Editing David Baltimore (section)

==Controversies==
=== Imanishi-Kari case ===
{{Main|Thereza Imanishi-Kari}}

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Thereza Imanishi-Kari, a scientist who was not in Baltimore's laboratory but in a separate, independent laboratory at MIT, was implicated in a case of [[scientific fraud]].  The case received extensive news coverage and a Congressional investigation. The case was linked to Baltimore's name because of his scientific collaboration with and later his strong defense of Imanishi-Kari against accusations of fraud.

In 1986, while a professor of biology at MIT and director at Whitehead, Baltimore co-authored a scientific paper on [[immunology]] with Thereza Imanishi-Kari (an assistant professor of biology who had her own laboratory at MIT) as well as four others.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Weaver D, Reis MH, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D, Imanishi-Kari T | title = Altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged mu heavy chain gene | journal = Cell | volume = 45 | issue = 2 | pages = 247–59 | date = April 1986 | pmid = 3084104 | doi = 10.1016/0092-8674(86)90389-2 | s2cid = 26659281 }}{{Retracted|doi=10.1016/0092-8674(91)90085-D|pmid=2032282|intentional=yes}}</ref> A postdoctoral fellow in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory, Margot O'Toole, who was not an author, reported concerns about the paper, ultimately accusing Imanishi-Kari of fabricating data in a cover-up. Baltimore, however, refused to retract the paper.

O'Toole soon dropped her challenge, but the [[NIH]], which had funded the contested paper's research, began investigating, at the insistence of [[Walter W. Stewart (scientist)|Walter W. Stewart]], a self-appointed fraud buster, and Ned Feder, his lab head at the NIH.<ref name=weiss /> [[United States Congress|Representative]] [[John Dingell]] (D-MI) also aggressively pursued it, eventually calling in [[U.S. Secret Service]] (USSS; [[U.S. Treasury]]) document examiners.<ref>"Fraud in NIH Grant Programs," April 12, 1988; "Scientific Fraud," May 4 & 9, 1989; and "Scientific Fraud (Part 2)," May 14, 1990 (transcript includes April 30, 1990 hearing on [[Robert Gallo|R. Gallo]]'s NIH lab)</ref>

Around October 1989, when Baltimore was appointed president of Rockefeller University, around a third of the faculty opposed his appointment because of concerns about his behaviour in the Imanishi-Kari case. He visited every laboratory, one by one, to hear those concerns directly from each group of researchers.<ref name=weiss>{{citation |title= Conduct Unbecoming? | vauthors = Weiss P |date= October 29, 1989 |work= New York Times |pages= 40–41, 68–69, 95 |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/29/magazine/conduct-unbecoming.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm |pmid= 11650263 }}</ref>

In a draft report dated March 14, 1991, based mainly on USSS forensics findings, NIH's fraud unit, then called the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), accused Imanishi-Kari of falsifying and fabricating data. It also criticized Baltimore for failing to embrace O'Toole's challenge.{{Citation needed|date=September 2008}} Less than a week later, the report was leaked to the press.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Hilts PJ | date = March 21, 1991 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/baltimore-data.html | title = Crucial Data Were Fabricated In Report Signed by Top Biologist | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref> Baltimore and three co-authors then retracted the paper; however, Imanishi-Kari and Moema H. Reis did not sign the retraction.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Weaver D, Albanese C, Costantini F, Baltimore D | title = Retraction: altered repertoire of endogenous immunoglobulin gene expression in transgenic mice containing a rearranged mu heavy chain gene | journal = Cell | volume = 65 | issue = 4 | pages = 536 | date = May 1991 | pmid = 2032282 | doi = 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90085-D | s2cid = 43722578 }}</ref>  In the report, Baltimore stated that he may have been "too willing to accept" Imanishi-Kari's explanations and felt he "did too little to seek an independent verification of her data and conclusions."<ref name=Foreman>{{cite news| vauthors = Foreman J |title=Fraud charge leaves a career in shambles Friends contend Thereza imanish-Kari is the victim of a 'travesty,' but others say alligations are no surprise |url=http://www.gatewaycoalition.org/files/gateway_project_moshe_kam/resource/DBCre/bosg6may91.html|access-date=May 21, 2015|newspaper=The Boston Globe|date=May 6, 1991}}</ref> Baltimore publicly apologized for not taking a whistle-blower's charge more seriously.<ref name=Knudson1991>{{cite news|vauthors=Knudson M|title=Health institutes chief gets pointed questions on misconduct cases|url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/1991/08/02/health-institutes-chief-gets-pointed-questions-on-misconduct-cases/|access-date=May 21, 2015|newspaper=The Baltimore Sun|date=August 2, 1991|archive-date=March 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304083146/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-08-02/news/1991214028_1_hadley-scientific-misconduct-misconduct-cases|url-status=live}}</ref>

