Talk:Robert Gallo

Untitled

Also the congressional investigation into Robert Gallo's fraudulant claim to have isolated HIV using Luc Montagniers HIV cultures are not mentioned at all. It should be mentioned here. Senator Dingell's Wikilink can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dingell

And this article in the New Scientist should also be mentioned: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.191.141 (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14881-comment-was-robert-gallo-robbed-of-the-nobel-prize.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.191.141 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Gallo guilty of AIDS misconduct

Gallo has not been found guilty of misconduct. His co-author Mikulas Popovic was found guilty of misconduct by the Office of Research Integrity at the US Public Health Service. But this was overturned on appeal with the finding that, "“One might anticipate that from all the evidence, after all the sound and fury, there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing. This is not the case.” This surely exonerates Gallo as well as Popovic. There is no known finding of wrongdoing against Gallo. If my memory is correct, the wiki article used to imply that there was such a finding but it has since been corrected. Nathangeffen (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Reading the article, I noticed that it did not quite match what I had heard ca. 25 years ago when AIDS Groups all over the world had eductaed teachers. The understanding, then, was that an unknown, highly contagious and aggressive disease caused Kaposi sarcoma and deadly lung and brain infections, accompanied by wasting diarrheas and that the new disease had been the reason for dr. Gallo's and Dr. Montagnier's research and research grants. The way WIKI explains the chronology, one almost gets the impression as though Dr. Gallo had been investigating retroviruses all along and that the interest in the new disease consequently followed. One should also make clear that there was no disease, AIDS, from the start but that this acronym was developed and accepted after isolation of HTLV and HIV andf after a preliminary term, AIDS Related Complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.156.8 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"[']tour de force,['] [']flagship[,'] et cetera not encyclopedic" ??

Please help me become a better Wikipedia editor. I changed this paragraph:

Since then, there has been considerable and sometimes acrimonious controversy over the priority for the discovery of HIV, including accusations (of which Gallo was later cleared)[11] that Gallo's lab misappropriated a sample of HIV produced at the Institut Pasteur.[11] In November 1990, the United States Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health commissioned a group at Roche to analyze archival samples established at the Pasteur Institute and the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) of the National Cancer Institute between 1983 and 1985. The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, examined archival specimens and concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's virus had come from Montagnier's lab. Chang determined that the French group's LAV was a virus from one patient that had contaminated a culture from another. On request, Montagnier's group had sent a sample of this culture to Gallo, not knowing it contained two viruses. It then contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working.[12]

to this:

Since then, there has been considerable and sometimes acrimonious controversy over the priority for the discovery of HIV, including accusations (of which Gallo was later cleared)[11] that Gallo's lab misappropriated a sample of HIV produced at the Institut Pasteur(IP).[11] In November 1990, the United States Office of Research Integrity at the National Institutes of Health commissioned a group at Roche to analyze archival samples established at the IP and the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) of the National Cancer Institute between 1983 and 1985. The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's flagship HIV isolate discovery, HTLV-IIIB, must actually have originated in Montagnier's IP lab. Indeed, on request, Montagnier's group had sent samples of his group's virus isolates to Gallo; and Gallo had admitted LTCB had cultured the gift samples. Chang concluded that a LTCB culture of one of the provided samples, LAV-Lai, must have contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working and from which Gallo claimed HTLV-IIIB had been derived. However, the contamination explanation could not be tested because, as noted in the paper, "No sample of the pool is known to exist." Nevertheless, the analysis of archived specimens of each of the pooled culture's ten(10) donor samples is not inconsistent with the contamination explanation: Six of the donor cultures had detectable HIV; each of these 6 HIV-positive donor cultures had a "novel and unique" virus sequence - none matching HTLV-IIIB/LAV-Lai. Interestingly, three of the four patients who were the sources for the HIV-negative pooled culture donor cultures never had AIDS. Chang's tour de force also confirmed analyses published in 1991 by LTCB and IP scientists showing that, in Montagnier's lab and unbeknownst to IP scientists, LAV-Lai had contaminated and outgrown a culture of the world's first HIV isolate, LAV-Bru. Montagnier had provided samples of this contaminated culture to several scientists, including Gallo - unwittingly representing it as LAV-Bru. The discovery of the contamination explained how, among other things, LAV-Lai - rather than LAV-Bru, for instance - had become HTLV-IIIB.[12]

I changed neither the references nor the Wiki markups (not included here). I described my edit, "improve Chang paper description." RetroS1mone Undid my edit because, "tour de force, flagship et cetera not encyclopedic."

