Butler verdict perplexes

While several prominent scientists who have publicly supported Thomas Butler—the Texas Tech professor found guilty last week of fraud and improper shipping of plague—believe his acquittal on charges of smuggling and lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) vindicates the renowned researcher's essential innocence, at least a few researchers think his convictions prove his partial guilt. Several refuse to comment. But what nearly all who spoke to The Scientist agree on is that so little detailed information about the case has been communicated to the public that it's impossible to know exactly what Butler did. “The thing that many of us are at this time suffering from is we just do not understand what in heavens name went on,” said D.A. Henderson, a professor in the University of Pittsburgh's new Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies. “This is what we find very frustrating,” he said. On December 1, a jury in Lubbock, Texas, found the Texas Tech professor not guilty of smuggling plague specimens into the United States and then lying to the FBI that 30 vials of them were missing when he knew he had destroyed them. Of the original 15 counts, he was convicted only of improperly shipping a plague sample back to Tanzania, where he has conducting research. However, the same jury also convicted Butler on 44 of 54 counts of defrauding Texas Tech in a totally unrelated matter. The jury agreed that the “shadow” contracts he signed with two drug companies illegally gave him part of the payments the school would otherwise have received for his services. The jury found him not guilty of evading taxes on those payments. Butler reportedly reacted positively to the split verdict. “He's happy that the main charges of lying and spreading plague [resulted in acquittals],” said William Greenough, a Johns Hopkins University professor and former colleague of Butler's who spoke to him the morning after the jury returned the verdicts. “I'd say he's much more upbeat,” Greenough said. Butler plans to appeal the fraud convictions, Greenough said, on the grounds “that the charges between him and the university on the finances are really an internal matter based on what his university's regulations are for consultancy fees and overhead.” When a reported 60 FBI agents descended on Butler's Texas Tech lab on January 14, they interrogated him over 2 continuous days, letting him go home for only 2 hours in between. Butler eventually signed a statement saying he had destroyed the 30 vials before he reported them missing. He later recanted that confession, claiming the FBI had promised him that if he would sign it, they would close the case and let him go free. As a result, several scientists and scientific organizations have come out in support of Butler, protesting the government's tactics. Such organizations have claimed that his prosecution will have a “chilling effect” on bioterrorism research, leading new researchers not to get into the field. But last week, Ronald Atlas, former president of the American Society for Microbiology, disagreed. “At this point, I have not seen evidence that would support the notion that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Select Agent Security] regulations are having a chilling impact,” the University of Louisville professor wrote The Scientist in an E-mail interview. “My experience is that rooms at meetings concerning biodefense research funding are filled (overfilled).” Furthermore, Atlas suggested that scientists' support for and mere interest in Butler's situation may be much weaker than news stories about his supporters might otherwise indicate. “I have not experienced any great outpouring of concern nor necessarily awareness of the issues,” he said. Stanley Falkow, professor of microbiology and immunology and of medicine at Stanford University, said the government's tactic of adding on the unrelated fraud charges 8 months later upsets him. “I'm not sure that this will calm anyone's fears,” he wrote in an E-mail interview, “certainly not mine.” Atlas and Henderson agreed that what academics' research contracts allow varies from one institution to another in the United States, which implies that Butler's “shadow” deals with drug companies might be legal in some universities or in some professor's contracts, but illegal in others. How this is manifested in the law is unclear. The two should know: Atlas is the dean of the graduate school at the University of Louisville, and Henderson was dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health from 1977 through 1990. Deans customarily negotiate faculty contracts. According to Atlas, “Many universities claim ownership of intellectual property of faculty and regulate the extent of faculty consulting activities.” Concerning financial arrangements for conducting drug company research, Henderson said, “These, I know, are handled very different ways in different universities, in how the money flows though.” He said disputes over contracts are almost always settled in campus negotiations, and “it's uncommon” for them to wind up in civil court. “I find this very surprising that it's the FBI or the Department of Justice that's prosecuting this” in criminal court, he said.

Butler verdict perplexes

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

John Dudley Miller

Related Research Resources

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

Comparing Analytical Solutions for High-Throughput Drug Discovery

Products

Product News

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Singleron Biotechnologies and Hamilton Bonaduz AG Announce the Launch of Tensor to Advance Single Cell Sequencing Automation

Zymo Research Launches Research Grant to Empower Mapping the RNome

Cytosurge Appoints Magid Haddouchi as Chief Commercial Officer