To Fund or Not to Fund, that is the Question: Proposed Experiments on the Drug-AIDS Hypothesis

DUESBERG FUNDING

13

I add one comment about the third review, concerning the nature of
scientific research.
Reviewer R3 writes: "Based on these considerations, I think that
Peter himself as a reviewer would not support what might be
considered as a 'fishing expedition'." I have several objections to this
sentence. First, I find it illegitimate to presume what "Peter" would do,
especially since Duesberg made the proposal for the experiments in the
first place.
More fundamentally, I object to such a put-down of "fishing
expeditions" in the scientific context, with the innuendo contained in
the term "fishing expeditions", which has been used commonly in other
contexts. A "fishing expedition" in the scientific context is quite
different from a political context when some parts of a political
establishment go on a "fishing expedition" against people with a
different political opinion. I think "fishing expeditions" against the
great mysteries of nature are the essence of original scientific research.
I agree with Koshland that the material of Duesberg's experiments
would be of great interest for readers of Science if, as Koshland writes,
"this material develops appropriately"; and I think the material
would be of great interest to other scientists and to the public as well.
Having the material in Science (if it develops appropriately) would be
just a start. But we can't know how the material will develop if the
development is obstructed a priori by funding agencies.
~5. Some of my conclusions.
The scientific community is entitled to know of the events I have
reported above, both concerning the non-funding by NIH and the nonreporting by Science. Let the scientific community arrive at an informed
judgment about the obstructions Duesberg has met to do certain
experiments. Up to now, such informed judgment on the non-funding
could not be arrived at because Science has not covered the event. Let
the scientific community also evaluate the way these obstructions have
not been reported by Science, including the factors on which Science
based its decision not to follow through.
The present report is an attempt to fill the information vacuum
which resulted from Jon Cohen informing Duesberg under a "SCIENCE"
letterhead that he does "not see a story for Science about NIH not