Appendix 2 - The Correspondence
This is Appendix 2 of 'A Habit of Lies.' It contains copies of much of the correspondence with individuals, institutions and journals referred to elsewhere in the site. This page is not intended as a good read, it is present merely to back up those references.
* Correspondence
* The Medical Research Council
* Dr. G. Koch
* Dr. Bretscher
* Dr. D. Bray
* Sir Aaron Klug
* Sir Dai Rees
* The University of Cambridge
* Drs. J. C. Metcalfe and T. R. Hesketh
* Sir David Williams
* Prof. Sheetz
* Nature
* Prof K. Jacobsen
* Science
* Recent
* Correspondence
This is a long document but is not intended to be read from beginning to end. It is an archive, in which you can find the stated position of particular individuals or institutions, such as they are worth. It does contain a few links and navigational aids.
This appendix contains the text of many of the items of correspondence with workers and institutions in the field. It would be inappropriate to reproduce all the letters and emphasis is given to those workers directly associated with the field or their institutions. About two thirds are included, which are fairly representative, both in substance and tone. In a few cases a section of text has been deleted, if so the deletion is marked thus .....
The correspondence normally began with a letter very similar indeed to the one given below.
Dear ,
I am writing to you as you have worked in the past, or are currently working, in the field of ligand induced capping of motile cells such as lymphocytes, or in the related field of cell surface particle movement.
As you know ten years ago I published an article (J. Theoret. Biol. (1979) 80 115-127) in which I proposed that the mechanism of capping and particle movement was that the capped patches or moving particles were induced to move by cell surface waves.
I am now writing to many workers in this field, particularly in this country. My aim is to ascertain the present status of opinion in the (field) with regard to the mechanism of capping etc.. I should say that, as far as I am aware, the scientific literature does not contain any expression of opinion concerning the validity of the wave model; I am of course principally interested in ascertaining opinions concerning this.
Accordingly, I would be obliged if you would be kind enough to answer the following questions.
1. Have you or any of your colleagues published an article which expresses an opinion of the wave model?
2. What is your present opinion concerning the various proposals for the mechanism of capping and particle movement?
3. Can you direct my reading to any article, preferably a review, written by anybody, whose opinions largely parallel your own and which does discuss the wave model?
4. Can you direct my attention to any piece of experimental evidence which in your opinion tends to disprove the wave model?
I feel I should clarify my position in asking these questions; in my opinion, the evidence in favour of the wave model would still appear to be overwhelming.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely John A Hewitt
8.1.91 Dear John A. Hewitt,
Thank you for your recent letter. I am not certain in what capacity you wish me to comment on your questions. I was under the impression that we were friends or at least acquaintances. I therefore find it puzzling that you choose to address me in such a formal manner. Of course you are at liberty to terminate friendships or acquaintances at will. However in such circumstances I am equally at liberty to exclude such considerations from my own response. At the very least I would like to know the purpose of the exercise upon which you are embarked. I can then judge whether it is appropriate for me to comment on the questions you raise.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely, Gordon L. E. Koch.
4.1.91 Dear John,
Thank you for your last letter. It was very helpful to have your "assumptions" laid out so clearly.
I wondered what your reaction to the accompanying extract was in view of your understanding that particles on cell surfaces move in a size dependent fashion.
Incidentally, I do not agree that lipid capping cannot be accommodated within the cytoskeletal attachment model. However this will require an examination of some studies on the nature of lipid capping so I hope we can defer this for the present.
Best Wishes Gordon (Koch)
(Dates are as given on letters but are apparently inconsistent.)
(Handwritten) 21.2.91 Dear John, Thank you for your letter and the clarification of the predictions of the wave model with respect to particle movement and its dependence on particle size. It did however leave me wondering how one would know that a particular observation belonged to domain 2. Do you have any predictions as to the size of particle or a particular type of cell which might be expected to behave as if it were in this domain? I also wonder whether you can direct me to the literature on the surface waves on cells as I must confess I am not too familiar with this. Best Wishes, Yours Sincerely Gordon
18-3-91 Dear John,
I think the time has come to discontinue this discussion. I now realise the reason for my original indifference towards the model you proposed. In many ways the problem from my point of view was that the surf-riding model was rather like the lipid flow model ie if there are the appropriate type of waves (lipid flows) in cell membranes they could explain the capping/particle movements observed. The test of the models is to demonstrate that the waves/flows exist and that they exist in a way which is indeed compatible with the a causal relationship between the two. In the case of the lipid flow model there was an additional assumption which I disagreed with ie that the proteins/receptors are freely diffusing in the plasma membrane.
When I read your original paper it seemed reasonable to me but the test was the demonstration of the existence of the - appropriate waves. I was not convinced by the evidence to which you referred but I assumed that with time a more convincing demonstration would emerge. That is why I asked you for your view of the current state of the subject. It seems to me that not much progress has been made so my original reservation remains. Unless one can show that the right type of wave does actually exist in cells then the model simply remains a theoretical possibility. I would contrast this with the cytoskeleton association model for which every major assumption has been confirmed, and in the prototype system for the capping phenomenon ie Ig capping on B-lymphocytes, direct evidence for stable linkage between the capping molecules and the cytoskeleton has been obtained and confirmed.
I hope you will not be offended if I do not continue this discussion on the present terms. However should a significant change take place on the issue of the existence of waves on cells please let me know.
With best wishes, Yours sincerely, Gordon (Koch)
3.1.91 Dear Dr. Koch, Some time ago I wrote to you concerning the subject of capping of motile cells. As I said in that letter I wish to ascertain opinion in the field concerning the wave model which I published some time ago (J. Theoret. Biol. (1979) 80 115-127). I wrote to you because you either work in this field or have done so. As yet I do not seem to have heard from you in response to these points. I would be most grateful if you would reply to my letter as soon as possible. The specific questions asked in my letter were as follows 1. Have you, or any of your colleagues. published an article which expresses an opinion of the wave model? 2. What is your present opinion concerning the various proposals for the mechanism of capping and particle movement? 3. Can you direct my reading to any article, preferably a review, written by anybody, whose opinions largely parallel your own annd which does discuss the wave model. 4. Can you direct my attention to any piece of experimental which, in your opinion, tends to disprove the wave model Incidentally my questions were asked and phrased with a view to elicitting both your views and the rationale behind them. ...... I do hope to hear from you shortly. Sincerely Yours John A. Hewitt
22 1 1991 Dear Gordon. Thank you for your letter of the 8th. Obviously I have hurt you by my formal manner, and I apologise for it. I was rather taken aback by your reply, I had not meant to offend you But you see, there is an issue, which I have raised before without receiving real replies. In the area of research which we are discussing, namely capping and associated phenomena, there have been three proposals put forward to account for the observations. Workers in this field, particularly in this country and including you, have chosen to acknowledge the existence of only two possibilities; not including the wave model proposed by myself. It would seem then, that these workers, including yourself, believe that my work is incorrect. I do not understand why you believe that my work is wrong. I have a clear interest in understanding the reasoning which has led the field to the view which it has arrived at, and I believe that your own position is an influential one in this area of research. Reading the literature really does not teach me anything about this, and so I am writing to you direct. The questions asked in my letter were carefully phrased to elicit responses which cited experiments which could be interpreted, in the view of the person replying, as negations of the wave model. I would be most grateful if you would reply to my letter along those lines and look forward to hearing from you soon. Yours Sincerely John A. Hewitt
30.1.1991 Dear Gordon, Thank you for your letter, yes I do want to carry on this debate until I understand the rationale being used here. Of course it is true that the cytoskeletal attachment model can account for your observations, but I do not think that it is the only, or the best, way of explaining them. More importantly, for a model to be regarded as successful, it needs to be consistent with the whole range of relevant experimental observations. The range of observations with which the cytoskeletal model is inconsistent is wide, and has been widely rehearsed. For example, I do not see how it is possible to accommodate the capping of lipids into that model. The principles of Popperian hypothesis testing require that, when a hypothesis is contradicted by experiment, it should be discarded. By contrast, the wave model has, as far as I know, no contradictions. Those workers who do not accept its correctness have not, to my knowledge, placed on the record any indications of those experiments they feel are contradictory. It is this gap which I am seeking to fill with the questions which I asked in my first letter. Incidentally, I do not understand what you mean by the "assumptions" of the wave model. My understanding is that 1. Waves on cells are an experimental fact. 2. Macroscopically, waves interact with particles in a size dependant fashion. 3. That particles on cell surfaces move in a size dependant fashion - my suggestion is that the third of these can be explained by the first two. The algebra, with which I elaborated this, does not, in itself, seem to create any additional, fundamental assumptions. In places, though, I made only rough estimates of particular physical values. I would be grateful if you would take the time to try to fill these gaps, and I hope to hear from you in due course. Sincerely Yours John A Hewitt
9.2.1991 Dear Gordon. the kind of size dependency of Particle movement on a wave which one would expect to see is. (Figure given here) Don't attach any quantitative significance to this graph but the overall shape is right. There are three regions. 1. Very small objects - molecules of protein etc. do not interact significantly with the wave, and so do not move (beyond diffusing). 3. The third region is very large objects, particles of carbon etc. These interact strongly with the wave because they are big. so they entrain onto the wave motion and move with the waves. Their rate of movement is simply that of the wave, and, within this domain, their rate of movement will be independent of size. 2. The second domain is between the two extremes. Here, the rate of movement will be slower than that of the wave itself. Also, within this region one might expect a. The overall rate of movement to depend upon the strength of interaction with the wave and thus upon the size of the object. b. The rate of motion may well not be constant, but is likely to exhibit elements of periodicity (whose frequency and regularity would be that of the wave itself). In some circumstances the object can come to a stop, or even go into reverse occasionally. (This seems so extreme a prediction that I say it with some hesitation.) Observations within domain 2, would provide some of the ways of distinguishing the cytoskeletal attachment and wave models. Iha photocopy you sent me referred. I think, to particles in domain three. Their rate of movement would measure the velocity of the wave train. Even so, if small enough objects were observed, the rate of movement should slow down - one is. though, rather limitted by the resolution of the light microscope. Sincerely Yours John Hewitt
3.3.1991 Dear Gordon, thank you for your recent letter of the 21st. I think that assigning a particular observation to a domain can be done, within the context of the wave model by: If an object is moving at a steady speed along the membrane it is in domain 3. If it is moving in an irregular manner, then one would say it was in domain two. If it is not moving (apart from diffusion) it is in domain one. In fact observations are really only available on "big" objects because these are easy to see, and on small objects because the membrane is made of them. The best thing would be to be able to look at the behaviour of particles of the same chemical type, as a function of their size. This seems very difficult to realise in practise. realise in practise. A more practical approach would be to find something which appeared to be in domain Z and then plot its position against time. This could then be analysed for periodicity. The calculations in my paper were largely concerned with determining the factors which would determine the size of particle which would entrain totally on the wave, i.e. go into domain 3. I did not discuss, in any detail, the behaviour of objects in domain 2. The conclusions I arrived at were that most of the available variables would influence the sizes at which the changes would occur. In particular, the amplitude and wavelength of the wave, the flexibility of the membrane and of the object will all, in principle, influence the size boundaries. Since these values are not known well, and some could well vary greatly, a firm figure is impossible. Basically I think you are more likely to find domain two observations in the smaller range of observable sizes of individually observable particles. For the literature on waves I suggest you read to begin with Tony Durhams review in Cell, (1974) 2 p123. This is the article that got me aware, as it were, though I would not agree with many of the figures he draws. ..... Other articles I have found with varying degrees of certainty are de Bruyn (or similar) (1946) 95 pl77. Ambrose E.J. (1961) Exptl. Cell Res. (suppl) 8 p54. Bornens, Paintrell and Celaci, (1989) 109 plO71. Keller & Cotier - Cell Biol. Int. Reps. 5 3-7. The third of these does not really mention waves, but is highly similar. I think, that the last is an article about swimming leucocytes, which I have been trying to find. Some of my papers have become mangled and I as not sure of this. If you read it, can you confirm to me that it is what I think, (I told Martin Raff I would try to find it for him). In general, I get the impression that waves become more visible when the structure of the cell cytoplasm or membrane is loosened up in some way. You will be aware I expect of the behaviour of cillia on paramecium, the periodicity of the structure of a microvillus (even after fixation) and the nature of a nerve impulse. Waves are very widespread phenomena, including in cell membranes. Yours Sincerely John Hewitt
19th July 1990 Dear John, As you know, I have never really understood the physical basis of your wave model: your replies to my questions when you gave a tea club talk in the Biochemistry Department several years ago did not clarify the situation.
