Talk:Robert Gallo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Rated start class for the following reasons: Photograph, date of birth and basic biographical material present Some references present, but some important material is unsourced Some information on research interests, but could be expanded and needs attention to PoV Some appropriate subheadings present, but further organisation would be beneficial External links present which could be used to expand article (edit)

Archives

Inception–March 2008

Excuse me, could someone explain me why this BMJ article is not used?:

Gallo guilty of AIDS misconduct

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unheimlich (talk • contribs) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just re-checked WP:SOCK#LEGIT and I realized I was wrong: I am not covered under those rules to create a legit shock, therefore I disclose I, User:Randroide, am User:Unheimlich. Randroide (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. I think the article does fail to cover in detail the lengthy wrangling, accusations, investigations, etc which followed from the Gallo-Montaignier dispute. That said, I believe the misconduct finding against Gallo was later dropped by the ORI (see PMID 8235643). There should definitely be more material on this aspect of his biography, but it needs to be handled carefully in accordance with WP:BLP. John Crewdson from the Chicago Tribune wrote a lengthy summary of the case which later became the book Science Fictions; while fairly anti-Gallo in tone, it could conceivably provide an overview of the case which could be fleshed out with contemporaneous coverage from the BMJ, Lancet, Science, Nature, the New York Times, etc. The case had a lot of twists and turns, so we should make sure that a summary covers them all accurately. Additional reading:

• New York Times, 1992: Describes the misconduct finding by the ORI that you mention above.
• New York Times, 1993: The misconduct case is "reluctantly" dropped by the ORI.
• New York Times on the msiconduct charges being dropped; fairly pro-Gallo tone.
• New York Times review of Crewdson's book (and another)

This could conceivably warrant splitting into a sub-article on HIV discovery controversy or some such title, given the plethora of sources and viewpoints and the complexity of the topic. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)