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

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

by Daniel J. Kevles

Free eBook The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character download ISBN: 0393319709
Author: Daniel J. Kevles
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; Revised ed. edition (January 17, 2000)
Language: English
Pages: 512
Category: Other
Subcategory: Humanities
Size MP3: 1342 mb
Size FLAC: 1984 mb
Rating: 4.6
Format: txt lrf lit rtf


From the beginning, the Baltimore case provided a moveable feast for those eager to hold science more . The "Baltimore Case" sent shock waves through the scientific community. Kevles's book puts the matter to rest.

The "Baltimore Case" sent shock waves through the scientific community. Did Nobel laureate David Baltimore collude to commit fraud? Or, was he the victim of a witch hunt? Kevles's book puts the matter to rest. LJ 10/1/98) Читать весь отзыв.

Kevles comes down on the side of the self-admittedly sloppy Imanishi-Kari (who was officially exonerated in 1996) and Baltimore, painting .

Kevles comes down on the side of the self-admittedly sloppy Imanishi-Kari (who was officially exonerated in 1996) and Baltimore, painting O'Toole as a well-motivated but overenthusiastic watchdog manipulated by embarrassingly eager investigators. Even our best and brightest can be brought low by jealousy, carelessness, and deception. From Publishers Weekly.

The Baltimore Case book. Daniel Kevles' investigation of what became known as The Baltimore Case reveals a witch-hunt in which Baltimore and Thereza David Baltimore won the Nobel Prize for medicine at the age of 37. Less that 18 months later, he resigned amid allegations of fraud.

Kevles, Daniel J. Publication date. Books for People with Print Disabilities. Internet Archive Books. Uploaded by Sanderia on March 9, 2010. SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata). Terms of Service (last updated 12/31/2014).

How we measure 'reads'. 118+ million publications.

Science and the Politics of Science. Published by Thriftbooks. The Baltimore case was really the Imanishi-Kari case. A young scientist in Theresa Imanishi-Kari's lab, Margot O'Toole, approached her superiors with a disagreeing opinion about one of the papers published by her superior and co-authored by Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore. Two committees found that there had been error, but not misconduct or fraud.

Daniel J. Kevles (born 2 March 1939 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is an American historian of science best known for his books on American physics and eugenics and for a wide-ranging body of scholarship on science and technology in modern societies. He is Stanley Woodward Professor of History, Emeritus at Yale University and J. O. and Juliette Koepfli Professor of the Humanities, Emeritus at the California Institute of Technology.

From the beginning, the Baltimore case provided a moveable feast for .

Did Baltimore stonewall a legitimate government inquiry? Or was he the victim of witch hunters? The Baltimore Case tells the complete story of this complex affair, reminding us how important the issues of government oversight and scientific integrity have become in a culture in which increasingly complicated technology widens the divide between scientists and society.

W W Norton, £21, pp 448. ISBN 0393041034. Accused of fraud, she is defended by her charismatic but hubristic boss, the Nobel laureate David Baltimore, who takes on a congressional committee.

Bibliographic Citation. Journal of Information Ethics 2002 Spring; 11(1): 93.

"You read with a rising sense of despair and outrage, and you finish it as if awakening from a nightmare only Kafka could have conceived."--Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, New York Times

David Baltimore won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1975. Known as a wunderkind in the field of immunology, he rose quickly through the ranks of the scientific community to become the president of the distinguished Rockefeller University. Less than a year and a half later, Baltimore resigned from his presidency, citing the personal toll of fighting a long battle over an allegedly fraudulent paper he had collaborated on in 1986 while at MIT. From the beginning, the Baltimore case provided a moveable feast for those eager to hold science more accountable to the public that subsidizes its research. Did Baltimore stonewall a legitimate government inquiry? Or was he the victim of witch hunters? The Baltimore Case tells the complete story of this complex affair, reminding us how important the issues of government oversight and scientific integrity have become in a culture in which increasingly complicated technology widens the divide between scientists and society. Photographs and line drawings
User reviews
Anaginn
For me The Baltimore Case was edifying and a pleasure to read. I recommend it highly to anyone like myself who followed desultorily the media's presentation of the proceedings before the Congressional Subcommittee as putting "Science on Trial," but without any grasp of the underlying science. And I agree with the previous reviewers' conclusion that the book is too long although I attribute its length to the author's commitment to thoroughness.

I finished The Baltimore Case feeling I'd learned a lot about viral research in an academic setting, the role of personality conflicts in this research, and the editorial practices of scientific journals like Cell. (Excuse me for not saying more about the political, scientific, and personal disputes that the book so fascinatingly details, but to my mind they are commendably covered in the other reviews.) I especially admired the author's sustained treatment of the central story as a murder mystery with no murderer and everyone the victims, as well as his clear presentation of the underlying scientific facts. Professor Kevles did a very impressive job.
The Sphinx of Driz
A carefully researched and authoritative account of one of the most notable "train wrecks" in the history of modern science. This is not entertaining reading. It is an important document from which lessons and rules can be drawn. It should be required reading for ethics-in-science classes, for research and medical scientists, for scientific administrators, deans and National Institutes of Health bureaucrats.
Cargahibe
There may have been too much detail.... Reading this was like reading a piece in The New Yorker; so balanced that, at the end, I felt I knew little more than when I started.
Shakar
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.
Diredefender
"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.