[Letter to Colleagues from Peter Duesberg]

Peter Duesberg - December 24, 1991

page -4 -

reviews, but I am unaware that this right invalidates the formal review
procedure entirely. I would have expected an explanation from the Editor
why the four reviewers chosen by you had been disregarded, particularly since
Bogorad, with all due respect, is neither a retrovirologist as you are, nor an
AIDS expert, nor a chemist as I am. Thus his action appears to reflect either a
personal bias against my paper or Bogorad's opinion that the four reviewers
chosen by you are incompetent, or both.
Moreover, if Bogorad's "particular instructions...for...papers that deal
with cures for diseases and related problems" have to be applied to my paper,
all papers dealing with HIV and AZT published in PNAS should also be
subject to the same special scrutiny accorded to my papers. I have
information that such scrutiny is not applied to other papers dealing with
HIV and AZT. This indicates that Bogorad applies the "particular
instructions" arbitrarily to my paper.
6) Bogorad prejudiced the secondary review process, initiated by his
office, by providing the three reviewers of his choice not only with prior
reviews of my paper's previous drafts, but also by disclosing to them your
name and the names of the prior reviewers solicited by you. Says reviewer
#2: "The reviews submitted with the manuscript do not deal in any
substantive way with the content of the paper. Incidentally, I note that of the.
four individuals who have been involved in the review and submission of
the manuscript, three were thanked for their help with the previous paper."
Obviously, informing the reviewers of the paper you have submitted
for me about deficiencies of previous drafts, and giving them the names of
previous reviewers, biases the review process. A fair review should be
independent of those of others and not prejudiced by deficiencies of previous
drafts.
7) Lastly, I appeal on general principles Bogorad's decision to prevent
publication of my paper. The Proceedings, unlike some other scientific
journals, does not reflect the opinions and preferences of its Editor, but
provides a forum for all members of the Academy -not only for those who
believe in the virus-AIDS hypothesis. The "Academy...is dedicated to the
furtherance of science and its use for the general welfare" (p. vii, Organization