As to the direction the field is taking there is, as far as I can divine, an increasing belief that particle migration is achieved by direct action of some part of the cytoskeleton. This is, of course, not a view that I share. There are two real problems in the field: (1) There exist several individuals who cherish their own models (and I am a fine example) and (2) there are relatively few experiments which shed light on the molecular mechanism of what is going on. Neither situation is surprising since any experimental evidence is very hard to come by and this allows all sorts of ideas to be tossed around. It also means that a particular view needs an active advocate to keep it alive: in the case of your wave model your absence from the fray may be leading to its being ignored. This, of course, has nothing to do with what is true or false, but more to do with personalities.
Yours Sincerely Mark Bretscher
27 7 1990 Dear Mark, Thank you for your reply to my letter. In fact I was not aware that you did not understand the physical basis of the wave model. I will attach to this letter a non-mathematical description of the kind of thing which happens when a wave and an object interact with one another. I take your point that there are several individuals who cherish their own models. There are only three basic models, with variations of each of them. I do feel however that there exists experimental evidence which allows a choice to be made between these models. It seems to me that one can apply Popperian hypothesis testing directly to this situation. By this I mean, a model once proposed, is to be challenged by comparison with experimental facts. If it is thereby contradicted it can be discounted. Conversely, if a model is not contradicted, then it may be correct. May I refer you to my paper in which I mentioned some of the experiments which contradicted the notions of both cytoskeletal and flow models. My paper also sets out positive evidence for the cofrectness of the wave model. Generally these are : 1. The phenomena to be accounted for are, broadly, are that objects which are large, by comparison with a protein molecule, move on the membrane surface, while objects which are small do not. The movement is from front to back. 2. There are several observations of wave motion, and oscillatory behaviour at the cell surface. The waves move from front to back. 3. Theory predicts. and experiments confirm, that when a wave and a particle interact the wave tends to carry the particle along with it; the wave entrains the particle. Such entrainment is seen to be more efficient for larger particles than for smaller ones, this is also predicted by theory and confirmed by experiment in macroscopic situations. Thus the wave model seems to be a model almost without assumptions. As far as I am aware there are no experimental contradictions to it. I am of course aware that you have published articles reviewing this field. You do not appear to consider the possibility that waves drive capping. On the face of it, it would seem that you consider the wave model to be unfounded. I would be very interested to know what results have led you to this conclusion. Going back to my original letter, I would be most grateful if you would answer the questions which I posed. I would of course be happy to furnish any further clarifications which you might need. Incidentally, I am in the process of moving from Rathmore Road. Please note that, for the time being, I can be contacted via 57 Stuart court Swarland Grove Bradford BD5 OSU I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely Yours John A Hewitt
Physical Mechanism of Capping In my original paper the type of wave which I discussed was a geometric wave, such as one sees on the sea. This is because I think that such waves exist and perform a peristaltic role in aiding motility. It has been pointed out by a man in Bulgaria, by the name of Petrov, that flexing a membrane made of polar molecules would be expected to produce an electrical potential across the membrane. I might add that the corollary should also be true. Thus one would expect that the existence of geometric waves would be associated with an oscillation in transmembrane electrical potential. Thus for the purposes of this note I will consider an electrical wave, not because I think that this is likely to be the major impetus to entrainment, but because I think it is simpler to see what is happening this way. I think that the result of size dependent entrainment arises regardless of the exact mechanism of interaction between the wave and the object. We might consider then an electrical wave consisting of a pattern of alternating regions of positive and negative potential travelling along the membrane, as shown below (Figure here) If a particle approaches this membrane it will associate better with one region of the membrane, depending upon its own charge, if it is positive it will associate with a negative region of the wave and vice versa. As the wave moves along it will be dragged along by the region of the wave with which it preferentially associated. It is useful to view this situation in terms of the potential energy of the particle. If, say, the particle is positively charged it will have a high potential energy near regions of the membrane which are positive and a low potential energy near regions of the membrane which are negative. A graph of potential against position on the membrane will look like this with a series of peaks and troughs. The particle will sit in the troughs, at the bottom of the hill as it were and try to stay there as the wave moves. (Figure Here) The larger the particle, the larger, the surface area of interaction between the particle and the wave, and hence the higher the peaks in this graph. This is the reason why one would expect large particles to entrain on a wave more efficiently than small particles. The same consideration will apply whatever the mode of interaction between particle and wave. Thus the same conclusion would apply to other wave particle interactions and the same dependence on particle size would be seen It now remains only to explain the relationship between this potential energy graph, peak height and extent of entrainment on the wave. The force acting on the particle is the slope of the potential energy graph. The higher the peaks are the greater is that slope and hence the greater is the force acting on the particle. This is why on a wave tank one sees large cork objects moving faster than small ones. In the case of the cell surface however I don't think that this is the way to look at it. An object can only entrain on the wave if its random thermal energy is less than the height of the energy peak - if this is not so then random thermal fluctuations will cause it to jump from one trough to the next. The amount of thermal energy which a molecule has is independent of its size, and kT is usually taken as an estimate of this energy. Thus we have a situation where once an objects size becomes great enough for the energy of these peaks to be greater than kT it will start to travel with the wave train rather than jumping over from one wave to the next, hence size dependent entrainment. In conclusion then, a wave train on a cell surface will tend to pick up particles and carry them along with it. Small particles will tend to jump from one cycle of the wave to another, while large particles will tend to travel with the wave. I think that this describes what is seen in capping.
The following was handwritten on a reprint.
Dear John,
I don't wish to get into a long correspondence, but here's a copy of a recent paper which may interest you.
With Best Wishes Mark Bretscher
23.8.1990
Dear Mark,
Thank you for the copy of your paper, which was not only interesting in itself, but will no doubt help me in tracking the literature.
I note that you do not want to enter into a long correspondence. Of course I am writing to people in the hope of obtaining answers to my questions concerning this field. I do not feel that this should need a long correspondence, and I hope that it will not.
The questions which I posed in my original letter are, in my opinion, reasonable, and necessary, for scientific debate in this field. I do urge you to reply to them.
Yours Sincerely
John A Hewitt
Originally, no reply was received from Dr. Bray. The following arose after a letter to the then head of that MRC unit, Prof W. Gratzer.
20 June 1991 Dear Dr Hewitt
I'd like to apologise for not answering your previous letter. I have just returned from a year abroad during which I changed my address repeatedly and much of my correspondence went astray.
Your surf-riding model for capping and other cell surface movements was a highly original contribution to the literature when published but has not lasted well (like some of my own theories, alas!). It is now known that particles attach to specific receptors (usually integrins) on the surfaces of cells and that the latter are connected via proteins such as talin, vinculin, and alpha-actinin, to actin filaments on the inside of the membrane (see Burridge K. and Fath, K.R. Trends Biochem Sci 10: 104-108, 1989). The actual situation is consequently totally different to that of a surf-riding floating body.
The essence of your model, as I understand it, is that a large body is transported unidirectionally on the surface of the cell while the actin and other molecules in the cell cortex undergo small cyclic movements associated with wave motion but are not transported. There is now direct evidence, however, that during capping, cytokinesis and fibroblast crawling actin moves in conjunction with particles on the surface (see for example Cao and Wang, J Cell Biol 110: 1089-1095, 1990).