Amid concerns raised by negative publicity in connection with the scandal, Baltimore resigned as president of Rockefeller University<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Hall SS | title = David Baltimore's final days | journal = Science | volume = 254 | issue = 5038 | pages = 1576–9 | date = December 1991 | pmid = 1749930 | doi = 10.1126/science.1749930 | url = http://www.gatewaycoalition.org/files/Gateway_Project_Moshe_Kam/Resource/DBCre/Science13dec91.html | url-status = dead | bibcode = 1991Sci...254.1576H | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110721054716/http://www.gatewaycoalition.org/files/Gateway_Project_Moshe_Kam/Resource/DBCre/Science13dec91.html | archive-date = 2011-07-21 }}</ref> and rejoined the MIT Biology faculty.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Angier N | date = May 19, 1992 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/19/science/embattled-biologist-will-return-to-mit.html | title = Embattled Biologist Will Return to M.I.T. | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref>

In July 1992, the US Attorney for the District of Maryland, who had been investigating the case, announced he would not bring criminal or civil charges against Imanishi-Kari.<ref>Gladwell, Malcolm (July 14, 1992) "Prosecutors Halt Scientific Fraud Probe; Researcher Baltimore Claims Vindication, Plans to 'Unretract' Paper". ''Washington Post'', p. A3</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Hamilton DP | title = U.S. attorney decides not to prosecute Imanishi-Kari | journal = Science | volume = 257 | issue = 5068 | pages = 318 | date = July 1992 | pmid = 1321499 | doi = 10.1126/science.1321499 | bibcode = 1992Sci...257..318H }}</ref> In October 1994, however, OSI's successor, the [[Office of Research Integrity]] (ORI; HHS) found Imanishi-Kari guilty on 19 counts of research misconduct, basing its conclusions largely on Secret Service analysis of laboratory notebooks, documents that these investigators had little experience or expert guidance in interpreting.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |title=Scientific Fraud in American Political Culture: Reflections on the Baltimore Case {{!}} The Institute for Applied & Professional Ethics |url=https://www.ohio.edu/ethics/by-year/1999-past-events/scientific-fraud-in-american-political-culture-reflections-on-the-baltimore-case/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414022052/https://www.ohio.edu/ethics/by-year/1999-past-events/scientific-fraud-in-american-political-culture-reflections-on-the-baltimore-case/index.html |archive-date=2021-04-14 |access-date=2021-04-14 |website=www.ohio.edu}}</ref>

