Top Menu

When Pariahs Have Good Ideas


April 15, 2007

When Pariahs Have Good Ideas

By The Editors

Even mentioning the name Peter Duesberg inflames strong feelings, both pro and con. After gaining fame in 1970
as the virologist who first identified a cancer-causing gene, in the 1980s he became the leading scientific
torchbearer for the so-called AIDS dissidents who dispute that HIV causes the immunodeficiency disorder. To the
dissidents, Duesberg is Galileo, oppressed for proclaiming scientific truth against biomedical dogma. A far larger
number of AIDS activists, physicians and researchers, however, think Duesberg has become a crank who refuses
to accept abundant proof that he is wrong. To them, he is at best a nuisance and at worst a source of dangerous
disinformation on public health.

Readers may therefore be shocked to see Duesberg as an author in this month’s issue. He is not here because
we have misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Rather Duesberg has also developed a novel theory about the
origins of cancer, one that supposes a derangement of the chromosomes, rather than of individual genes, is the
spark that ignites malignant changes in cells. That concept is still on the fringe of cancer research, but
laboratories are investigating it seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a
chance that he is significantly right about cancer. We consider the case worthy of bringing to your attention, with
the article beginning on page 52.

Download Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer (PDF 685kb)

Thousands of scientific papers appear in technical journals every month; why do some rate more fame and
journalistic attention? It helps for science news to have dramatic relevance to human affairs: Is there strong new
hope for curing a disease, transforming the economy, building a better mousetrap? Alternatively, reporters and
editors may gravitate toward new science that easily inspires the public’s sense of wonder, as so many astronomy
stories do. And reports that appear in certain major scientific journals tend to get more play because those
publications have a self-fulfilling reputation for releasing the most noteworthy papers. (It doesn’t hurt that those
journals have particularly strong public relations departments, too.)

When we look at submitted manuscripts from scientists, we consider it a reassuring sign when the authors
forthrightly acknowledge both their collaborators and their competitors and note potential conflicts of interest
before we ask. If we see that they are describing the science of their rivals fairly, we can have more confidence
that they are being similarly candid about their own work. (Still, the old nuclear disarmament treaty maxim applies:
trust, but verify.) We typically steer away from controversial ideas too new to have much supporting evidence.
Those that have lasted for years and accumulated some substantiation have earned consideration. Our judgments
are imperfect, but they tend to mirror those of the scientific community.

Blots on a researcher’s history often should bear on regard for his or her new work. Scientists who have
intentionally published fraudulent papers, as the stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang so notoriously did two
years ago, may be irredeemably tainted. But to dismiss a scientist solely for holding some wrong or controversial
views risks sweeping away valuable nuggets of truth. We respect the opinions of any readers who may criticize
our choice to publish Duesberg in this case but hope they will nonetheless evaluate his ideas about cancer on
their own merits.