Nonsense. He works for the FBI labs. The FBI's labs examined the spores. Beecher's entire article is about handling and examining the spores. He was doing original research. He and the FBI scientists are the main source for the article. Beecher is saying they examined the anthrax spores as part of original research and there were no additives.
Do you really expect him to cite the article he wrote as a source for the article he wrote?
The news article in Science magazine had no original research and was cited as an example of bad and misleading information.
Even Science Magazine says that the Matsumoto article is not science. Here's part of the letter I received from Don Kennedy, the editor of Science Magazine back in January of 2006:
Dear Mr. Lake:
First, your suggestion that we "retract" the Matsumoto piece is inapplicable. That was a News article; it didn't report original research, and the authors of News articles report views of the science as they have found it following investigation. This often sparks disagreements.
He went on to say that he wouldn't censor Matsumoto's views.
Some people might be dumb enough to believe that a "news article" by a reporter with "views" is more reliable than original science reported in a scientific report by an FBI scientist, but some people are dumb enough to believe almost anything -- particularly conspiracy theorists.
You wrote:
Beecher, I believe, was duped into adding this sentence by his reviewer, Meselson, who we all know has an agenda.
No, I don't think that "we all know" that Professor Meselson has some kind of "agenda" and is duping the FBI.
What is that agenda? Please tell us.
I can see that Doug Beecher may have been asked or persuaded by Professor Meselson to add the comments about the attack spores having no additives. He should be applauded for doing so. We're all complaining that the FBI isn't releasing enough information about the attack anthrax. Let's hope he persuades or "dupes" the FBI into releasing MORE information.
My discussions with people at the FBI indicates that they feel they cannot get in the middle of idiotic arguments generated by conspiracy theorists and True Believers. They know from experience that it would just generate MORE idiotic arguments from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers. It just causes the media to distribute more widely the idiotic theories from these conspiracy theorists and True Believers.
He may not be quite as extreme a left-wing radical as someone such as Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, but he definitely leans in that direction.
So, it's not much of a surprise that he would go out of his way to try and portray the anthrax attacks as being "domestic" as opposed to a foreign terrorist attack.
Because let's be totally honest here: a foreign biological terrorist attack on America would pretty much undermine everything the life work of him and those who think like him.
“I can see that Doug Beecher may have been asked or persuaded by Professor Meselson to add the comments about the attack spores having no additives. He should be applauded for doing so.”
He should not be applauded for publishing unsupported information in a peer reviewed scientific article. Editors of microbiology journals agree that is quite improper.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8449gov1.html
This is the FBI’s first public statement on the investigation since it began analyzing the material in the Leahy letter and the first time the bureau has described the anthrax powder. Beecher, however, provides no citation for the statement or any information in the article to back it up, and FBI spokeswomen have declined requests to interview him.
“The statement should have had a reference,” says L. Nicholas Ornston, editor-in-chief of the microbiology journal. “An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation,” he says.
Dr. Beecher, with whom I corresponded in getting a copy of the article to distribute, was not directly involved in the forensic examination as you suggest. If you are suggesting that his understanding is based on what he was told by a fellow FBI scientist, however, that would be correct. (And personally, regardless whether it fit the usual standard for sourcing in a peer reviewed article, I think it is the most authoritative statement we have, so long as it can be construed consistently with the AFIP finding. (Which it can).
But the article is best left to speak for itself to include the express disclaimer. Dr. Beecher was very circumspect and limited in what he said, but the article never pointed to a direct role relating to the detection of siliica etc.
In my lay opinion, the method described in the patents above are fully consistent with what Dr. Beecher wrote. One man’s “sophisticated additive” is another person’s beach sand or soap detergent or substance available at your local Home Depot or Elmer’s Glue or commercially available product used with BT (bacillus thuringiensis).
These patents were dual use and not classified. Thus, by definition, state sponsorship is not required.
And according to the expert opinion of a military microbiologist, the forensic findings are consistent with the method described in the patents.
As for Dr. Meselson, his main point has been: it’s best to wait for official results to be announced by the FBI. Whatever critique or interpretation he placed on the AFIP’s EDX in Lois Ember’s article, he’d agree that absent access to the extensive research done by the FBI, he’s not in a good position to judge.
His only agenda, it would seem, would relate to catching the anthrax perp.
Any institution associated with access to the strain or know-how, OTOH, would have an institutional motive to suppress information of such access and then take steps to avoid any future access to such technical knowledge, such as the elimination of such programs, restrictions on the right of students to consult with Ken etc. so as to avoid civil liability.
The GMU Assistant General Counsel, indeed, made a special point to me that the Florida counsel had not involved GMU. Director Bailey was already in a bunker mode, referring me to counsel over the simplest question relating to confirming what the directory indicated about al-Timimi’s location.
But that Florida matter has been on appeal, I believe. If Florida counsel has any sense, he’ll take the necessary civil discovery on these issues.