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
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
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