Talk:David Baltimore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

The section on the van Parijs case has serious problems. The claim that this case probably cost Baltimore the Caltech presidency is totally unsubstantiated and unsourced. The only evidence used to suggest any connection between the van Parijs case and Baltimore's resignation as president is the coincidence that they occurred on similar dates. None of the news articles about Baltimore's resignation mention the van Parijs case (in fact, they are quite flattering to Baltimore), and none of the articles about the van Parijs implicate Baltimore as being guilty of fraud. Jdb41 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What of the line about CalTech students considering him the third failed president in a row? Is this sourced?

I removed the statement. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --JWSchmidt 05:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

what is the title or reference of the article in question??

If you mean Imanishi-Kari's article see: Altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged mu heavy chain gene. --JWSchmidt 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The line of Baltimore being a failed president of Caltech is one that comes by word of mouth from Caltech students themselves and many faculty. It is not something that one would find in an official document, thus you can't really source the sentiment of current students. This sentiment may be officially expressed sometime in the future through surveys though.Ctetc2007 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The line about "Probably scientific fraud cost Baltimore the CalTech presidency as well" is not sourced at all, and probably has no basis in fact. I am at Caltech, and have never heard anyone seriously suggest that his resignation as president of the school had anything to do with scientific fraud. It is rather normal for University presidents to step down after serving for 5-6 years, and I have never even heard anyone speculate that Baltimore's resignation was related to fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.220.218 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Don't shoot the messenger

No mention of Baltimore's role in discovering RNA signalled DNA? Or where? Trekphiler 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] van Parijs Case

Baltimore was involved in another major research misconduct scandal.

6 October 2005 CalTech began an inquiry (Harvard Crimson[1]) that was prompted by a free-lance reporter's queries (NewScientist.com, "MIT professor sacked for fabricating data"[2]). The reporter had found suspicious data in several of Dr. Luk van Parijs' research papers, including one co-authored by, among others, Baltimore when van Parijs was a postdoctoral trainee of his at CalTech. 27 October 2005 MIT fired van Parijs, Associate Professor of Biology, claiming he, "[...A]dmitted to fabricating and falsifying research data in a paper and several manuscripts and grant applications" (MIT statement[3]).

28 October 2005 the media storm began: NewScientist.com, Boston Globe[4], New York Times[5], The Tech[6], Harvard Crimson, TheScientist.com[7], Nature[8], Science[9], New Scientist[10], Chronicle of Higher Education[11], and Nature Immunology[12]; but not LA Times and none mentions Baltimore's resignation. Apparently, van Parijs' lab's members observed questionable scientific practices on his part and then reported to MIT authorities. MIT began investigating August 2004. The NewScientist.com and Science reports conflict whether MIT had reimbursed NIH. The news reports also point to suspicious data in two papers co-authored by van Parijs during his Harvard doctoral training.

26 January 2006 Nature published a story[13] - by the same free-lance reporter - that discusses suspicious data in two patent applications filed by Baltimore and van Parijs. It states, "[...W]hen questioned by Nature, Baltimore admitted one of the errors and said he would correct it; he is considering the others..."

Online 14 May 2007 and in print, co-authors retracted falsified or fabricated data from one of van Parijs' papers[14] produced at MIT.[15]

25 November 2007 New Scientist reported that CalTech's investigation had concluded March 2007 with a finding of research misconduct on the part of van Parijs only and a recommendation that four(4) research papers be corrected.[16]

15 December 2007 co-authors retracted falsified or fabricated data from another of van Parijs' papers[17] produced at MIT.[18]

[edit] Is this relevant to Baltimore?