One further prediction of your model that has been shown to be incorrect is that very small particles do in fact translate on the surface of cells, evidently through an association with the cytoskeletal elements on the inner face of the plasma membrane (Sheetz et al Nature 340: 284-288, 1989).
I hope this is of some help.
Yours sincerely
Dennis Bray cc Dr W B Gratzer
July 1991
Dear Dr. Bray,
Thank you very much for your letter dated 20 June 1991, and for the references which you quoted therein, none of which cite or discuss the wave model. These references are useful in showing me, in a positive sense, what you presently believe to be correct.
However, this is not really the point I am trying to get at, which is to learn in a negative sense, your reasons for rejecting the wave model. The Burridge and Fath article (by which, I presume, you meant their article in Bioessays, rather than TIBS) deals with cell substrate adhesions. I am not aware that a relationship between this and capping and particle movement has been established, perhaps you could clarify? Since capping and particle movement seem to apply to any cell surface object, it seems unreasonable to suppose that it can be mediated by "specific" receptors.
I note your comments about the Cao and Wang article, but I have to say that it is, in my view quite wrong to talk in terms of "evidence for". I think it is evidence against which matters. The cytoskeletal model seems to predict that contact with the cytoskeleton is a necessary condition for capping. I know of no real explanation of why, if this is the case, lipids and non-transmembrane proteins can be capped.
I believe that Sheetz and his collaborators actually showed that, very small objects on the surface of the cell do not translocate, until they become larger, as assessed from their diffusion coefficient. This was the observation which they emphasised. They interpreted the intermittent increase in size as resulting from contact with the cytoskeleton. This may be so; the size dependence of particle movement is, as you say, predicted by the wave model, whether the size variation comes from within or without the cell seems unlikely to make any difference.
I have studied Sheetz's recent papers, I do not think they negate the wave model, indeed I think they are more consistent with it, than they are with Sheetz's own interpretations. For example at one point he reports intermittent forward and backward motion. He seems to feel the cytoskeleton is continuously circulating - it is hard to interpret such motion on this basis.
The view which I take in this field is, I believe, one which is a standard view of scientific method. I think Popper's paradigm of scientific reasoning applies in its entirety; as you know, this states that when a hypothesis is put forward, it is to be challenged by reference to the experimental observations. If a hypothesis fails to predict those facts, then the hypothesis should be seen as inadequate. If the hypothesis successfully predicts the observations then it may be correct, but cannot be viewed as proved.
Within this paradigm, science is seen as working by elimination; proof is not regarded as meaningful, only disproof is a strong statement. Of course, this view of science is generally accepted by the scientific community.
I am writing to you because, as you say in your letter and as is implied in your publications, you do not regard the wave model as viable.
What I would like to know is, which experimental observations, of your own or reported by anyone else, led to your view that the wave model has been negated?
As I said, the articles which you cited did not mention or discuss the wave model at all, as a result they did not deal with the issues which I am trying to get at. I do not really know to which of the experiments described in these papers you are referring me. Further, your own work goes back many years, and your rejection of the wave model seems to considerably antedate these publications.
Your letter was helpful to me, but I do not feel it has resolved the issue. Would you be kind enough to take the time to reply again, this time citing the specific experiments which led to your rejection of the wave model? Thank you for your time. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt cc. Dr. W.B.Gratzer
29 July 1991 Dear Dr Hewitt
I'm not prepared to answer any more questions about your surf-riding hypothesis. Please ask someone else. Yours sincerely Dennis Bray cc Dr W B Gratzer
3 April 1999 Dear Dr. Bray,
Thank you for your letter dated 29th of July, in which that you state that you are not prepared to answer any more questions about my surf-riding hypothesis. You also suggest that I ask someone else.
Please do understand, I am not suggesting that, as an individual, you are under any legal compulsion to reply to my questions. As a professional scientist, however, I feel that you should. In your publications you appear, by omission, to have rejected the wave model. Surely, the accepted scientific logic as delineated by Popper, requires that it is possible to explain the rejection of a given hypothesis. Because your apparent rejection of the wave model is only by implication, I do not understand the reasoning which led to your view.
It is my research which you appear to reject - I have an obvious personal interest in knowing the reasoning which led you to that view.
I believe that I am asking you simply to fill the gap which it seems to me your papers have left. Since you were the senior author of the papers, and, I believe, the team leader of the research group, it seems to me that you are the appropriate person to make these enquiries of. If you can suggest any other individuals, I will certainly be willing to enquire of them also.
In the mean time, I hope that you will consider this matter carefully. I am enquiring of you, and I hope that you will reply to the enquiries which are being made. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt cc Dr. W.B. Gratzer
6 January 1993 Dear Dr. Bray,
I am writing further to our correspondence concerning your position with regard to the models which have been proposed to account for the mechanism of capping and particle movement on motile eukaryotic cells. As you know, I was not satified by the replies which I received from you.
In pursuit of the clarification which I require of this issue, I have written a brief review of the status of this field as best it is known to me. A copy of "Cap That!" is enclosed herewith.
I should be grateful if you would read this review, especially those sections which refer to your own position. If "Cap That!" describes your position in way which you feel to be inaccurate or misleading, I should be grateful if you would let me know. I would be grateful also for a clarification of any points which you feel I have reported unsatisfactorily. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
9 June 1991 Dear Dr. Klug,
I am writing to you concerning the subject of capping and particle movement on the surface of amoeboid cells.
As you know, I worked in the Department of Biochemistry in Cambridge, as a Demonstrator, between 1978 and 1983. During that time, amongst other things, I performed some work concerning this subject. The work was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979) 115-127; it proposed that such phenomena arose as a result of wave action on the surface of the cell. I think this proposal is in fact correct.
However, a number of workers in the field appear to think that this concept is wrong. In particular, Dr. M.S. Bretscher and Dr. G.L. Koch of your Department appear to be of this view, inasmuch as they have published work in the field, in a way which omits all mention of the possibility which I raised. The result is that, although they appear to think that my work is wrong, I know nothing of the reasoning which led them to this view.
It is, of course, accepted that they are entitled to their own views. I would like to have a clear idea of the scientific considerations which led to their rejection of my work. Accordingly, I have written to them, asking them to explain, in specific terms, how they arrived at the opinions which they seem to hold. Although they were kind enough to respond to my letters, their replies did not address this issue.
I am writing to you to ask that you intercede with your colleagues on this matter and ask them to reply to my enquiries. I would be obliged also if you would confirm the receipt of this letter. Thank you for your time. Yours Sincerely John A. Hewitt ....... 27th June 1991
Dear Dr Hewitt,
I have now had a chance to follow up your letter of June 9th and have, in fact, seen the file of correspondence that Mark Bretscher has had with you. I must say that I do not think he is duty bound to mention your model when he writes about his own work. This is not a subject I have followed in detail but I have seen enough to realise that it is extremely controversial, as witness the exchanges between Bretscher and Sheetz in recent years. It seems that people feel very strongly about the models but so far I have not come across any critical experiments which really prove one model or the other, and that is what people should be doing rather than exchanging views about theoretical knowledge. In your own case, is there any direct experimental evidence for waves on the surface of the appropriate cells and if so would they actually contribute to particle motion? If one were to start discussing all the models then it seems to me that one could equally cite as an example the "rake" model which would explain why large aggregates might move (by being captured by the cytoskeleton) and small ones do not. Yours sincerely, Aaron Klug
14 July 1991 Dear Dr. Klug,
Thank you for your letter dated the 27 June 1991.
The view which I take in this field is, I believe, one which is a standard view of scientific method. I think Popper's paradigm of scientific reasoning applies in its entirety; as you know, this states that when a hypothesis is put forward, it is to be challenged by reference to the experimental observations. If a hypothesis fails to predict those facts, then the hypothesis should be seen as inadequate. If the hypothesis successfully predicts the observations then it may be correct, but cannot be viewed as proved.
Within this paradigm, science is seen as working by elimination; proof is not regarded as meaningful, only disproof is a strong statement. Of course, this view of science is generally accepted by the scientific community.
Applying this view to the situation with capping and particle movement, in my opinion
Firstly, I think there should be an exchange of theoretical views. If this does not take place, then it seems there would be an increased likelihood of the "correct" hypothesis not being included in the set of hypotheses from which elimination takes place.
Secondly, if a worker feels able to reject a hypothesis, then he can reasonably be asked, which experimental tests lead him to that view.
Thirdly, a request for proof of a hypothesis, or "evidence in its favour," before it can be considered, is of questionable validity.
As far as I am aware, neither Dr. Bretscher, nor Dr. Koch, have explained the reasoning which leads them to reject the wave model. Both these workers have omitted it from consideration in describing their own work; this seems to imply that they believe it to be false. It seems to me that they should have taken the opportunity offered by their articles, to explain why they felt that way. However, I am not suggesting that they are legally obliged to do so.
In the absence of an explanation for this rejection of the wave model being available in the literature, I wrote to them, asking their views directly. Again, I am not suggesting that, as individuals, they are under any compulsion to reply. However, in their capacity as professional scientists, matters are less clear cut. Surely, accepted scientific logic requires that they explain their rejection of the wave model!
I have read the exchanges between Bretscher and Sheetz. My feelings are that Sheetz's group have performed a very valuable series of experiments, and certainly have added further disproof to the argument against the flow models. The exchange did not change my perceptions of the field - I think both cytoskeletal and flow models have long since been disproved; in my view, these workers should have sought alternatives.
There is direct experimental evidence for the existence of waves on motile cells; ....... In macroscopic situations, waves and particles interact in the required manner - there seems no physical reason to suppose this would be different at a cellular scale.
What is more, the wave model can reasonably be linked to cellular motility - and wave mechanisms for motility have evolved frequently in the natural world.
