IMANISHI-KARI SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDS NORMAL SCIENCE:
an appeal for contributions to help her pay her legal expenses.
by
David C. Parker
Oregon Health Sciences University
Molecular Microbiology & Immunology fax: (503)494-6862
3181 SW Sam Jackson Pk Rd, L220 internet: parkerd at ohsu.edu
Portland, Oregon 97201-3098
The Health and Human Services appeals panel recently threw out all the
charges of data fabrication and misconduct against Thereza Imanishi-Kari.
In their 200 page opinion, they demolished the Office of Research
Integrity's case. [This interesting and readable document is available on
the Internet at <http://www.os.dhhs.gov/> under "What's New".] They found
the physical evidence for fabrication of data entirely unconvincing: "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."
They found that the investigation record, the lab notebooks, and the
witnesses supported Dr. Imanishi-Kari's account of what occurred in her
laboratory, rather than the escalating misconduct charges of Dr. O'Toole.
Most importantly, the appeals panel found that it was not necessary for
Dr. Imanishi-Kari to be able to explain the errors and inconsistencies in
her records (which did not bear directly on the conclusions of the Cell
paper) in order to defend herself against an implausible fabrication
scenario constructed by the OSI/ORI/House subcommittee investigators. The
appeals panel wrote:
> ORI argued that its "account of what likely happened must
> necessarily be speculation," since no eyewitnesses to
> any misconduct had been found and "no confession of
> guilt" had been made. ORI Br. 19, n.6. On the other
> hand, ORI implied, Dr. Imanishi-Kari could have
> testified about precisely what she did do, so that her
> "after-the-fact rationalizations" must be disregarded as
> "self-serving and designed to mislead." Id. This
> approach thus begins with an assumption that Dr.
> Imanishi-Kari is guilty of misconduct and anything less
> than a "confession" of her methods constitutes
> rationalization. The opposite assumption, however, does
> not lead to a conclusion that all she has to do to set
> the record straight is to tell the truth. An innocent
> person might well not know precisely how anomalies came
> to exist in data generated and organized years
> earlier.... No unfavorable inference can reasonably be
> drawn from Dr. Imanishi-Kari's inability to provide
> definite information about how each perceived anomaly
> occurred.
Why is this important to us? Because as scientists, we know that no
matter how careful and complete our notebooks are, they contain omissions,
errors, contradictions, and unexplainable data. The real-world
observations in a working scientist's notebooks don't add up like a
well-performed high school laboratory exercise or the numbers in an
accountant's books. Dr. Imanishi's records were more complete, if less
tidy, than most. The first NIH-sponsored panel, which looked at Dr.
Imanishi-Kari's notebooks in 1987, was "impressed by the amount of work
done in support of the studies ... by the completeness of the records, and
by the abilities of both Drs. Imanishi-Kari and Weaver to find, accurately
interpret, and present data" on the experiments then three or four years
in the past.
All of us are vulnerable to the kinds of circumstances that combined to
produce Dr. Imanishi-Kari's 10 year ordeal. In her case, it was an
unhappy postdoc with a martyr complex, an overzealous and ambitious
scientific watchdog attempting to enhance his reputation by tearing down
that of a distinguished collaborator, a Congressman with the same purpose,
an OSI and then an ORI incapable of timely, independent, and unbiased
investigation, and a press and public willing to believe the worst based
on leaked documents and secret evidence. The story of this case is laid
out in the May 27th New Yorker in an article by Daniel Kevles.
Congressman Dingell's role is described in an op-ed piece by Bernadine
Healy, the former NIH Director, in the NY Times on July 3rd.
We will be made more vulnerable if some of the recent recommendations of
the Ryan Committee on Research Integrity are put into effect. According
to a letter from fifty professional societies (including the AAI) to Dr.
Raub of the HHS Office of Science Policy, these recommendations would
broaden the definition of misconduct, further protect accusers at the
expense of those unjustly accused of misconduct, involve accusers in the
investigating team, leave the Office of Research Integrity with a vague
and undefined mandate, and create costly and unwarranted administrative
mechanisms at the Federal level (forms, certifications, reviews,
site-visits, and audits). [The letter is accessible on the Internet at
<http://www.faseb.org/opar/cristat.html>.]
In past years, some of you have written or signed public letters or
petitions protesting the way this case was handled, and some of you have
contributed badly needed money to Dr. Imanishi-Kari's defense. In the
appeal procedure which began over a year ago, Dr. Imanishi-Kari at last
had an opportunity to defend herself before an impartial panel. This was
a huge job requiring extensive expert legal help to deal with massive
amounts of evidence and long hearings with many witnesses.
This is a final appeal to raise money to help Dr. Imanishi-Kari pay some
of legal expenses of her defense. I believe that what happened to her
could have happened to any of us, and that in defending herself, she has
defended all of us and the process of normal science. Please share this
letter with your colleagues, and make checks out to the Imanishi-Kari
Legal Defense Fund, which is administered by Dr. Darcy Wilson, Dr. Joan
Press, and myself. Send your check to:
Dr. Darcy B. Wilson, Scientific Director
Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center
3099 Science Park Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92121
