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

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.


A clear case of sides...   February 11, 2002
12 out of 22 found this review helpful

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.


Science and the Politics of Science   December 1, 2001
6 out of 7 found this review helpful

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.