I can think of no biological system where mechanisms of the alternative types are known to exist. For this reason, I can only regard them as being basically ad hoc, while being open to contrary evidence.
As far as I understand it, the rake model to which you refer, is essentially that which is presently championed by Sheetz. If it is not, then I do not know the model to which you refer. Could you let me have a reference in order that I can pursue this further?
Thank you for your time. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt 17th July 1991
Dear Dr Hewitt,
Thank you for your letter of July 14th. I take your point about the ideal way in which scientific controversies might proceed but I'm afraid this is not the way things happen in practice. Moreover, in a field where there is so much conflict of opinion, it is not the duty of anyone working in the field to discuss all the possibilities whenever they write their papers. This is the sort of thing that is usually dealt with in reviews or conference proceedings. ........ Yours sincerely, Aaron Klug
8 August 1991 Dear Dr. Klug,
Thank you for your letter dated 17th of July .....
I note that you do not feel that science works in practice in the ways outlined by Popper. I think one must be cautious about the meaning of the word "works". In this field, possibly in others, it is true that workers have not always conducted their work on this basis, and I would not suggest that this is always inappropriate. The ultimate test must be whether a field works, in the sense of functions successfully. Things being what they are, I would, of course question whether that is the case in this field. I would argue that, in a "controversial" field, it is best to attempt to stay close to the ideal.
With regard to your other comments - I perhaps have not made myself clear - I am not concerned about every paper your colleagues write, nor about the medium in which they choose to record their views. I merely suggested that I thought one appropriate medium for them to explain the logic of their rejection of the wave model, would have been at least one of their various papers.
However, it is a matter of record that they have explained this point in none of their papers. Moreover, I have never been invited to a conference to discuss this topic, neither, to my knowledge, has the matter been recorded in any conference proceedings. Further, to the best of my knowledge, no review article has ever been published which explains these points. I have made use of the scientific abstracting media to search for such things, and I believe I would have found them, had they existed.
In my original letter to Drs. Bretscher and Koch, I asked them to point out to me any articles, "particularly reviews," which dealt with the wave model in a way which agreed with their own opinions. They have not pointed out any such article to me.
As I said, my concern is not with the medium your colleagues have used, but with the apparent choice not to record any explanation at all, of the reasoning which underlies their rejection of the wave model.
I do not see how scientific debate can proceed on this basis, whether or not the subject is controversial.
Further, it is my work which they have chosen to reject - I have an obvious, personal interest in knowing how they arrived at this conclusion. Besides myself and Dr. Durham, as you may know, Profs. Oliver and Berlin in the U.S. have expressed similar views to my own. They may also be interested to know the reasoning which has led your associates to reject it.
I would, therefore, be very grateful if you could approach your colleagues, and ask them to explain their reasoning on this matter by writing directly to me. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
12th August 1991 Dear Dr Hewitt,
Thank you for your letter of August 8th. I have stated my opinions and I am not prepared to intervene any further with my colleagues. ........ Yours sincerely. Aaron Klug
Copy of "Cap That!" sent 6 Jan 1993
22 September 1991 Dear Dr. Rees, I am writing to you concerning the subject of capping and particle movement on the surface of amoeboid cells.
I worked in the Department of Biochemistry in Cambridge, as a Demonstrator, between 1978 and 1983. During that time, amongst other things, I published a paper concerning this subject. The work appeared in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979) 115- 127; it proposed that these phenomena arise as a result of wave action on the surface of the cell. I think this proposal is in fact correct.
However, a number of workers in the field appear to think that this concept is wrong. However a number of workers in the field appear to think that this concept is wrong. I am referring here in particular, Dr. M.S. Bretscher and Dr. G.L. Koch who work at the MRC Centre in Cambridge who seem to be of this view, inasmuch as they have published work in the field, in a way which omits all mention of the possibility which I raised. Dr. Bretscher, in particular has several times reviewed the various mechanisms which have been proposed. Their actions seem to imply that they think the wave model is wrong, however, because this is an implication, I have never known anything of the reasoning which led them to this view.
Dr. D. Bray of the MRC Cell Motility Unit at Kings College London, likewise appears to be of this view. Because of its relationship with axonal transport, he has published work containing reviews of the proposed mechanisms in this field, in a way which omits all mention of the possibility which I raised. The result is that, again, although he appears to think that my work is wrong, I know nothing of the reasoning which led him to this view.
It is, of course, accepted that they are entitled to their own views. I would, though, like to have a clear idea of the scientific considerations which led to their rejection of my work. Accordingly, I have written to them, asking them to explain, in specific terms, how they arrived at the opinions which they seem to hold. Although they were kind enough to respond to my letters, their replies did not address this issue.
I have also written to these workers via their respective Heads of Institutions, Drs. Klug and Gratzer. Dr. Klug has declined to intervene; as far as I understand them, the reasons which he has given me are that, because the field as a whole is controversial, it is not necessary for scientists to record their reasoning. Dr. Bray has stated that he is not prepared to answer "further questions" concerning the wave model. He has not explained why he feels the wave model to be wrong.
I am writing to you to ask that you look into this matter, and intercede with your colleagues, asking them to reply to my enquiries, in particular explaining why they feel the wave model, my work, to be incorrect. Could you please, also, acknowledge the receipt of this letter. Thank you for your time. Yours Sincerely John A. Hewitt
1st November 1991
Dear Dr. Hewitt,
I write in reply to your letter of the 22nd of September concerning wave models.
I have now had the opportunity to look into the matters raised in your letter and have seen the relevant correspondence. Dr. Mark Bretscher's letter to you of the 19th. of July seems to me to crystallise very well the essence of the problem, namely that yours is but one of a number of models proposed about capping and particle movement on amoeboid cells and that the field is therefore in a state of flux. The difficulties in securing hard evidence for any of the theories mean that conflicting views are inevitable. As Dr. Bretscher points out, it is not so much a case of your work being rejected by others, simply that you are no longer in the field to fight your corner actively.
Biology is by definition a fast moving science and all researchers, no matter how talented, have to accept that what is fact today is likely to be superseded by tomorrow's breakthrough. I am sorry that I cannot be of more help. Yours Sincerely D A Rees
17 November 1991 Dear Dr. Rees, Thank you for your letter dated 1st. November 1991 and for looking through the correspondence following my enquiries to Drs. Bretscher, Bray and Koch.
You state in your letter that you feel that Dr. Bretscher's letter "crystallized very well the essence of the problem." I have to say that I did not feel his letter did this at all, rather my reaction was that it exemplified the problem. As I said in my letter to him, the nature of scientific investigation, where deciding between alternative models is concerned, is not a question of looking for evidence for a model, but of looking for evidence against it. This view has been promulgated at some length by Popper, and is generally accepted. Popper argues that it is never possible to prove a model.
As you say the wave model is "but one of a number of models proposed about capping and particle movement on amoeboid cells." Let us briefly examine what those models are; as far as I know there are three - the cytoskeletal model, the flow model, and the wave model. Within each of these themes there are a number of variations, these though are the three fundamentally distinct proposals which have been made.
In the field we are discussing, the evidence against Dr. Bretscher's own ideas has been reviewed at some length on many occasions, as has the evidence against the rival cytoskeletal hypothesis. The problem is that these discussions almost always review the field as if these were the only possible mechanisms. In fact, as far as I know, Drs. Bretscher, Bray and Koch have always reviewed the field in this way. This is, in my view, not the expression of an opinion which differs from mine. Rather, it seems to me, to be the publication of a description of the field, which is at best misleading and, arguably, simply a falsehood.
You suggest that the problem is "not a case of (my) work being rejected by others, simply that (I) am no longer in the field to fight (my) corner actively." Actually I can discern no change in the way these workers have reviewed the field during and following my presence in it. Neither has the fact that other workers advocated similar views to my own altered the basis of review. Dr. Bretscher has continued to review the field the same way regardless. In any case, I think it unfortunate that scientific debate should be seen as an arena of conflict.
I think this is a rejection of the wave model. If it is not a rejection of it, as you suggest, then, surely, the question of what position they do take in this regard is a fair one. Surely, it should be answered!
As you say, many areas of biology are fast moving fields. The question is whether this is one of them. When I learned about this field, it consisted largely of a "debate" between advocates of the cytoskeletal and flow models. Each side was able to cite what seemed to me, clear disproofs of the others ideas. From my reading of the literature recently it seems the field today consists largely of a "debate" between advocates of the cytoskeletal and flow models. Each side still seems able to cite clear disproofs of the others ideas.
Is this a fast moving, healthy science in a state of flux? The emergent picture is more a stagnant one. It could be seen as a field in which debate is locked into a sterile loop. It could be argued that the reason behind the apparent lack of meaningful progress in this field, is the reluctance of its workers to move away from their initial, unsuccessful, premises.
I do accept that "what is fact today can be superseded by tomorrow's breakthrough." Nonetheless, tomorrow's science is still built upon today's, and breakthroughs do not go unreported in the scientific literature. If there has been a breakthrough, which has superseded the wave model and of which I as yet know nothing, then I ask only that these workers tell me about it or give me the reference to it.
What seems to me to be completely absent from this field so far, has been an explanation from these workers of what evidence or argument they feel able to muster to contradict the wave model. In Dr. Bretscher's case, his letter to me stated clearly that he did not understand the wave model. What is more, he is unwilling to discuss the subject. In the circumstances I am obliged to question whether he has any reasoned grounds at all for his rejection of the it.
As I said before, the fact that the field has been reviewed in the way it has, seems to me at best misleading and, arguably, simply a falsehood. This seems to raise serious ethical issues. I would be grateful if you would let me know whether or not the MRC has a written code of conduct for its staff regarding such ethical matters. If so, I would like to know how I can obtain a copy of it.
