Talk:Robert Gallo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Some of what is said here is very weak. retroviruses have been isolated from humans for a decade or two before the 1980's. Robert Gallo is the first to claim a disease from them. I think he did that before 1980.

It is proved today, that Robert Gallo got the strain of HIV, he claimes to have discovered fom Luc Montaigner in order to assure Montaigner's results. Gallo then published the results, clainin he had discovered the virus. Read Discovering the Cause of AIDS by Stanley B. Prusiner and see also Stanley B. Prusiner. 145.254.191.237 15:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A change is needed on the page the correct institute I believe is Pasteur Institute. Named after Luis Pasteur.

I think this entire page is bunk, probably written by Gallo himself. Gallo was a bad guy in the AIDS race according to this article ("Lab Rat: What AIDS Researcher Dr. Robert Gallo Did in Pursuit of the Nobel Prize").

[edit] Dubious Misconduct

I followed a link from Scientific misconduct relation to "Robert Gallo's dubious claims", but there's nothing about that on this page, has it been removed? DissidenceIsConscience 20:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Why is there no mention of Gallo's censure by the scientific community for theft and fraud ? The man was caught red-handed stealing other people's research and presenting it as his own. He went so far as to publish some Japanese researchers work as his own while he was head of the NIH, and would not have been caught, had the researchers who sent him a copy of their wrok had not intentionally included an error in it which they later used to prove that the work was indeed THEIRS. This is a serious breech of ethics, Gallo claimed that THEY were lying, knowing full well that he not only stole their work, but aimed to use his authority as head of the NIH at the time to discredit THEM.

The above is incorrect. Gallo has not been found guilty of scientific misconduct. Mikulas Popovic co-authored a paper by Gallo that was published in Science in 1984. It was one of four seminal papers that demonstrated that HIV causes AIDS. The Public Health Service's Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found that Popovic, in this paper, had engaged in "relatively minor" scientific misconduct, a finding subsequently overturned on appeal by a much more detailed investigation by a Research Integrity Adjudications Panel of the Department of Health and Human Services on 3 November 1993. Gallo's reputation is linked to these findings, because he was Popovic's supervisor. The panel notably found "One might anticipate that from all this evidence, after all the sound and fury, there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing. That is not the case."

The above quotation sums up much of the debate around Gallo, which unfortunately permeates the currently terribly written wiki article about him. Whatever Gallo is like as a private person, these are irrelevant to his record and conduct as a scientist. The Wikipedia article should record the controversy surrounding him, but it should equally record that he's effectively been cleared of at least the most serious allegations against him. It should further record that Gallo and Montaigner have gone on record together to share the discovery of HIV. It should also record that many of those who continue to accuse Gallo of various wrongdoings often have their own vested interests; many of them are pseudo-scientists (e.g. Suzanne Hadley). Referring to Randy Shilts' "And the Band Played On", which created more than one myth around the epidemic (e.g. the exaggerated Patient Zero story), without pointing out the criticism the book has come under, is selective. Linking to numerous attacks on Gallo without linking to the defences (see for example Washington Post 13/11/2003, Washington Post, 14/11/1993 p. C2, NYT magazine 26/12/1993, p. 12, Washington Post 1/12/1993, p A24) of him is unacceptable. This is not to say that there isn't justified criticism of Gallo.

There is a lot that has to be done on the Gallo article. I do not have much expertise on Gallo's life and findings which is why I have not directly updated anything significant in the article, but the current article shows a dreadful lack of knowledge of its subject. If you're going to slander someone publically, at least know the facts. Is Wikipedia to be a repository of verified facts or a scratchpad for conspiracy theorists?

[edit] Potentially libelous material

Removed from article: Dr. Gallo is extremely competitive and has been accused of stealing his major discoveries from others. Critics argue that his fight to patent a device to detect whether blood is infected with AIDS delayed the technology's use for a whole year, leaving many to die. He has received criticism from the gay community over issues regarding AIDS, principally based on views expressed about him in the book and movie And the Band Played On, written by Randy Shilts.

This kind of info must be sourced before it is added back, see the notice at the top of this page.--DO11.10 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)