From the Past

Congress has from time to time, and unfortunately too frequently, attacked individuals based upon their gross misunderstandings. I recall the most famous case from The Scientist:

The Dingell subcommittee has focused specifically on a disputed 1986 paper published in Cell (vol. 45, pages 247-259) and coauthored by David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate. Two university reviews and an official NIH investigation of the paper agree that certain data were misinterpreted but not intentionally misrepresented. All agree that the paper is an example of scientific error, not fraud.
This important distinction is lost on Dingell. At the May hearings, Dingell stressed his interest in preventing the waste of taxpayers' money on "faked" research. He has implied that a composite autoradiograph in the paper was a "fabrication," despite the authors' explanation that composites are commonly used. Dingell's obvious bias has alarmed scientists and his own colleagues. Reps. Norman Lent (R-N.Y.) and Alex McMillan (R-N.C.) felt compelled to set the record straight. They stressed the NIH panel's conclusion that no evidence of fraud or misconduct was found. Lent also expressed misgivings about Dingell's aggressive prosecutorial style and the growing impression that Baltimore was being singled out for harassment. He cautioned against "misguided attacks and public efforts to discredit our best and brightest." But this caution fell on deaf ears. Dingell bluntly greeted Baltimore and his colleagues by saying he had concerns about their integrity. After hearing their testimony, Dingell accused the authors of not being forthright.

Prof Baltimore, a Nobel Prize winner, was in the midst of solving the issue related to stemming the AIDS epidemic. Everything came to a halt as people had to genuflect to the Congressperson. The question may be asked: How many perished due to this unfounded delay?  How many lives were scrambled as a result. Some of us remember quite well. "Have you no shame?"

From Encyclopedia.com we have the following:

After David Baltimore, Nobel laureate and coauthor of the infamous Cell paper, locked horns with Congressman Dingell while defending Imanishi-Kari, Dingell vowed, "I'm going to get that son of a bitch. I'm going to get him and string him up high." From this scientific vantage point, Dingell embarked on a witch-hunt that many later compared to the workings of McCarthy in his time. Like McCarthy, he had the power of the government at his side, and immunity as a member of Congress. This meant that Dingell could circumvent the law and access information that was personal and confidential, and completely irrelevant to the case he was "investigating." In one instance, according to Dr. Bernadine Healy, director of NIH between 1991 and 1993, Dingell's committee accessed medical information in the personnel records of an accused scientist.

This says enough.