Hello.
Sadly-illuminating WP editor comments Information
- "Actually, his role is not so controversial anymore,..." re Dr. Robert C. Gallo's, "role in identifying the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)..." MastCell 12 June 2007 here
- "[...T]his biography (as of yesterday; I'm trying to fix it now) is a hatchet-job, rife with material that violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It says little about Baltimore's scientific research but gives way too much WP:WEIGHT to two scientific controversies, both presented at length in a way most unfavorable to Baltimore.
- The case of Thereza Imanishi-Kari: This 619-word section is more than twice the length of the affair's treatment in Imanishi-Karzi's own biography -- yet she is the scientist who was accused of fraud. Baltimore's own "sin" was defending a young collaborator who denied fabricating data. The article stresses that both Baltimore and Imanishi-Karzi were at MIT when the errors (Baltimore said) or fraud (the article strongly implies) occurred but never mentions the surely relevant fact that the only disputed work was done in her laboratory and not in his. The opinions of noted polemicist Serge Lang are given equal weight with those of noted historian of science Daniel Kevles. (The fact that Lang is a mathematician rather than a biologist or historian, and that as an AIDS denialist he might have some POV issues with a scientist who works on HIV virus is never mentioned.) Material from Baltimore's own description of the case is not presented.
- The case of Luk van Parijs (LvP) has an even more tenuous relation to David Baltimore long distinguished career, but it also gets hashed over in a very unfair way. Unmentioned here, but surely relevant--according to New Scientist, it was Baltimore himself who suggested that Caltech investigate LvP's work in his lab. Furthermore, according to the Boston Globe ( [1] and [2]) LvP was later suspected of fabricating data in papers he wrote before going to Baltimore's lab as a postdoc, research done as a grad student of Dr. Abul Abbas at Brigham and Women's Hospital. This article's treatment of the LvP affair leaves a strong implication that it was his postdoc with Baltimore that pushed LvP into scientific fraud.
- Articles like this are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I hope others will join me in clearing this one up." Betsythedevine 19 September 2008 Talk:David_Baltimore
- "I agree in general that this article needs work. It has been on my list to clean up for some time, largely because it has been fitfully targeted by AIDS denialists, but I haven't had the time to look into the specifics of some of the Imanishi-Kari stuff. Certainly these are notable episodes, but I agree that the article's coverage of them is both overlong and inappropriately insinuative. If you feel up to working on these issues, I'm happy to help as I can." MastCell 19 September 2008 Talk:David_Baltimore [1st response to above.]
- "Lang the AIDS denialist criticized Baltimore not Lang the mathematician. It can say Lang, AIDS denialist and mathematician or reversed but AIDS denialist is why he criticized Baltimore, AIDS denialists like Lang can't argue science so they go after scientists, like Baltimore, Gallo, say they are bad people so their work is bad. It is not good logic but o well." RetroS1mone 9 December 2008 Talk:David_Baltimore
Hello.
Sadly-illuminating WP editor comments Information
- "Actually, his role is not so controversial anymore,..." re Dr. Robert C. Gallo's, "role in identifying the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)..." MastCell 12 June 2007 here
- "[...T]his biography (as of yesterday; I'm trying to fix it now) is a hatchet-job, rife with material that violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. It says little about Baltimore's scientific research but gives way too much WP:WEIGHT to two scientific controversies, both presented at length in a way most unfavorable to Baltimore.
- The case of Thereza Imanishi-Kari: This 619-word section is more than twice the length of the affair's treatment in Imanishi-Karzi's own biography -- yet she is the scientist who was accused of fraud. Baltimore's own "sin" was defending a young collaborator who denied fabricating data. The article stresses that both Baltimore and Imanishi-Karzi were at MIT when the errors (Baltimore said) or fraud (the article strongly implies) occurred but never mentions the surely relevant fact that the only disputed work was done in her laboratory and not in his. The opinions of noted polemicist Serge Lang are given equal weight with those of noted historian of science Daniel Kevles. (The fact that Lang is a mathematician rather than a biologist or historian, and that as an AIDS denialist he might have some POV issues with a scientist who works on HIV virus is never mentioned.) Material from Baltimore's own description of the case is not presented.
- The case of Luk van Parijs (LvP) has an even more tenuous relation to David Baltimore long distinguished career, but it also gets hashed over in a very unfair way. Unmentioned here, but surely relevant--according to New Scientist, it was Baltimore himself who suggested that Caltech investigate LvP's work in his lab. Furthermore, according to the Boston Globe ( [1] and [2]) LvP was later suspected of fabricating data in papers he wrote before going to Baltimore's lab as a postdoc, research done as a grad student of Dr. Abul Abbas at Brigham and Women's Hospital. This article's treatment of the LvP affair leaves a strong implication that it was his postdoc with Baltimore that pushed LvP into scientific fraud.
- Articles like this are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I hope others will join me in clearing this one up." Betsythedevine 19 September 2008 Talk:David_Baltimore
- "I agree in general that this article needs work. It has been on my list to clean up for some time, largely because it has been fitfully targeted by AIDS denialists, but I haven't had the time to look into the specifics of some of the Imanishi-Kari stuff. Certainly these are notable episodes, but I agree that the article's coverage of them is both overlong and inappropriately insinuative. If you feel up to working on these issues, I'm happy to help as I can." MastCell 19 September 2008 Talk:David_Baltimore [1st response to above.]
- "Lang the AIDS denialist criticized Baltimore not Lang the mathematician. It can say Lang, AIDS denialist and mathematician or reversed but AIDS denialist is why he criticized Baltimore, AIDS denialists like Lang can't argue science so they go after scientists, like Baltimore, Gallo, say they are bad people so their work is bad. It is not good logic but o well." RetroS1mone 9 December 2008 Talk:David_Baltimore