Mostly though, I would ask that you do approach the workers in the field, and ask that they deal with the scientific issues, which my letters to them have been raising. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
10 December 1991
Dear Dr. Hewitt,
Thank you for your letter of 17 November. Having read the points you raise I am not persuaded to change the views I set out in my letter to you of 1 November, nor indeed, do I think it would be fruitful for me to pursue the matter further.
Yours Sincerely
D A Rees
18 December 1991
Dear Dr. Rees, Thank you for your letter dated the 10th. of December. I note that my letter to you has failed to persuaded you to alter the views which you have already expressed.
As I already said, there have, to the best of my knowledge, been three completely distinct models put forward to explain the phenomena of capping and particle movement. Dr. Bretscher in particular, but Drs. Bray and Koch also, have consistently reviewed this field on the basis that only two models have been put forward.
It seems from your letter that you do not think this to be false or even misleading.
I do not agree with you. I do think such review to be at best misleading and arguably simply false.
For this reason, and because I do not feel I have had meaningful responses to my enquiries, I am concerned by the propriety of such actions. As a body of professionals, I expect MRC scientific staff work under a code of professional conduct. I would like to know whether or not this code is written down as a formal document, and if so how I can consult it.
Would you be kind enough, as I requested in my last letter, to furnish me with this information? Also, I would be grateful if you could tell me what mechanisms the MRC normally uses to deal with ethical matters, such as the publication of false or misleading statements in the scientific literature, by members of its own staff? Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
12 January 1992 Dear Dr. Rees,
I write following my letter of the 18th. of December, a copy of which I enclose. My letter concerned work on the subject of capping and particle movement on the surface of motile eukaryotic cells.
In that letter (and also in my previous letter of the 17th of November) I made enquiries concerning the MRC's code of professional conduct. I also enquired about the mechanisms which the MRC normally uses to deal with ethical matters, such as the publication, in the scientific literature, of false or misleading statements by members of the its staff.
I would be grateful if you would let me have a reply to those queries as soon as possible. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt 22 January 1992
Dear Dr Hewitt,
Dr Rees has passed to me your letters of 18 December and 12 January, and asked that I reply in my capacity as Executive Secretary of the Cell Biology and Disorders Board. The delay in reply reflects my own need to familiarise myself with the correspondence and background to the matters you raise. I have also contacted the management and staff at LMB.
You enquire about the MRC's code of professional conduct in the context of false or misleading statements made by members of the Council's staff. In such cases, the first point of investigation would be with the Director of the scientist concerned. If the complainant was still dissatisfied then the Secretary of Council would be consulted, or his nominated Council Officer.
I would draw your attention to the fact that neither Sir Aaron Klug nor Dr Rees have been sufficiently persuaded that you have grounds for complaint. We all regret that you have felt slighted by lack of citation of your research but it is the normal process of the development of scientific concepts to allow full and free debate in which all participants risk their own reputations and careers if they get this wrong. We trust to the expertise of the scientific community that this eventually leads to a consensus about the truth. Under these circumstances, MRC cannot pursue this matter further. Yours Sincerely Diane J. McLaren DSc PhD FIBiol. Executive Secretary - Cell Biology and Disorders Board.
27 January 1992 Dear Dr. Rees, I have received from Dr. Diane McLaren a letter dated 22nd January in response to my letters to you of the 18th of December and the 12th of January. My letters made enquiries concerning the MRC's code of professional conduct. Whilst I am grateful for the replies which Dr. McLaren has given to some of aspects of my enquiries, there are still several points which call for further clarification.
Three possible models have been put forward to account for the phenomena of capping and particle movement. These are the cytoskeletal model, the flow model and the wave model. Drs. Bretscher, Bray and Koch have consistently reviewed this field on the basis that only two possibilities exist, omitting all reference to the wave model. This, it seems to me, is likely to mislead anyone who should read their papers.
I would be grateful then, if you would clarify the following points.
- Does the MRC have a written code of professional conduct?
- Does the MRC have formal procedures for the investigation of complaints?
- Do you agree that the omission of all reference to the wave model in the work of Drs. Bretscher, Bray and Koch is likely to be misleading?
- Do you accept that scientists have a duty to review all reasonable interpretations in relation to their work?
I look forward to receiving clarification on these points. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt cc Dr. D. McLaren February l992
Dear Dr Hewitt,
I am responding to your letter to Dr Rees of 27 January.
In answer to your queries
1) The MRC procedures relating to professional conduct were set out clearly in my previous letter to you of 22 January;
2) Formal procedures for the investigation of complaints were also explained in my previous letter; MRC has invoked those procedures in the context of the case you mention and has not been persuaded that you have grounds for complaint.
3) & 4)The answers to both these questions was also covered in my previous letter; see sentences 2 and 3 of last para. Yours Sincerely Diane J. McLaren DSc PhD FIBiol. Executive Secretary - Cell Biology and Disorders Board.
27 April 1992 Dear Dr. Rees, I have received from Dr. McLaren a letter, dated 25 March, in response to my earlier letters to yourself and to her. This letter makes it clear that the MRC has no code of conduct nor procedures for the investigation of complaints. Dr. McLaren also points out that the responsibility for the ethical conduct of the MRC's affairs is ultimately yours.
Dr. McLaren gives the impression that she feels this is not a matter which requires attention because it would be expected to be dealt with "through normal scientific debate". I entirely agree that it should have been dealt with this way, but the fact is that Drs. Bretscher, Bray and Koch have not done so. Moreover, they have declined to fill the gaps in the debate even when asked to do so. This is why I have contacted you.
Both yourself, and Sir Aaron are employees of the MRC. Moreover, you have both had an interest in this or related areas. Neither of you could be described as detached observers; that being so I cannot accept simply any "judgement" from you. I feel a proper, reasoned explanation of how you come to your views is called for. I wish to know where you believe the arguments I put fall down.
Your letters are rather brief and I simply do not understand your rationale. Explanation has largely been limited to approving reference to Dr. Bretscher's letter.
His letter is quoted in full here:-
Dear John,
As you know I have never really understood the physical basis of your wave model: your replies to my questions when you gave a tea club talk in the Biochemistry Department several years ago did not clarify the situation.
As to the direction the field is taking there, is as far as I can divine, an increasing belief that particle migration is achieved by direct action of some part of the cytoskeleton. This is, of course, not a view that I share. There are two real problems in the field: (1) There exist several individuals who cherish their own models (and I am a fine example) and (2) there are relatively few experiments which shed light on the molecular mechanism of what is going on. Neither situation is surprising since any experimental evidence is very hard to come by and this allows all sorts of ideas to be tossed around. It also means that a particular view needs an active advocate to keep it alive: in the case of your wave model your absence from the fray may be leading to its being ignored. This, of course, has nothing to do with what is true or false, but more to do with personalities.
Yours Sincerely Mark Bretscher
Notwithstanding this letters use of such phrases as "this allows all sorts of ideas to be tossed about", as far as I know, three models have been proposed. Dr. Bretscher has consistently reviewed this field over 13 years as if only two have been. This is a rejection of the third, the wave model. My presence or absence from the "fray" made no discernible difference to his practices, neither did the support of other workers for the wave model.
I cannot comprehend how it is possible for Dr. Bretscher to reject a model which he does not understand. His last comment suggests that personality can change three to two. I reject his letter as a reply to my enquiries.
Because I do not understand your position on this matter, I previously (27 January 1992) asked you to reply to four specific questions. The answers to the first two (concerning the existence of an MRC code of practice and procedure for the investigation of complaints), are now clearly "no". Questions three and four remain unanswered. Since they are central to the issue, I would be obliged if you would furnish me with a reply.
Do you agree that the omission of all reference to the wave model in the work of Drs. Bretscher, Bray and Koch is likely to be misleading? Do you accept that scientists have a duty to review all reasonable interpretations in relation to their work? I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt cc Dr. D. McLaren
25 March 1992 Dear Dr Hewitt,
I write to acknowledge your letters of 18 February and 6 March.
As I have explained previously, the Director of an MRC establishment is responsible for dealing with matters of professional conduct by his staff, and is in turn responsible to the Secretary of Council. Your complaints have accordingly been considered by Sir Aaron Klug, the Director of LMB and by Dr Dai Rees the First Secretary of the MRC, both of whom have provided you with written judgements.
The Council has no specific mechanisms for dealing with this type of issue beyond those I have already described, because no two cases will be the same and each must be considered on an individual basis. In any event, one would normally expect such differences of opinion as you describe to be dealt with through normal scientific debate.
Notwithstanding the fact that you disagree with the judgements you have received from the MRC, the case has been fully considered by the Council and we can enter into no further correspondence with you.
Yours Sincerely Diane J. McLaren DSc PhD FIBiol. Executive Secretary - Cell Biology and Disorders Board.
17 July 1994
Dear Sir Dai,
I am writing further to our correspondence concerning the subject of capping and particle movement on the surface of motile eukaryotic cells.
I have now received, via my MP, Sir David Madel, and the Cabinet Office, a copy of the MRC's procedure for the investigation of complaints. I gather this was not available at the time I wrote to you asking for it.
I still do not have a copy of the code of practice under which the investigations referred to in this procedure are carried out. I am particularly concerned to establish whether or not the MRC's scientific staff are permitted to publish false or misleading statements in the scientific literature. More particularly, I note the opinion expressed by Dr. D. E. Chubin, of the US National Science Foundation (Bioscience (1985) 35 80-89 "Research Malpractice") that the omission of relevant citation is a form of misrepresentation. It would be helpful to know whether or not MRC policy reflects this view.
Could you please let me have this code or advise me how I can obtain a copy of it? Yours sincerely John A Hewitt cc Sir David Madel MP (for information) Mr. David Davis and Mr. Michael J. Talbot, Office of Public Service & Science (for information)
1 August 1994 Dear Dr Hewitt, In reply to your letter of 17 July 1994, I can confirm that the alleged misrepresentation to which you have referred in previous correspondence has been fully investigated. The conclusion drawn by the Council's Secretary is that the non-citation of your findings by MRC research scientists did not comprise misrepresentation.