I moved the section, above, from the the article because it seems to be mostly about another person, not Baltimore. If we can find third party commentators who indicate that these events are important information about Baltimore then maybe we can craft a smaller page section that reflects what those commentators have said. --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Harvard Crimson, "MIT Professor Fired for Faking Data," 31 October 2005
  2. ^ NewScientist.com, "MIT professor sacked for fabricating data," 28 October 2005 [1]
  3. ^ MIT statement, "MIT professor dismissed for research misconduct," 27 October 2005
  4. ^ Boston Globe, "MIT professor is fired over fabricated data," 28 October 2005 & "More doubts raised on fired MIT professor," 29 October 2005
  5. ^ New York Times, "M.I.T. Dismisses a Researcher, Saying He Fabricated Some Data," 28 October 2005
  6. ^ The Tech (MIT student paper), "MIT Fires Professor Van Parijs for Using Fake Data in Papers," 28 October 2005 & "Van Parijs’ Research at Caltech, Brigham Drawing New Scrutiny," 1 November 2005
  7. ^ TheScientist.com, "Immunologists prepare for fraud fallout," 3 November 2005
  8. ^ Nature, "Universities scramble to assess scope of falsified results," 3 November 2005
  9. ^ Science, "MIT Terminates Researcher Over Data Fabrication," 4 November 2005
  10. ^ New Scientist, "One bad apple..." (unsigned editorial), 5 November 2005
  11. ^ Chronicle of Higher Education, "MIT Fires Biology Professor Who Admitted Faking Data," 11 November 2005
  12. ^ Nature Immunology, "Scientific blues" (unsigned editorial), 1 January 2006
  13. ^ Reich, Eugenie Samuel (2006) Bad data fail to halt patents. Nature 439(7075): 379 (26 January) [PMID 16437075]
  14. ^ Rubinson DA, Dillon CP, Kwiatkowski AV, Sievers C, Yang L, Kopinja J, Zhang M, McManus MT, Gertler FB, Scott ML, and van Parijs L (2003) A lentivirus-based system to functionally silence genes in primary mammalian cells, stem cells and transgenic mice by RNA interference. Nature Genetics 33(3): 401-6 (March) [PMID 12590264] Authors list subsequently changed twice by "corrigenda:" June 2003 (34(2): 231) & June 2007 (next ref.).
  15. ^ Rubinson DA, Dillon CP, Kwiatkowski AV, Sievers C, Yang L, Kopinja J, Zhang M, McManus MT, Gertler FB, Scott ML, and van Parijs L (2007) Corrigendum: A lentivirus-based system... Nature Genetics 39(6): 803 (June) [2]
  16. ^ E.S. Reich, "Scientific misconduct report still under wraps" (New Scientist, 25 November 2007) [3]
  17. ^ Kelly E, Won A, Refaeli Y, and van Parijs L (2002) IL-2 and related cytokines can promote T cell survival by activating AKT. J. Immunology 168(2): 597-603 (15 January) [PMID 11777951]
  18. ^ Kelly E, Won A, Refaeli Y, and van Parijs L (2007) Erratum: IL-2 and related cytokines... J. Immunology 179(12): 8569 (15 December)

[edit] The Imanishi-Kari Case

The article, I suppose in an effort at NPOV, states that Kevles' book on the case is "sympathetic" to Imanishi-Kari and Baltimore, but that Judson's book, The Great Betrayal, gives "a different perspective." I am a physician, have published papers in the scientific literature, and am conversant with the science involved in this affair. I have read both books, and was hugely impressed with the degree of research and depth of detail analysis in Kevles' book. I am personally convinced that Imanishi-Kari most probably (and Baltimore certainly) were not guilty of intentional fraud, that Imanishi-Kari was horrifically treated by a non-judicial review system which made it impossible for her to address the case and defend herself for years. I am equally convinced of the mendacity, insincerity, and pure hypocrisy of Margot O'Toole, Imanishi-Kari's original and principal tormentor. By contrast, Judson's book is superficial, incomplete, and completely off the mark on several important issues. Furthermore, sections of it seem like a mini-hagiography of O'Toole, a thoroughly despicable character, in my opinion. I feel that this article, if its author chooses to address the Imanishi-Kari case, could be improved by a more detailed exposition of the case, with emphasis on Imanishi-Kari's ultimate triumph.72.203.165.45 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the Thereza Imanishi-Kari article into a redirect to a new page called something like The Imanishi-Kari scientific misconduct case. --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research Guide

One user has objected to the implementation of the Research Guide section used in the Baltimore article. Note that the user who deleted my template from the Baltimore article User:SEWilco has this message on their user page: "This user's activities on Wikipedia have been restricted by illegal[1], unreasonable[2], and arbitrary[3] ArbCom restrictions [4] and enforcement[5][6]."


In fairness, I have proposed an ongoing discussion of this issue on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page. (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tkbalt edit: irrelevant info?

Anyone want to discuss the recent Tkbalt edit (3 Mar 08)? I think research misconduct in the laboratory of Caltech's president is not irrelevant information. RspnsblMntalk 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) RspnsblMntalk 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimore's trainees

Anyone think such a section is worthwhile? Subsections: undergraduate, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Visiting Scientist (Professor's sabbatical)? RspnsblMntalk 16:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)