An HHS appeals panel began meeting in June 1995 to review all charges in detail. In June 1996, the panel ruled that the ORI had failed to prove any of its 19 charges. After throwing out much of the documentary evidence gathered by the ORI, the panel dismissed all charges against Imanishi-Kari. As their final report stated, the HHS panel "found that much of what ORI presented was irrelevant, had limited probative value, was internally inconsistent, lacked reliability or foundation, was not credible or not corroborated, or was based on unwarranted assumptions."  It did conclude that "The Cell paper as a whole is rife with errors of all sorts ... [including] some which, despite all these years and layers of review, have never previously been pointed out or corrected. Responsibility ... must be shared by all participants." Neither OSI nor ORI ever accused Baltimore of research misconduct.<ref name=HHS1996>{{cite web|title=Thereza Imanishi-Kari, Ph.D., DAB No. 1582 (1996) Department of Health and Human Services Departmental Appeals Board RESEARCH INTEGRITY ADJUDICATIONS PANEL SUBJECT: Thereza Imanishi-Kari, Ph.D. Docket No. A-95-33 Decision No. 1582|url=https://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/dab1582.html|website=HHS.gov|publisher=Department of Health and Human Services|date=June 21, 1996|quote=HHS report exonerating Imanishi-Kari.}}</ref><ref name=gateway>{{cite news |title=The fortune that never was | vauthors = Warsh D | quote=The public skirmish over the reputations of Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor David Baltimore and Tufts University researcher Thereza Imanishi-Kari has been formally ended by a report deeply embarrassing to the government |url=http://www.gatewaycoalition.org/files/Gateway_Project_Moshe_Kam/Resource/DBCre/bosg30jun96.html |newspaper=Boston Globe |date=June 30, 1996 }}</ref> The reputations of Stewart and Feder, who had pushed for the investigation, were badly damaged.<ref name=gateway /> The pair were reassigned to other positions at NIH because they failed to maintain productivity in their roles as scientists and questions were raised about the legitimacy of their self-appointed inquiries into scientific integrity.<ref>{{Cite news| vauthors = Hilts PJ |date=1993-06-13|title=Inspector Ends A Hunger Strike Against Agency|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/13/us/inspector-ends-a-hunger-strike-against-agency.html|access-date=2021-04-14|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

The Imanishi-Kari controversy was one among several prominent scientific integrity cases of the 1980s and 1990s in the United States. In nearly all cases, defendants were ultimately cleared.<ref name=":7" /> The case profoundly impacted the process for handling of scientific misconduct in the United States.<ref name=":7" /> Baltimore has been both defended and criticized for his actions in this matter.<ref>{{cite news | vauthors = Foreman J |title=Baltimore Speaks Out on Disputed Study in Letter Sent to Colleagues Around the Nation; He Calls for Protection Against 'threats' to Scientific Freedom |newspaper=Boston Globe |page=31 |date=May 23, 1988 }}</ref><ref name=":3">{{cite journal| vauthors = Thompson L |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1189797.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610214720/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1189797.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 10, 2014 |title=Science Under Fire; Behind the Clash Between Congress and Nobel Laureate David Baltimore|journal=Washington Post "Health" Journal|volume= 5|issue=19|pages=12–16 |date=May 9, 1989}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title= Conduct Unbecoming |url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/baltimore-mag.html |newspaper=New York Times Magazine |year=1989 | vauthors = Weiss P |quote=This spectacle of damaged reputation was not just unseemly, but difficult to reconcile with the 51-year-old Baltimore's prominence and achievements}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | vauthors = Foreman J |title=MIT Institute Used Funds Wrongly |journal=Boston Globe |page=1 |date=April 17, 1991 |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7655970.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610214722/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7655970.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=June 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Judson HF |title=The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science |publisher=Harcourt |location=Orlando |year=2004 }}</ref><ref name=":6">{{cite news | vauthors = Kevles DJ |title=Annals of Science: The Assault on David Baltimore |url=http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1996/05/27/1996_05_27_094_TNY_CARDS_000374549 |newspaper=New Yorker |date=May 27, 1996 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1038/89868| year = 2001| journal = Nature Medicine| volume = 7| issue = 7| pages = 767|title=Ahead of the Curve: David Baltimore's Life in Science|department=Book Review| vauthors = Trono D | s2cid = 41609105| doi-access = free}}</ref> In 1993, Yale University mathematician [[Serge Lang]] strongly criticized Baltimore's behavior.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lang S | title = Questions of scientific responsibility: the Baltimore case | journal = Ethics & Behavior | volume = 3 | issue = 1 | pages = 3–72 | year = 1993 | pmid = 11653082 | doi = 10.1207/s15327019eb0301_1 }}</ref> Historian of science [[Daniel Kevles]], writing after the exoneration of Imanishi-Kari, recounted the affair in his 1998 book, ''The Baltimore Case''.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Kevles DJ |title=The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character |url=https://archive.org/details/baltimorecasetri00kevl |url-access=registration |publisher=W.W. Norton |location=New York |year=1998|isbn=978-0-393-31970-5 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Gunsalus CK |title=Review of Kevles' "The Baltimore Case..." |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |volume=340 |issue=3 |page=242 |date=January 21, 1999 |doi=10.1056/nejm199901213400320}}</ref> [[Horace Freeland Judson]] also gives a critical assessment of Baltimore's actions in ''[[The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science]]''.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Judson HF |title=The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science |publisher=Harcourt |location=New York |year=2004|isbn=978-0151008773}}</ref>  Baltimore has also written his own analysis.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.issues.org/19.4/updated/baltimore.html | vauthors = Baltimore D | title = Baltimore's Travels | date = 9 July 2003 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080703214426/http://www.issues.org/19.4/updated/baltimore.html | archive-date=July 3, 2008 | work = Issues.org | access-date = 17 February 2012 }}</ref>