Your allegation is therefore refuted and this statement serves to conclude our consideration of this matter.
(Miss.) Patricia M Cross
Below is a copy of the MRC's procedure for investigating complaints. The MRC itself substantially did not deal with my request for copies of its procedures for investigating complaints and for its code of practice with regard to false or misleading publication. The documented copied here was received following my contacts with my MP Sir David Madel, via the then Minister of State, William Waldegrave. I still do not have any code of practice. The MRC has still not explained whether its staff are permitted to falsify the scientific literature or given any indication of what types of behaviour are permitted or prohibited.
The procedure below appears to be an annex to some other document but I do not know what this might be.
Annex 1
Detailed procedures for the receipt, consideration and investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct ----------------------------------------------------------
The procedures comprise three main stages:
1. Receipt
1.1 Allegations must be in writing. They will be acknowledged in writing by the investigator, who will give the complainant a guarantee of anonymity until such time as it is decided to proceed with an investigation.
1.2 The investigator will consider the allegation and may take one of three steps:
- if the allegation is frivolous or without substance, it will be dismissed and the complainant informed in writing of the reasons for so doing;
- if, on the face of it, the allegation appears to have some substance, but the investigator has insufficient information to make a decision whether or not there should be an investigation, the complainant will be informed that he or she will proceed to an inquiry;
- if the allegation has substance, the investigator will inform the complainant that he or she will proceed to an investigation.
1.3 The Council will be informed, through the Secretary, that a complaint has been received and what action has been taken, (although the name of the complainant and the nature of the complaint will not be revealed by the investigator at this stage).
2. Inquiry
2.1 The investigator will invite a panel of not more than three scientists of distinction - of at least professorial status - to advise on the allegation under the conditions of the strictest confidentiality. These must be independent of the interests of the complainant and the person against whom the complaint has been made (the "respondent"), and at least one must be fully familiar with the area of research concerned. If these conditions can be met, one member should be a senior member of staff in the establishment involved, another a senior member of another MRC establishment, and the third a member outside the Council's service.
2.2 At this stage, it may be necessary to involve the respondent in order that they may be consulted by the Panel and/or the investigator. This will take the form, only, of confidential written communication between the investigator and the respondent, in the course of which the identity of the complainant will not be disclosed.
2.3 Similarly, clarification of statements made by the complainant may be sought at this stage.
2.4 The Panel will advise the investigator on the allegation in the light of all the evidence available at this stage, and the investigator will accordingly decide either:
- to proceed to an investigation; or
- to dismiss the allegation.
2.5 The complainant will be informed in writing of the decision, as will the respondent (but only if they are already aware of the fact).
2.6 The Council will also be informed of the decision, through the Secretary, but without details of the allegation or the names of complainant or respondent.
3. Investigation
3.1 The investigator will invite a Panel constituted as above to conduct the investigation, and will inform the parties accordingly. If a Panel was already set up under the inquiry procedure, this will normally be asked to continue with the case, but the investigator may - if this is necessary for the purposes of natural justice - instead establish a new Panel. The investigator will arrange for the provision of a confidential secretariat service to the Panel.
3.2 It is the responsibility of the Panel, and the purpose of the investigation, to establish as far as reasonably possible the truth about the allegation in a way which accords with natural justice. This will be undertaken, inter alia, by:
- seeking evidence and explanations from the parties involved, and independently. Both parties will be expected to produce such evidence as they have, in whatever form it may consist;
- extending the scope of inquiries as seems necessary or desirable. In this context, they should not hesitate to undertake or commission any necessary experimental work;
- interviewing any witnesses considered necessary;
forming a view on the veracity of each piece of evidence; and
- forming conclusions on the validity of the allegation, putting these to the complainant or respondent with supporting evidence, and considering such further evidence or explanations as may be offered;
continuing the investigation in this way until the Panel is satisfied that natural justice has been served, that further investigations are not warranted, and that it has reached a final conclusion on the allegation.
3.3 Throughout the investigation, the Panel will conduct its affairs with a degree of confidentiality such as to provide the necessary protection for the complainant and the respondent.
3.4 The investigation may be conducted through both written or oral enquiries: when interviews take place, the records will (as far as possible) be agreed with the interviewee.
3.5 on completion of the investigation, the Panel will report to the investigator in writing with its findings and any recommendations for action.
3.6 The investigator will inform the complainant and the respondent in writing of the findings, and of the action which the investigator proposes to take. If the decision is to uphold the allegations, the respondent will have the opportunity to make representations in person to the investigator before any further action is taken. Conversely, if the decision is to dismiss the allegation, the complainant will have similar opportunity.
3.7 The Council will be informed of the outcome of any investigations, together (in confidence) with details of the allegation and the names of the complainant and respondent.
The letter with which I initiated this correspondence was extremely similar to (and written at the same time as) that to the MRC staff.
19th. July, 1990 Dear John, Very many thanks for your letter of 17th. July. It was nice to hear that you are O.K. and still maintaining your interest in cell surfaces and the movement of particles therein.
In response to your specific questions I can only say that, although I have published one or two papers containing some data on lymphocyte capping, none are more recent than about 5 or 6 years ago and none expressed any views on the question of the mechanism of capping. My feeling, although I certainly wouldn't claim to be up to date with the literature in this area, is that not very much new has happened for some years - really since people like John Condeelis and Gordon Koch produced their data showing association between some ligand activated receptors and microfilaments. If I wanted an up to date view I think I would go to Mark Bretscher who, I presume, still has a strong interest in this question even though I haven't seen a paper by him for a year or so.
I'm sorry I can't be of more help but I would be interested in being kept informed of any developments. With very best wishes, Yours sincerely, Robin Hesketh.
(Reply sent on 10 August but this is lost.)
(The following letter was sent separately to both Drs. Hesketh and Metcalfe)
3.1.91 Dear Dr. Hesketh, Some time ago I wrote to you concerning the subject of capping of motile cells. As I said in that letter I wish to ascertain opinion in the field concerning the wave model which I published some time ago (J. Theoret. Biol. (1979) 80 115-127). I wrote to you because you either work in this field or have done so.
As yet I do not seem to have heard from you in response to these points. I would be most grateful if you would reply to my letter as soon as possible.
The specific questions asked in my letter were as follows
1. Have you, or any of your colleagues, published an article which expresses an opinion of the wave model?
2. What is your present opinion concerning the various proposals for the mechanism of capping and particle movement?
3. Can you direct my reading to any article, preferably a review, written by anybody, whose opinions largely parallel your own annd which does discuss the wave model.
4. Can you direct my attention to any piece of experimental which, in your opinion, tends to disprove the wave model
Incidentally my questions were asked and phrased with a view to elicitting both your views and the rationale behind them. ........ I do hope to hear from you shortly. Sincerely Yours
8th. January, 1991
Dear John,
In response to your letter of 3rd. January, I would point out that I did reply to your first letter, as your acknowledgement of 10th. August indicates. My reply covered all your questions although I did not itemise each point. I simply pointed out that I have never published a paper in which models for capping were compared and that the best advice I can give for obtaining detailed comments would be to contact someone who has worked specifically on this topic, such as Mark Bretscher or Gordon Koch.
Yours sincerely,
T.R.Hesketh.
(Note added; a paper on which Dr. Hesketh is an author, reviewing the field as indicated is referred to in the list of references, Pozzan et al. (1980))
7 January, 1991
Dear Dr. Hewitt,
In response to your letter of 3 January '91 I am sorry I am unable to be of much help to you in your enquiries and can only reiterate what I understand Dr. Hesketh has already told you. We have not worked on cap formation for about nine years and I do not have any subsequent references on this topic in my index (it was never of major interest to us). I think the easiest way for you to find any literature there may be on this would be through a Medline (or similar) computer based search although I don't think it has been an active area. If you have not contacted Mark Bretscher at LMB I think he would be the most suitable person to consult in the U.K. since he was doing the best experimental work on cells in this area at the time we were involved. It may also be worth looking at the standard undergraduate textbooks, particularly the 'Molecular Biology of the Cell' (Second Edition) by Alberts et al., which may well discuss the phenomenon of cap formation and current views on mechanism. I hope this helps you to find the information you want.
Yours sincerely,
J. C. Metcalfe
21.2.1991 Dear Robin. thank you for your letter dated the 8th of January in response to my own. As my "acknowledgement" of the 10th of August to you indicated, I am in receipt of your earlier letter. As it also indicated, I did not feel your earlier letter addressed the issues here. I do accept that my own list of references does not include one, authored by you, which discusses mechanisms of capping. Nonetheless, it seems to me that you did take a view on this matter. which was clearly indicated in the approach which you adopted to teaching it. The view you appeared to take was that my own work was wrong and misguided. You indicated this by discussing only two possibiliites, omitting any mention my own work. In the circumstances I felt it appropriate to invite vou. again, to explain the reasoninq which led you to this view. Could I ask you, please, in retrospect, to explain the reasoning which led you to the view which you have given the appearance of holding My original questions were phrased to elicit such an explanation, but, of course, if you feel another approach is appropriate, then I would be very glad to hear that. I do hope to hear from you, on these issues, in due course. Yours sincerely John A. Hewitt
21.2.1991 Dear Dr. Metcalfe, thank you for your letter dated 8 Jan. In fact I have already carried out the suggestions which you made. I was most surprised to learn that cap formation was never a major interest of yours. While I worked in the Dept. of Biochemsitry, both your teaching and your published research discussed this field and the models which had besn suggested to account for the phenomena observed. In doing so you mentioned only two of the models which had been suggested, omitting any mention of my own work The implication of these actions was very clear - that you felt my work was wrong and misguided. I do not know what reasoning led you to that conclusion. I do feel that it is unfortunate that you did not state your view in so many words, and did not explain the reasoning which led you to your view. Since the field was not a major interest of yours, I am surprised that you felt able to hold the views which you did. Even so, and in the circumstances, I can only ask you again : Will you please state that you did in fact consider the wave model to be wrong? Will you please explain, by answering my original questions, or otherwise, the reasoning processes which led you to that opinion? Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
There followed a letter from me to Prof. Richard Perham, then head of the Department of Biochemistry which produced the following joint reply.
