[Email Exchange between Bruce Weniger and David Baltimore]

piece (which does not necessarily reflect the official position of
the committee nor the council). Feel free to let us know in
advance, or at the start of the call, how you would like it
to proceed.
I could not fault you, nor be surprised, if you decided
not to participate in our call, because of the perceived insult
of the NYT piece. I can assure you that was not our intention.
I can assure you that all the members of the committee are
respectful and courteous people, and that not all of them would
agree with the forum and content of what we said in the Times.
The dialectic of debate and disagreement in science
is an important process in overturning mistaken dogma,
advancing the field, and stimulating new ideas and concepts.
This process need not apply only to technical issues of what
actually transpires at the molecular level, but also to questions
of policy, organization, leadership, and decisionmaking. I do
hope you will be willing to talk with people who may not share
your views.
Thank you.
Bruce
Tel: [1] [phone] (office)
634-1089 (home)
From: baltimo
To: Weniger, Bruce
Subject: Re: PACHA Research Committee Conference Call
Date: 13 January, 1997 01:20
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from cdcl.cdc.gov by Smtpln.em.cdc.gov id
<[email protected]>; Mon, 13 Jan 97 01:22:35 EST
Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU) by cdcl.cdc.gov
(5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20117; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:20:08 -0500
Received: from MIT.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA11822; Mon, 13 Jan 97
01:20:05 EST
Received: from BLUEBOX-31.MIT.EDU by MIT.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA23959; Mon,
13 Jan 97 01:20:00 EST
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 01:20:00 EST
X-Sender: [email protected] (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v02140b01 aeff35e6e3fl @[18.162.0.85]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "Weniger, Bruce" <[email protected]>
From: [email protected] (David Baltimore)
Subject: Re: PACHA Research Committee Conference Call
content-length: 1458
Dear Dr. Weniger,
I have to tell you honestly that I do not take kindly to debates
set off by missives sent to the NYT. However, I had planned
not to say anything about your broadside until I received your
email. I met Max Essex on Jan 1 and he said nothing about
his distaste of my appointment and his planned ventilation of
it in the NYT. That I consider underhanded. Your statement

that he would have told me except that "apparently he didn't
have your unlisted home number on hand" is sheer nonsense.
I do not have an unlisted number and never have had one. I
purposely make myself as available as possible. Your
actions were just plain uncivil.
As to "sharing thoughts", I will have to be convinced that we are
scientists sharing an interest in careful evaluation of facts before I
think that such a discussion is worthwhile. For you to sound so