I submit my edit provides a more accurate and comprehensive description of Chang's study. Since the study is quite a significant part of the US government's investigations of Gallo, Popovic, and the LTCB, an accurate and comprehensive description of it, I would have thought, should have been welcomed. Instead, RetroS1mone rejected it as, "...not encyclopedic." I agree the 2 cited expressions may be inappropriate; but only because their contexts were not documented/referenced. However, I disagree my edit should be rejected solely because of 2 expressions. Why didn't RetroS1mone merely edit the 2 expressions, for instance? Perhaps because of other objections - implied by, "et cetera?" What other objections does RetroS1mone have? Anyone else have any criticisms and/or help? RspnsblMn^talk 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there is only so much i can put in a edit summary.

• Your additions are not encyclopedic with the words you use like tour de force flagship, interestingly.
• They are original research, you are giving your interpretation of the Chang paper, you are saying nterestingly, nevertheless, what is inconsistent et cetera.
• It is to much detail, this is about Robert Gallo it is not an article about LAV-Lai and LAV-Bru and all the detials of them.
• Sorry but you also have a history on this article of adding stuff that gets deleted so i have hard time AGF RetroS1mone talk 04:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "They are original research ... inconsistent et cetera." OK. Politely pointing to contradictions and discrepancies in Gallo's contamination-of-the-pool explanation for HTLV-IIIB being LAV-Lai is no substitute for documenting them explicitly as well as documenting many investigators' conclusion the pool was fabricated in a cover-up (in large part based on Chang's study).

Re: "It is to[o] much detail ... deti[/]als of them." I thought I was editing a subsection of "Retrovirus work" entitled, "HIV/AIDS research and subsequent controversy." The heart of the controversy is whether Gallo's LTCB accidentally or deliberately misappropriated a virus isolate provided to the LTCB by the Institut Pasteur. For years, Gallo denied LTCB had cultured the gift virus. Also, I provided the minimal details required for correct explication of the issues. The previous description was quite inaccurate. I could have described the significance of the env gene sequence variations (as opposed to other genes) among these isolates documented by Chang.

Re: "Sorry[,] but you also have a history..." Incorrect. I have made a handful of edits here. Not one was deleted legitimately. Even in this present case, you can't show my improved description of Chang's paper is inaccurate or that it didn't correct an inaccurate description. Moreover, if you were familiar with the controversy's documentation, you would have improved my edit rather than failing to AGF and deleting it.

What do you think of the following:

... The group, led by Sheng-Yung Chang, concluded in Nature in 1993 that Gallo's prototype HIV isolate discovery, HTLV-IIIB, must actually have originated in Montagnier's IP lab. Upon request, Montagnier's group had sent samples of his group's virus isolates to Gallo; and Gallo had admitted LTCB had cultured the gift samples. Chang concluded that a LTCB culture of one of the provided samples, LAV-Lai, must have contaminated the pooled culture on which Gallo was working and from which Gallo claimed HTLV-IIIB had been derived. However, the contamination explanation could not be tested because, as noted in the paper, "No sample of the pool is known to exist." The analysis of archived specimens of each of the pooled culture's ten(10) constituent donor samples revealed: Six of the donor cultures had detectable HIV; The HIV of each of these 6 HIV-positive donor cultures had a "novel and unique" virus sequence - none matching HTLV-IIIB/LAV-Lai; Three of the four patients who were the sources for the HIV-negative pooled culture donor cultures, "never had AIDS." The study also showed another important LTCB HIV isolate, MoV, was also LAV-Lai; and an archived specimen from, "a putative [patient] donor of the MoV culture" was not analyzable. Chang's study also confirmed analyses published in 1991 by LTCB and IP scientists showing that, in Montagnier's lab and unbeknownst to IP scientists, LAV-Lai had contaminated and outgrown a culture of the world's first HIV isolate, LAV-Bru. Montagnier had provided samples of this contaminated culture to several scientists, including Gallo - unwittingly representing them as LAV-Bru. The discovery of the contamination explained how, among other things, LAV-Lai - rather than LAV-Bru - had become HTLV-IIIB and MoV.[12]

? RspnsblMn^talk 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Currant version is short, sweet, accurate. No changes pls. Also pls do not accuse people they do not know the papers. RetroS1mone talk 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