2nd. July, 1991
Dear Dr. Hewitt,
Professor Perham has passed us your letter of 9th. June, 1991. In response we would make the following points:
1. We invited you to give a formal Departmental Tea Club lecture on your model of cap formation (24th. November, 1982) which was attended by both students and experts (eg., Dr. M. Bretscher).
2. In previous correspondence we have referred you to Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al., 2nd. edition, pp. 333/4 for a current, independent view of cap formation. Your theoretical model is not mentioned.
3. We have no comment to make on your theoretical model (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1979, pp. 115-127).
We now regard our correspondence with you as closed.
Yours sincerely,
J.C.Metcalfe T.R.Hesketh.
14 July 1991 Dear Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh, Thank you for your letter dated 2 July, in response to my letter to Prof. Perham. I note the three points which you make and would reply to them as follows
I thank you for the invitation to give a seminar at the departmental tea club. You will recall that during that meeting I raised essentially the same issues as I am raising now. I had previously raised the same issues with you, for example by providing you with a preprint of the paper. I did not feel that I received any meaningful reply, although you have consistently given the impression that you feel the wave model to be unfounded. As I said previously, I have communicated with Dr. Bretscher on this subject.
I have read the comments made in the book "Molecular Biology of the Cell" concerning the mechanism of capping. As you say, the wave model is not mentioned. Dr. Raff, an author on this work, observed to me that, as an undergraduate textbook, he did not feel that this work could be expected to deal with detailed scientific arguments. I have to say, that I am disposed to accept his observation as fair - although it does not answer the scientific point. I do not know why you attach significance to this book, perhaps you would care to explain. Your own position is fundamentally different. In the first place, you work in the institution in which my work was performed. This gives your position a certain force. In your teaching, and, in the case of Dr. Metcalfe, your publication, you seem to have implied, by omission, that my work was somehow invalid or misguided. You did so before the publication of Alberts et al. I would like to know what the scientific reasoning was, which led you to feel able to do that. I should also like to know your present opinion.
I am not suggesting that, as individuals you are under any legal obligation to reply to my letters, neither are you obliged to answer my questions in any reply which you send. In your role as professional scientists however, things are less clear cut; I do feel that you should reply to legitimate questions concerning your scientific positions. I think that these are legitimate questions. That is why I feel very put out by the lack of real replies.
I do not understand what you found so unbelievable about the wave model, and I also do not understand why you seem so reluctant to tell me.
One final point concerning your letter, my work was, as you say, theoretical; I think the flow model, and the cytoskeletal model, are also theoretical - the issue is, which is least negated when set against the experimental evidence. As far as I know, no negations of the wave model have been published. Perhaps you do, if so, would you please let me know.
The view which I take in this field is, I believe, one which is a standard view of scientific method. I think Popper's paradigm of scientific reasoning applies in its entirety; as you know, this states that when a hypothesis is put forward, it is to be challenged by reference to the experimental observations. If a hypothesis fails to predict those facts, then the hypothesis should be seen as inadequate. If the hypothesis successfully predicts the observations then it may be correct, but cannot be viewed as proved.
Within this paradigm, science is seen as working by elimination; proof is not regarded as meaningful, only disproof is a strong statement. Of course, this view of science is generally accepted by the scientific community.
Applying this view to the situation with capping and particle movement, in my opinion
Firstly, I think there should be an exchange of theoretical views. If this does not take place, then it seems there would be an increased likelihood of the "correct" hypothesis not being included in the set of hypotheses from which elimination takes place.
Secondly, if a worker feels able to reject a hypothesis, then he can reasonably be asked, which experimental tests lead him to that view.
Thirdly, a request for proof of a hypothesis, or evidence in its favour, before it can be considered, is of questionable validity.
As I said before, you are not legally obliged to deal with these questions, but you have, by omission and implication, given the impression that you believe the wave model is wrong. This is especially the case as you did so from the institution in which my work was done. Surely, accepted scientific logic requires that you explain your rejection of the wave model!
For these reasons, I hope that you will correspond further on these matters, and that you will address the issues being raised here. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt cc Prof. R.N.Perham; both Dr. J.C.Metcalfe & Dr. T.R.Hesketh
28 July, l991 Dear Dr Hewitt, We find it difficult to understand why you are unable to accept that we have answered your question as best we can more than once in response to your letters. We can only reiterate and paraphrase what we have said previously:
In our own limited studies on receptor cross-linking (3 or 4 papers from 1980-82) we never attempted in any way to test experimentally your theoretical wave model of cap formation and in our view our data had no bearing on the validity or otherwise of your model to justify discussion of it in those papers. Indeed, it would not have been appropriate to work independently on your model when you were in the Department, even if it been of more than peripheral relevance to our research.
We were and remain unwilling to express any view on the validity of your model because as far as we are aware no attempt has been made by you or other workers to test the model experimentally. It may be that there is recent experimental evidence that is relevant but it is about 9 years since we have published work on the cross-linking of mitogen receptors and we have not followed the field at all closely. We referred you to Mark Bretscher who may well be able to inform you of any recent work which bears on your model. His opinion is valuable because he has an excellent insight into molecular cell biology and because in our view he was doing the best work on the mechanism of cap formation at the time we were interested in receptor crosslinking, through his extensive efforts to test experimentally his lipid flow hypothesis. For an independent view we referred you to the 'Molecular Biology of the Cell' in which Marty Raff concludes that definitive evidence to distinguish between the two mechanisms of cap formation for which experimental evidence has been sought (lipid flow and cytoskeletal attachment) is lacking and is difficult to obtain. We can certainly appreciate that it is disappointing and frustrating for you that your model has not had sufficient impact to prompt experimental work to try to test it, but however put out you may feel about this, that is your problem and not our fault. It does not justify your unacceptable stratagem of implying that, because we refuse to guess the outcome of experimental work still to be done, we must therefore believe your model to be invalid. Nor are you are justified in attempting to harrass us into defending an opinion we have not expressed on a subject that is of little interest us.
For these reasons, as we have indicated previously, we see no point in continuing this correspondence and we formally ask you to stop harrassing us when we have made every reasonable effort to be helpful to your enquiries. Yours sincerely, J C Metcalfe T R Hesketh
22 September 1991 Dear Sir, This letter is concerned with the time when I was a Demonstrator at the Dept. of Biochemistry, in Cambridge; I held this post from 1978-83.
During that time, amongst other things, I published a paper concerning the subject of capping and particle movement on the surface of motile amoeboid cells. This appeared in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (1979) 115-127; it proposed that these phenomena arise as a result of wave action on the surface of the cell. I think this proposal is in fact correct.
However, a number of workers in the field appear to think that this concept is wrong. For the purposes of this letter, I am referring here in particular to Dr. J.C. Metcalfe and Dr. T.R. Hesketh of the Dept. of Biochemistry. Dr. Metcalfe published work in the field, which included review of the proposed mechanisms the field, in a way which omitted all mention of the possibility which I had raised. Both workers taught the subject, to final year students in a similar way, while I was in the Dept.. Their actions seem to imply that they think my work is wrong. However, because this is an only implication, I have never known anything of the reasoning which led them to this view.
It is, of course, accepted that they are entitled to their own position. However, I would like their disagreement with me to be on some kind of record, and for me to have a clear idea of the scientific considerations which led to that disagreement. I have recently been taking up this matter. Accordingly, I have written to Drs. Metcalfe & Hesketh asking them to explain, in specific terms, how they arrived at the opinions which they seem to hold. Although they were kind enough to respond to my letters, their replies have not been meaningful.
I have also written to them via Prof. Perham, their Head of Dept.. Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh seems to be taking the line that, because they have not actually stated that they believe the wave model to be wrong, there is no need for them to defend such a proposition.
I feel this to be disingenuous. The implications of their actions seem plain. I feel they should explain their views, and in particular, why they believe the wave model, my work to be incorrect. However, they no longer reply to my letters.
I am writing to you to ask that you look into this matter, and intercede with your colleagues, asking them to answer my enquiries, in particular explaining why they believe the wave model to be wrong.
I would be obliged, also, if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thank you for your time. Yours Faithfully John A. Hewitt
27 September 1991 Dear Mr Hewitt, I write simply to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 22 September about which I shall make inquiries. Yours sincerely, David Williams Vice-Chancellor.
10 October 1991 Dear Dr Hewitt, Thank you for your letter of 22 September. As I understand the nature of your concern, it involves a disagreement about scientific matters arising out of the research work of yourself and other members of the Biochemistry Department. The practice in Cambridge is to regard such work as the business of the researchers themselves and not one where institutional intervention in a dispute is appropriate unless there is prima facie evidence of serious scientific misconduct or impropriety. That does not appear to be the case in this instance and so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to raise the matter with the officers concerned, particularly since you have yourself been in touch with them direct. Yours sincerely, Vice-Chancellor.
18 October 1991 Dear Prof. Williams, Thank you for your letter dated 10 October 1991. I note that you do not fully understand the nature of my concerns.
My concern is not exactly that I disagree with my ex-colleagues, although I certainly do, it is that their actions imply that they disagree with me. The word imply is the point here. They have never stated on any record that they believe my work to be wrong, or explained how they came to that view.
When capping was first discovered its mechanism was a great mystery. Two possibilities were initially put forward by various workers; without going into details they were the cytoskeletal model and the flow model. Even at the time I did my work, I thought it was clear that both these suggestions were wrong, and so I set myself the task of devising a better one, which I did, the wave model. Again, without going into details, I think there were and are strong arguments for thinking that the wave model is substantially right. Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh had an interest in this field and I made a point of familiarising them with my work as I was doing it.
