When the first major accusative article regarding the Gallo laboratory appeared in the New Scientist in 1987 (S. Connor, 1547:49-54; 55-58, Feb. 12, 1987), it would have seemed that the executives of the Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service should have made an immediate decision about the fitness of the director of the laboratory. Failing that, the then director of NIH should have made a decision about the administration of the Gallo lab. When that did not occur, the then director of the National Cancer Institute should have determined whether the laboratory should have been allowed to spend sums involving multiple millions of dollars.
In any industrial enterprise in the private sector, the issue would have been settled in a matter of hours. Each of these executives failed to act and instead a second and subsequent series of minutely researched articles appeared, authored by a Pulitzer Prize-winning ...