March 2009

This is obviously a tricky page to get right, since Gallo has been a tremendously controversial but major figure in HIV studies. So I apologize for generalizing so thoroughly in the introduction to the piece, but crediting Gallo upfront for co-discovery of HIV without caveat seems to put forth a falsely facile answer to a problematic question, as the rest of the article makes clear. We can say without controversy, however, that he is best known for his work on HIV. I hope that will suffice. If someone would still prefer to credit him with co-discovery in the intro again, it would be more consistent with the rest of the article to mention the controversy in the same line. Londonbroil (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, we're not tasked with getting it "right", simply with following the reliable sources. Gallo is consistently credited as a co-discoverer of HIV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am following the reliable sources. The Nobel Prize Committee has clearly NOT credited Gallo as co-discoverer of HIV, which means that Gallo is, contrary to your assertion here, noticeably inconsistently credited. Londonbroil (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It is discussed it the body. The lead is correct and backed by WP:RS. The Nobel prize committee did not make a statement that Gallo was not involved, and drawing an inference like that would be WP:OR. Verbal chat

This is silly. I am only proposing an introduction that makes no claims for co-discovery and is obviously factually true and backed by all sources, as opposed to an introduction that gives a skewed representation of the article that follows and is inconsistent with various reliable sources. (Gallo at this point is best known for not getting the Nobel Prize, frankly.) There is no original research in any of the edits I have made, if you will check the history. Londonbroil (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not getting the Nobel prize doesn't mean the committee thought he wasn't involved. There are various reasons for this. Making the inference from not winning the Nobel prize means he wasn't involved or was thought to be uninvolved is would be OR. Note that not all the people involved in the discovery of DNA won the Nobel prize for the discovery, and that there is a limit on how many can win. Verbal chat 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to Verbal. I think you have misunderstood what was going on. I had not made the Nobel assertion on the actual article. I was replying to Keepcalmandcarryon, who had asserted here that Gallo should be described as co-discoverer of HIV because he is "consistently" credited as such. I was correcting the word "consistently". (I understand the Nobel. Three can win. Two won for HIV and one for HPV that year. There was room for Gallo, which was why the press was a-tizzy.) I could also bring up Crewdson's thorough coverage in the Chicago Tribune, which, regardless of what you think of it, certainly does not give credit to Gallo. In fact, a large number of sources have failed to give credit to Gallo, so the claim that the credit has been consistently given is just not accurate. Again, I did not bring the Nobel into my edit, so this is all moot, although if I wanted to I would have plenty of sources for the assertion that much of the press coverage assumed the Nobel was a snub. But that is not what I'm trying to do here. I am trying to improve this Wiki article by bringing it in line with the actual source material. The entire Nobel issue aside, since it doesn't come into the edit I proposed, all reliable sources show that Gallo's papers came later than Montagnier's and identified the same virus; if that's discovery, I co-discovered the boiling point of water in high school chemistry class. Gallo (or at least a researcher in his lab) is credited with the technology of creating T-cell lines, very important to this story, and he is usually given credit for asserting forcefully early on that LAV/HTLV-III was the cause of AIDS, as opposed to Montagnier who took some time to come around. The one thing Gallo most clearly did not do if you read the sources is discover that virus! 77.103.124.148 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that above was me Londonbroil (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well and good, but again, many reliable sources credit Gallo as co-discoverer with Montagnier. See also the papers the two co-authored on the discovery process. Montagnier's lab was probably the first to isolate the virus. The work of characterising it and identifying it as the cause of AIDS was not done by any one laboratory or person, and Gallo's contribution was deemed sufficient by many reliable sources to name him a co-discoverer. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what reliable sources, "credit Gallo as co-discoverer with Montagnier." RspnsblMn^talk 14:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You could start with a few of the sources for the article. If that doesn't satisfy you, enter Gallo and co-discoverer on Google or Google News. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, "Keepcalmandcarryon." Please show me: which sources for the article and what others? RspnsblMn^talk 18:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As this piece from Science 2008 notes, Gallo and Montaignier were proclaimed "co-discoverers" of HIV by the governments of the US and France in the late 1980s. The piece notes that "Gallo and Montagnier accepted that compromise and buried the hatchet," but credits (if "credit" is the right word) John Crewdson with again inflaming the debate in 1990. Gallo and Montaignier themselves have long accepted roles as co-discoverers and praised each others' contributions. Per Science 2008, "Gallo and Montagnier each wrote essays... in 2002 in which they concluded that both made important contributions to the discovery of the virus." They again credited each others' roles in a joint article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 ([1]). MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes to what I felt was rapidly becoming an attack piece. It's important to remember that this article is a biography of a living person, not a forum for airing dropped accusations and not a showcase for Crewdson's various stories. The article should note the historical controversy without dwelling too closely on minor details like the Dingell report and quotes selected for maximum smear effect. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

