Misconduct: Imanishi-Kari And David Baltimore

A paper co-authored by Nobel Prize winning scientist David Baltimore which is known as the “Baltimore Affair” was suspected of containing fraudulent data. This paper appeared in the 25 April 1986 issue of the journal Cell, listed six authors. Baltimore supervised the research but he did not perform the experiments. The paper assert that the insertion of a foreign gene into a mouse can stimulate the mouse’s genes to produce antibodies resembling those of the foreign gene but it has not been confirmed by other scientists. The experiments were carried out at the Whitehead Institute, a lab associated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tufts University, and were funded by the NIH. A postdoctoral student, Margot O’Toole, working
at the Whitehead Institute which is under the supervision of Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari, grew suspicious of this research when she found seventeen pages of Imanishi-Kari’s notes that differ the findings of the paper. She suspected many of the experiments described in the paper are not proven. O’Toole blew the whistle by informing review boards at MIT and Tufts about her suspicions on this research. These boards conducted an initial investigation on the research and found some errors in the work but did not find any evidence of misconduct. O’Toole had difficulty finding work and became known as a troublemaker when her one year term as a postdoctoral student expired. However, John Dingell of Michigan at the House Oversight and Investigations Committee brings in the Secret Service to conduct an investigation on this case. The investigation of congressional on Imanishi-Kari’s notebooks found that dates in it had been changed and results had been written with different inks on different paper. The NIH’s Office of Research Integrity concluded in 1994 that Imanishi-Kari had fabricated and falsified data and results of the research and she was asked to take a leave of absence. However, Imanishi-Kari retained her innocence and was exonerated in 21 June 1996 after a research integrity appeals panel from the Department of Health and Human Services claims that the evidence against her was unreliable. ORI was criticized by the panel for handling the case irresponsibly. Imanishi-Kari was rehired by Tufts University after the panel found her innocent and she admits that her notebook was put together from loose papers when she was accused of misconduct. The panel’s finding angered some scientists who believe that Imanishi-Kari did falsify data. Baltimore resigned his presidency of Rockefeller University in December 1992 due to his involvement in the affair and has defended Imanishi-Kari throughout the case. Baltimore and his co-authors issued a correction of their work in order to remove the errors contained in the paper and he admits that he did not seek independent verification of the experimental results.

In my opinion, research misconduct is not ethical.
This is because a research is meant to find out a fact which is true about something. Research misconduct is a dishonest act and will give the others a false information regarding the particular research. If a research misconduct is done and the others believe that the result is true, it may lead a serious problem in the future. Both Imanishi-Kari and David Baltimore should be responsible for this scientific fraud. This is because Imanishi-Kari is the one who fabricated and falsified the data results of this experiment but David Baltimore who supervised this research did not realise this. Baltimore even defended her from all the evidence saying that she did fabricate and falsify data and believe that she is innocent. If Baltimore finds out earlier that Imanishi-Kari falsified the data of the results then it will not lead to the consequences that came after. Baltimore did not paid full attention to the research that was being done under his supervision. His negligence gave Imanishi-Kari the chance to fabricate and falsify the data of the results. If he paid full attention to the research, this scientific misconduct will not occur because if Imanishi-Kari tries to fabricate or falsify the data he would have find out and stop it from happening. Baltimore should not been listed as an author if he could not adequately supervise the research. This is because he did not pay full participation and attention to the research which
allows this scientific misconduct to happen. He can only be listed an author if he participate fully in the research and supervise the research carefully.

Furthermore, I think the whistle blowing action of Margot O’Toole by informing the review boards at MIT and Tufts about her suspicions is an overreaction. Margot O’Toole should find out whether her suspicions is true before she inform the review boards about it. In my opinion, Margot O’Toole is not doing the right action. This is because her action caused many consequences. She should try to talk to Baltimore about her suspicions first and let Baltimore decide what to do since he is the supervisor of this research. She should also talk to Imanishi-Kari personally about this and if she admits that she did fabricate and falsify data of the results then she should correct it before this scandal spread so that the consequences can be reduced. Margot O’Toole had not been given more protection for her whistle blowing. This is because the initial investigation of the review boards did not conclude that the research of Imanishi-Kari was suspicious. Margot O’Toole was known as a trouble maker because of her whistle blowing. In my opinion, they should provide her more protection because she may be threaten by other people because of her action. The initial investigators did not conduct a more thorough and careful inquiry because they did not find any evidence of fraud or manipulation of data. However, the following investigation by the congressional found that the dates of Imanishi-Kari’s notebooks were changed and the results had been written with different inks on different paper. If the initial investigation was done thoroughly and carefully, they would have found out that Imanishi-Kari had altered the data of the research.

People outside of science should not be allowed to investigate and adjudicate cases of scientific misconduct.
This is because most people outside of science do not have much scientific knowledge and do not understands science as good as people who are in science. People outside of science may make incorrect adjudication which is contradict to the truth in science. Fraud cases should be decided on both scientific and legal standards of evidence. In my opinion, fraud cases cannot be decided only on either one side of scientific or legal standards. This is because if fraud cases is decided only on scientific standards and does not take count of legal standards, it may exceed the level of acceptance of public and the level of tolerability of the law. This may cause chaos and may defy the standards of humanity. On the other hand, if fraud cases is decided only on legal standards and does not take count of scientific standards, the decision made may be inacceptable in science. If assumed that Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari did not fabricate or falsify data, her poor record keeping could be viewed as irresponsible and unethical. This is because as a scientist, she should be responsible and keep her records of research properly so that unwanted consequences will not occur. Scientific misconduct can be prevented by practicing values of ethics in science. It can also be prevented by enforcing the law so that scientist will not make attempt to fabricate and falsify data of
research.

All in all, Baltimore affair is an incident that caused a big impact to the others in science and also to the world. It is also a reminder to the others that scientific misconduct is a serious matter and should not be done by anyone.