=== Luk van Parijs case ===
In 2005, at Baltimore's request, Caltech began investigating the work that [[Luk van Parijs]] had conducted while a postdoc in Baltimore's laboratory.<ref>{{cite web | vauthors = Beckett LE | date = October 31, 2005 | url = http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=509512 | title = MIT Professor Fired for Faking Data; MIT biologist and HMS grad may also have falsified data in work at Harvard | work = Harvard Crimson }}</ref> Van Parijs first came under suspicion at MIT, for work done after he had left Baltimore's lab. After van Parijs had been fired by MIT, his doctoral supervisor also noted problems with work van Parijs did at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, before leaving Harvard to go to Baltimore's lab.<ref>{{cite news |title=More doubts raised on fired MIT professor |url=http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/10/29/more_doubts_raised_on_fired_mit_professor/ |newspaper=Boston Globe |date=October 29, 2005 | vauthors = Bombardieri M, Cook G }}</ref> The Caltech investigation concluded in March 2007. It found van Parijs alone committed research misconduct, and that four papers co-authored by Baltimore, van Parijs, and others required correction.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Reich ES |title=Scientific misconduct report still under wraps |journal=New Scientist |issue=2361 |page=16 |date=November 24, 2007 |url=https://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626314.400-scientific-misconduct-report-still-under-wraps.html|doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(07)62947-9 }}</ref>

=== COVID-19 and lab-leak theory ===
In May 2021, Baltimore was quoted in the ''[[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]]'' in an article about the origins of the [[COVID-19]] virus, saying, "When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2."<ref>{{Cite news|last=Wade|first=Nicholas|date=May 5, 2021|title=The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?|work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|url=https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/|access-date=June 10, 2021}}</ref> This quote was widely shared and gave credence to the possibility of a [[COVID-19 lab leak theory|Wuhan lab leak]] that has been discussed extensively as part of [[investigations into the origin of COVID-19]].

A month later, Baltimore told the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' that he "should have softened the phrase 'smoking gun' because I don't believe that it proves the origin of the furin cleavage site but it does sound that way. I believe that the question of whether the sequence was put in naturally or by molecular manipulation is very hard to determine but I wouldn't rule out either origin."<ref>{{Cite news|last=Hiltzik|first=Michael|date=June 8, 2021|title=A Nobel laureate backs off from claiming a 'smoking gun' for the COVID-19 lab-leak theory|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-06-08/nobel-laureate-baltimore-smoking-gun-for-the-covid-lab-leak-theory|access-date=June 10, 2021}}</ref>