After reading Randy Shilts' book when it was published and just now getting around to reading John Crewdson's, I'm glad to see this article is well-written with clear chronology, revealing many aspects of the controversies. Excellent work, Wiki editors. Bravo. Skywriter (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Supplied references and baseless conclusion

• I've just noticed that this article stated that Gallo's accusations were dropped while the article it linked to claimed that he was repeatedly found guilty of research misappropriation. It would be better if people checked the references as they are being used to back up contradicting and opposite claims -- Mecanismo | Talk 10:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea to read through the article history and check on the issue itself before making BLP-sensitive claims. Political machinations and charges that were later dropped are hardly appropriate to include as if they were standing felony convictions. If the current references are inadequate, ask for improvement. Don't replace text with BLP violations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2008 was divided, one half awarded to Harald zur Hausen "for his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer",the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier "for their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus". http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/ User:apl1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.61.193 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"reputed"

I changed "discovery" to "reputed discovery" in the first paragraph because, while Gallo got the Lasker Award, the 2008 Nobel went to the Pasteur team, with no mention of Gallo, His work is clouded by controversy, which is not yet resolved. Can we say this more diplomatically? Without lying? Donfbreed (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, there is an extensive WP discussion of this matter, which I don't understand fully. I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps someone who does should settle this. If I'm wrong, you can revert my change. Donfbreed (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

Current image is outdated.Request that main image be changed to RCGallo 9-08

Lrobe52993 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012

Peikang (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012

This entry claims that Gallo and his team "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS". There is no indication or scientific proof that this is the case. I suggest that in order to make such a claim you would at least need to provide a footnote to a credible source supporting this information. I am not aware of such a source. So please 1) delete this claim, or 2) provide a credible source which supports the statement that Gallo's team "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS". Please be loyal to the spirit of Wikipedia! Peikang (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: There's no such thing as "scientific proof". A broad consensus exists in the medical and relevant scientific communities that HIV causes AIDS. A few people, including at least one prominent researcher, dispute this, but it would violate restrictions on undue weight to mention that in the context of this article. In any event, there is a citation to The New York Times that supports what you call the "claim". Rivertorch (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A broad consensus exists in the medical and relevant scientific communities that HIV causes AIDS. Lack of discussion is one symptom of consensus, but it can equally be a symptom of other, less flattering circumstances such as peer pressure, fear of authority, fear of losing one's job and even lack of true scientific interest. True consensus is always preceded by a lively discussion exchange, something that has been averted by all means possible in the case of HIV/AIDS, including refusal of "HIV discoverers" to engage and censoring of papers written by critic virologists. --145.64.134.242 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this is not the place to engage in general discussion about medical theories, fringe or otherwise. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The section on Priority & the 2008 Nobel is too biased. "priority has been controverial.." may be true, but there is NO serious controversy that the French "discovered HIV". Gallo himself says so. Also, the claim is made that Gallo's group "demonstrated that the virus causes AIDS". I have three quibbles with this: 1. Why is what his "group" did relevant to an article on him? 2. In writing about priority, the date of this demonstration needs be cited. 3. Montagnier himself writes:"In the spring of 1984, Gallo published more convincing evidence that HIV causes AIDS.." but his (Montagnier) team had published much evidence previously, which he admits was not fully accepted as conclusive by many of his scientific peers. In fact, it is indisputable that the virus first isolated was from a gay (high-risk) male with lymphadenopathy which IS a symptom of HIV infection and is known to precede AIDS. That is Montagneir got it right, but his evidence was too weak to be called definitive. The Gallo group's work in 1983 was grossly contaminated, and of questioable value. Gallo's contributions to the science of retroviruses is indisputable. His group was accused of scientific misconduct, a report finding scientific misconduct was issued, and was later withdrawn. In these two matters I would say A. His group was "the first to conclusively demonstrate" (or 'robustly'?) and B. Accusations of scientific misconduct in his laboratories was investigated and ultimately not found to be valid. (for this last, I'm a little hazy on what the findings actually did say...withdrawal of a finding of misconduct is NOT the same (not necessarily) as a finding of no scientific misconduct. It would be nice if someone could find out what actually ultimately resulted. According to the NYT we have the following:

"The [Federal Office of Research Integrity] report said Dr. Gallo intentionally misled scientific colleagues by saying he had grown an AIDS virus in his laboratory for study and he had not grown or studied a similar French strain of the virus. In fact, Dr. Gallo himself had grown the French virus and used it in furthering his own research, the report said." "After three years of investigations, the Federal Office of Research Integrity today found that Dr. Robert C. Gallo, the American co-discoverer of the cause of AIDS, had committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS." "The new report said Dr. Gallo had intentionally misled colleagues to gain credit for himself and diminish credit due to his French competitors. The report also said that his false statement had "impeded potential AIDS research progress" by diverting scientists from potentially fruitful work with the French researchers." And: "In addition, the report found that Dr. Gallo warranted censure on these four other counts: Referring to his role as a referee for a different article submitted to a journal by his French competitors, in which he altered several lines to favor his own hypothesis about the AIDS virus, the report said the revisions were "gratuitous, self-serving and improper." As to the many errors in the 1984 paper, which was co-authored with Dr. Popovic, the report concluded, "In light of his role as senior author, Dr. Gallo must bear substantial responsibility for the numerous discrepancies, including four instances of scientific misconduct attributed to Dr. Popovic." On the standards of Dr. Gallo's laboratory record-keeping, the report said, "Especially in the light of the ground-breaking nature of this research and its profound public health implications, O.R.I. believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to trace the important steps taken." Dr. Gallo, the report said, also failed to determine in a timely way the exact origin of some of the crucial cells in which he grew the finicky virus. Like the viruses themselves, the cells were also found to have been borrowed from another scientist without giving him due credit in the paper. Later Dr. Gallo also refused to share the cells freely with other scientists trying to duplicate the important work, the report said." -=-=- Again, this report, as I understand it was withdrawn, but it is clear to me that NOT all of these findings are therefore not based on fact. Here's one take on the withdrawal: Chicago Tribune- After two years of perusing laboratory notebooks and interviewing Gallo and several of his assistants, NIH investigators uncovered 20 "discrepancies" between assertions in the Science article and the data on which it was based. Some of the discrepancies, several of which were first brought to light in a 1989 Tribune article on the history of the discovery of the AIDS virus, were ascribed by NIH to honest error. Some were attributed to "poor judgment" or a "lack of scientific rigor." Others were deemed deliberate falsifications, ultimately including Gallo's assertion in the Science article that the French virus "has not yet been transmitted to a permanently growing cell line for true isolation." -=-=- But based on new guidelines that require "ORI must prove deliberate intent to deceive" on the part of someone held responsible for a false statement in a research publication, that the false statement "have a material or significant effect on the research conclusions of the paper, and that there be no possibility of honest error." " No possibility of honest error??! Well, ok. If record keeping was so poor (we're talking about a GOVERNMENT LAB paid for with your and my tax dollars) then it follows that "deliberate intent with no possibility of human error" would require what? NSA surveilance audio-video? Mind reading? This seems to be a ridiculously high standard. Higher even than "beyond reasonable doubt", and we execute people using that...Anyway, it is what it is. Perhaps something should be said without getting too specific about a negative report being issued and then retracted based on its findings not being held to a sufficiently high standard? That seems to fit the bill, or does wikipedia remove any mention of guilty verdicts if its overturned on appeal? Seems like the wrong way to do history. -=-=- The NYT article goes on to state:"A panel of consultants from the National Academy of Sciences concluded last year that Gallo's failure to freely distribute the cells was "essentially immoral in view of the growing seriousness of the AIDS epidemic." I think this is important and seems to be independent of the ORI finding (or lack there-of).Abitslow (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns

Recent edits have given an accusatory tone to the piece and introduce original synthesis. The lead now reduces Gallo's indisputably central role in the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS to dubious "claims", while the investigation into allegations against Gallo's lab is presented in the ugliest light possible, based on original research. I will revert these edits shortly and invite the editor who introduced them to discuss proposed changes on the talk page per WP:BRD. While we encourage "balance" and a proper "historical" view, we need to use sources appropriately and in keeping with WP:BLP. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalmandcarryon (talk), The overriding issue with the version of Robert Gallo's wikipage prior to my edits is that it is quite one-sided in favor of Dr. Gallo, placing the majority of events in a positive light for Dr. Gallo when in fact he was found guilty of scientific misconduct (later vacated on appeal) for co-opting the French Pasteur Lab's LAV sample into his own, which led to him claiming credit for the discovery of HIV and later the HIV test, both of which were based on the French LAV sample. Notwithstanding HHS vacating the misconduct determination due to a change in the definition and application, this misappropriation was proven in later years when the French successfully obtained additional royalties from the HIV test following two genetic determinations (Pasteur and NIH) that found Gallo's HLTV-3B to be identical to the French LAV. Furthermore, the NIH analysis casts doubt to the claim that this was a result of contamination because it openly questioned whether Gallo's HLTV-3B ever existed at all. As a result, the wikipage should document Gallo's "controversial" role in the identification of HIV and the subsequent HIV test. The wikipage, as it stands now without my edits, does not even mention that he was found guilty of scientific misconduct (only says "cleared of all wrongdoing"), his misappropriation of the French LAV sample for both the initial HIV discovery and the later HIV test, or Gallo's other tactics that were documented in the HHS rebuke of his methods during this period. --Gtagg (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort by Gallo's fans to continue to include the word "discovery of HIV" in any statement that Gallo's group published good, strong evidence that the French discovered HIV virus caused AIDS. It is quite an exaggeration to claim this is a discovery, since clear (but not sufficient) evidence had been accumulating for several years that it was indeed the AIDS virus. I would like to see this reworded to disentangle his group's true contribution (which was NOT the "discovery of HIV"). You shouldn't have to carefully parse each word in a Wikipedia sentence like a lawyer's mumbo-jumbo, imho. Don't get me wrong, they did a lot of good work (and some bad work), but using misleading phrases is a bit beneath where I'd hope wikipedia can be.Abitslow (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I appreciate your concerns but these phrases (see below) are either off topic (coatrack) or unneeded detail for the lead which is supposed to be a brief summary. They could be removed or moved to the body of the article without detracting from the subject's achievements IMO.

• the infectious agent responsible for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
• two longtime scientific collaborators, Robert R. Redfield and William A. Blattner
• which develops and commercializes technologies to reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by human viral diseases, including HIV
• Gallo states that his choice of profession was influenced by the early death of his sister from leukemia, a disease to which he initially dedicated much of his research.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Keithbob for these good suggestions. I have edited the lead in response to the first three points. I'm unsure how to handle the last one but agree that it could be moved into the body of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved some things around without changing any content (except section headings). Se what you think. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Please, add reference to key players in the discovery of chemokines as HIV inhibitors, who are not mentioned in the existing version, delete inaccurate statement ("halt the progression of AIDS") since no demonstration was reported, and add/modify missing/incorrect references:

Original text: In 1995, Gallo published his discovery that chemokines, a class of naturally occurring compounds, can block HIV and halt the progression of AIDS. This was heralded by Science magazine as one of the top scientific breakthroughs within the same year of his publication.[17]

Proposed revision: In 1995, Gallo with his colleagues Paolo Lusso and Fiorenza Cocchi published their discovery that chemokines, a class of naturally occurring compounds, are potent and specific HIV inhibitors. This discovery was heralded by Science magazine as one of the top scientific breakthroughs-of-the-year.[] PLwiki 19:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Please correct name of Dr. Salahuddin and correct erroneous reference:

Original text: In 1986, Gallo, Dharam Ablashi, and Saira Salahuddin discovered Human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6),[16] later found to cause Roseola, an infantile disease.

Proposed revision: In 1986, Gallo, Dharam Ablashi, and Syed Zaki Salahuddin discovered human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6),[] later found to cause Roseola infantum, an infantile disease. PLwiki 20:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

The link for the first citation is currently defunct - please change it to a wayback machine link to the 2015 site*, or find another source with the same information.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20150707151929/https://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/innovators/bio_gallo.html Limnanthes (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 14:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

2601:14D:8701:5880:7DE1:4AC1:CC00:E1C3 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Luc Montagnier discovered the AIDS virus NOT Gallo

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Robert Gallo had no role in the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as the infectious agent responsible for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The two French French virologists Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier discovered this and sent their findings to Gallo who took their results and claimed them as his own. When he finally met with the French virologists, they agreed to share credit because Gallo was a better-known virologist. But the two French virologists won the Nobel prize. Gallo was not included since he stole their research. He DID, however, develop the HIV blood test. So I’m suggesting that you please remove part of the second sentence in the first paragraph that gives him credit for discovering HIV.

It looks like you have the correct information in the body of the document so I don’t think anything else needs to be changed. Thank you very much. Dreemsnake (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

In December of 1992, after three years of investigation, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found Robert C. Gallo committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS. 66.41.212.46 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)