Duesburg Appeals

The article titled 230 Publication Of AIDS Article Spurs Debate Over Peer Review” (The Scientist, April 3, 1989, page 1), described the scrutiny that my thesis—that HIV is not the cause of AIDS— was subjected to prior to its publication in PNAS (86:755-64, 1989). This report was accurate, fair, and open. However, I was disappointed to read that retrovirologists Howard Temin and Harold Ginsberg stated to The Scientist that my article “still contained errors,” despite

Oct 16, 1989
Peter Duesberg

The article titled 230 Publication Of AIDS Article Spurs Debate Over Peer Review” (The Scientist, April 3, 1989, page 1), described the scrutiny that my thesis—that HIV is not the cause of AIDS— was subjected to prior to its publication in PNAS (86:755-64, 1989). This report was accurate, fair, and open. However, I was disappointed to read that retrovirologists Howard Temin and Harold Ginsberg stated to The Scientist that my article “still contained errors,” despite seven reviews, including three anonymous ones. Since I like nothing more than to correct my own errors—particularly when they concern such an important subject as AIDS—I have written to both Temin and Ginsberg, asking them to please identify these errors. Temin responded to the two letters I sent him by saying he had no time to identify these errors, and Ginsberg did not reply at all. I herein repeat my request that Temin and Ginsberg substantiate their claims that my published PNAS paper still contained errors.

PETER DUESBERG
Department of Molecular Biology
University of California
Berkeley, Calif.