From ROBERT JUPP
I was amazed by the choice of words in your editorial ‘Publish-and be
damned’ (6 April), concerning the sorry saga of, among others, postgraduate
Margot O’Toole and Nobel laureate David Baltimore. It seems that Baltimore
learnt the ‘. . . hard way’ about scientific fraud, and that only after
extensive investigations (that is after the game was up) was he ‘. . . prepared
to swallow his words . . .’. Are we to feel sorry for him or admire his
courage? I can do neither.
Assuming the accuracy of the report, Baltimore ‘. . . added his name
. . .’ to the paper in question. Does this mean that he was simply, by virtue
of his authority, hitching a ride and was ignorant of the methodology and
analysis involved? If this was the case then should his name have been on
the paper in the first place-does a scientist of his obvious intellect really
need to bath in reflected glory?
And what are we to make of his unsympathetic treatment of O’Toole? Was
another publication more important than the truth, or was he embarrassed
by not knowing what an author should reasonably be expected to know? I don’t
think Baltimore’s hard lesson was anything to do with fraud; perhaps indiscretion
might be more to the point. Finally, I wonder about O’Toole’s future-will
she be assured a place in the annals of scientific integrity? Sadly, I doubt
it.
Robert Jupp Coolum Beach Australia
Advertisement
