist in cancer research at its Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, to resign. School officials are not commenting, but the Weiss subcommittee report says that Dr Hiserodt admitted falsifying data in an NIH grant application. In reply, Dr Hiserodt says "this so-called admission was obtained under extreme coercion (by the school), without due process and has not been accepted by NIH". Dr Hiserodt says he plans to sue the school for
damages. Also still unresolved is the case of Dr Erdem Cantekin, a scientist at the school who claims its acceptance of grants from pharmaceutical companies is biasing its research.! He says the school has isolated him for four years with nothing to do, most recently in a windowless office above a supermarket. University authorities at one point contemplated revoking his tenure but now say that he is welcome to resume his duties. They claim that Dr Cantekin was offered a more desirable office but refused. The NIH is investigating the case, but the Weiss subcommittee says that NIH is part of the problem, since it continues to provide grants to the school in violation of its own proposed guidelines on conflict of interest.
J. B. Sibbison
Round the World USA: Allegations of misconduct in
Pittsburgh When
allegations of scientific misconduct have been made against a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Congressional investigators say, school officials have tended in the past to protect the accused. On one occasion, a school official even threatened a whistleblower with a lawsuit if he failed to retract Congressional testimony that the school covered up misconduct of a professor who ultimately pleaded guilty in court to falsifying his research. There are now signs of change at the Pittsburgh School. A subcommittee in the House of Representatives, headed by Ted Weiss of New York, has just brought to light a case in which the school accepted complaints of misconduct and imposed a penalty. The case concerned Dr David Van Thiel, the school’s chief of gastroenterology. A faculty panel found that he committed "publication irregularities which can be considered to be a form of plagiarism". Lewis Popper, general counsel to the university, says the medical school has revoked Dr Van Thiel’s tenure but has allowed him to remain on the faculty under a three-year contract. The chronology of events, as the school describes them, began with the publication, in February, 1985, of Seminars M Liver Disease. Dr Van Thiel was guest editor of the issue and an author of three of the articles in the periodical.
Subsequently, he was the principal author of chapter five in the sixth edition of a book, Diseases of the Liver, edited by Leon and Eugene Schiff. The other co-authors are not involved in the case. "Extensive use of text, tables and figures from the first six articles in Seminars in Li’ver Disease appear in the chapter in Dueases of the Liver", wrote Dr George M Bernier, J r, dean of the university’s medical school, in a letter to the National Institutes of Health. "There is no acknowledgement or attribution of these articles". In his own defence, Dr Van
1. Sibbison JB. Congressional Lancet 1989; ii: 38.
inquiry into allegations of scientific fraud.
Germany: Painful unification of science "More freedom for creativity, but a far greater risk." With these words the new president of the East German Academy of Sciences summed up what he and his colleagues expect in the coming months. Prof Horst Klinkmann, the first and probably last president of the Academy to be democratically elected, is one of the few East German scientists with an international reputation. He is director of the Rostock clinic and a well-known nephrologist. Coming from outside the Academy he has the advantage of not being tied to the old,
rigid structures. The 24 000 members of the Academy expect him to make the dismantling of their institution as smooth and as painless for them as possible. For this giant centralised organisation, modelled on the Academy of Sciences in the Soviet Union, must certainly undergo radical change if it is to survive. Under the communist regime it was responsible for all scientific research and development in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), universities being mere teaching institutions. Many parts of the Academy served as development units for the socialist equivalent of companies. Findings suitable for commercial application were heavily supported to the detriment of truly original long-term fundamental research. Often achievements from abroad were
simply copied or re-invented.
The "sick dinosaur" of the Academy will not survive the unification in its old form. It has been given until the end of 1991 to complete its reforms. By then research must be decentralised and reintroduced into the universities, and the development groups must be taken over by private firms. A review by an international scientific committee should be completed by this deadline. The hope that West German research agencies would immediately take over some of the big institutes has not been