There are then, three models which have been proposed as the mechanism for capping. Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh taught this field in the department, while I worked there, on the basis that there were two possible models, the cytoskeletal and the flow models; amongst others, this was to Part II students doing literature projects on current research. Dr. Metcalfe published at least one paper in which he reviewed the available models, again discussing only two. These actions seem to imply that they think the wave model is wrong.
Because their actions only imply this opinion I do not know what arguments they would marshal to support it and, crucially, neither can I reply to them. It is fair to say that this situation is widespread in the field, but I view the actions of Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh as being particularly significant, because they work in the laboratory in which my own studies were performed; the implications of their actions seem therefore very clear and are likely to be influential.
As far as I know Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh do not contest the actual facts I state above; in any case the facts seem unequivocal. It think, therefore, that it is not really a matter of whether there is a prima facie case for misconduct or impropriety, but of whether one interprets their actions in that way. I do take the view that their actions are an impropriety, what is more, at least in their impact upon me, those actions are serious.
In any event, these problems could obviously be largely resolved by Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh firstly, stating that indeed they do regard the wave model as wrong and secondly, explaining what reasoning led them to this view. As you say, I have been in contact with Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh; I had precisely that objective in mind.
They have stated that they make no comment upon the wave model, instead they have referred me to a book, which does not address these issues. They also refer me to another worker; plainly, I cannot approach another worker for an explanation of their own reasoning.
In my view the replies I have received from Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh are not meaningful; accordingly, I have written to you. I have to say that I am disappointed by your reply.
I feel that it would be unfortunate if the conduct of these workers were to receive the imprimatur of the university. You will, of course, decide for yourself how or whether to deal with this matter. In any case, I assert that the present position is manifestly unsatisfactory. I feel that matters can no longer rest where they are.
You refer in your letter to the "practice in Cambridge". Could I ask whether there is a written code of conduct concerning such matters in the University, and, if so, where I could obtain a copy?
Also, I believe that there is, in Cambridge, an institution known as the University visitor. I would be grateful if you would let me know who that is, and the procedure for making contact with them.
Mostly though I would ask you to consider this matter carefully and that you do approach these workers concerning this issue. In any event, I hope to hear from you shortly. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
21 October 1991 Dear Dr Hewitt, I am replying to your further letter dated 18 October. I can add nothing to what I have already told you.
There is no office of University 'Visitor' at Cambridge. Yours sincerely Vice-Chancellor.
23 October 1991 Dear Sir David, Thank you for your letter dated 21 October 1991. I am sorry that you feel unable to add anything further in this matter.
I feel, despite your letter, that there is an issue here. The reason I take this view is the absence of any meaningful replies to the question "why do you think the wave model is wrong?"
The scientific method, as outlined by Popper, has it that we arrive at truth by answering questions of this type. Within this picture science is a process of negation. If a scientist sees the wave model as wrong, I would like to know the arguments which lead them to their conclusion. This seems to me the best way of resolving the matter.
I cannot imagine where I got the idea of the "University Visitor". Even so I would be grateful if you would let me know
Whether or not a written code of conduct exists concerning such matters, which it would be possible for me to consult. The name and address of the Chancellor. Thank you in advance, Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
28 October 1991
Dear Dr Hewitt,
The Vice-Chancellor is away from the office on business at present, and So I write on his behalf in reply to your letter of 23 October.
I understand that no written code of conduct exists covering the matters referred to.
The name and address of The Chancellor are as follows: H.R.H. 'Ihe Duke of Edinburgh, Buckingham Palace, London S.W.1. Yours sincerely, Geoffrey Skelsey Assistant to the Vice-Chancellor:
17 November 1991 Dear Sir David, Thank you very much for the letter dated 28 October 1991, from your assistant, Mr. Skelsey, in response to my letter to yourself.
I am not clear, from this reply, whether a code of conduct exists within the University, but that you feel that it is not relevant to this issue, or whether there is simply no code of conduct within the University. If one does exist, I would wish to know whether it deals with the subject of making false or misleading statements within the scientific literature or within teaching. This, I would regard as relevant to the matters referred to.
Could you please clarify the question of whether or not a code of conduct does exist within the University?
If indeed no code of conduct exists, I would be grateful if you would let me know what mechanisms the University does have available to deal with ethical matters. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
27 November 1991 Dear Dr Hewitt, Thank you for your further letter.
As Mr Skelsey stated in his letter to you of 28 October, no code of conduct exists in the University covering the matters referred to. There are no formal mechanisms to deal with ethical matters, which would be handled on an ad hoc basis by the authority relevant to the particular question.
As I said in reply to your first letter, the point at issue involves a disagreement about scientific matters between you and your former colleaques. I have no power to intervene in a matter of this kind. Yours sincerely, Vice-Chancellor. David Williams
14 December 1991 Dear Sir David, Thank you very much for your letter dated the 27th. of November (DGTW/MS).
As I explained before, I do not think the central point at issue here is a disagreement about scientific matters. It does appear to stem from such a disagreement.
This debate exists because the phenomena of capping and particle movement need a mechanistic explanation. Three proposals have been put forward to offer that explanation. When Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh teach this subject, they seem to do so as if two proposals have been made. Dr. Metcalfe has reviewed this field in the scientific literature on a similar basis. These actions certainly appear to imply that these workers think the wave model to be wrong. However, neither they nor their actions say so in so many words. To the best of my knowledge, neither worker has ever said, on any record that they believe the wave model to be incorrect.
It does seem to me that, since these workers have been prepared to act as if they think the wave model is wrong, they have a professional responsibility to state this opinion, and explain the reasoning which leads them to it. In particular, I should like to know which experimental results they believe to be in conflict with my work.
They have told me that they are not willing to make any comment on the wave model. In the circumstances, I have to question whether they have any reasoned grounds at all for their rejection of it.
If, indeed, they have never had grounds to reject the wave model, then it seems to me their actions have certainly been misleading and are, arguably, falsehoods. This, I think, is the central point at issue.
Your letters do not give any indication of how you came to the view that the above facts amount merely to a "disagreement about scientific matters between (me) and (my) former colleagues". I am afraid I do not accept this to be so. I think it cannot be merely a difference of opinion, because I do not know their opinions, other than by inference from their actions.
For this reason, I am concerned to establish, in general, the University's policy on false or misleading statements in publication or teaching. I would like to know whether or not the University has a written code of conduct.
I would like to know how I can consult any such document for myself, to determine if it addresses this subject.
If, as your letters suggest, there is no code of conduct within the University, or any formal mechanism for dealing with ethical matters, then it seems that ad hoc investigation by the "relevant authority" is the only recourse. Your letter does not indicate who the relevant authority is; I would be grateful if you would let me know this, in order that I can contact him.
In the event of and ad hoc investigation being necessary, I will wish to know the arguments which have been put to the relevant authority and who is putting them. I am likely to wish to exercise an opportunity to reply to them. I will wish to know his "summing up" as well as his findings. I may well wish to be represented.
I hope this letter clarifies my position. I would be grateful if you would tell me whether or not any written code of conduct exists and how it can be consulted by myself. Also I would be grateful if you would advise me who the relevant authority is, concerning false or misleading teaching or publication. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
(The following is a postcard size acknowledgement slip)
From THE VICE-CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, OLD SCHOOLS, CAMBRIDGE CB2 ITN ENGLAND (Tel. 0223-332292)
Date 18 December Reference 1603/2
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR acknowledges with thanks the receipt of your letter dated 14 December which is receiving attention.
G. B. Skelsey Assistant to the Vice-Chancellor
11 January 1992 Dear Sir David, I am writing further to my letter of the 14th of December; I thank you for the acknowledgement of that letter from Mr. Skelsey which was dated dated the 18th of December. I note, with gratitude, that it is receiving attention.
I look forward to a fuller response in the near future. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
16 February 1992 Dear Sir David, I am writing further to my letters of the 14th of December and 11th of January; you will recall that the acknowledgement of the first of these, from Mr. Skelsey, dated the 18th of December, indicated that this matter is receiving attention.
I would be grateful if you would let me know when you feel it likely that I shall receive a fuller reply. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
19 February 1992 Dear Dr Hewitt,
I am afraid that it has taken longer than I intended for me to reply to your further letter, dated 14 December. I wished to review the whole of the correspondence, and - with other pressing matters to deal with - this has taken me some time.
I am sorry to have to disappoint you, but my decision is that I can take your complaint no further. I continue to believe, as I said in my first letter to you, that this is in essence a scientific disagreement in which I am not prepared to intervene. Yours sincerely, Vice-Chancellor.
25 February 1992 Dear Sir David, Thank you for your letter of the 19th of February. I note that you have now reviewed the correspondence on this matter and come to the view that it is, in essence, purely a difference of opinion on a scientific matter between myself and my former colleagues.
As I have previously pointed out to you, other than by drawing inferences from their actions, I do not know the opinions of my former colleagues. Moreover, since they decline to give a statement or explanation of their views when I ask them to do so, there seems to be no way for me to determine their opinions.
In these circumstances, I do not understand how this matter can be seen as a difference of opinion on a scientific matter.
I would be grateful if you would explain to me how you came to your decision in this respect. Yours Sincerely John A Hewitt
2 March 1992 Dear Dr Hewitt, I am replying on the Vice-Chancellor's behalf to your letter of 25 February 1992.
I am very sorry to have to tell you that the Vice-Chancellor is not willing to add anything to what he has already said in his earlier correspondence with you. Yours sincerely, G. B. Skelsey
11 April 1992 Dear Sir David, Thank you for the letter from Mr. Skelsey (2 March 1992) in which he states that you are "not willing to add anything to what (you have) already said in (your) earlier correspondence" concerning the matters which I have raised with you.