lp21a Request for NIH-sponsored debate refused

The following is taken from a letter I wrote to fifty seven top National Institutes Health officials on September 18, 1986:

"...I have not taken for granted that you agree with me that a revolution has indeed been successfully achieved. But a disagreement of this kind can be easily settled by a formal debate. This debate can be arranged and held at NIH between me and one member of the Physiology Study Section, or a number of any other Study Sections, or, failing both, a champion that the Physiology Study Section may elect from the U.S. or abroad. The subject of the debate would be cell physiology, i.e., how a living cell, the basic unit of all life, works as a coherent unit. Failure to produce a scientist to debate me by the Physiology Study Section must be clearly understood beforehand to mean "no contention" and admission of defeat.

As a prelude to the formal debate, I would be glad to come to NIH (at my own expense) and present to you and other interested and concerned NIH scientist-administrators an hour-long lecture on the essence of the revolution. ..."

In responses to this request, Dr. George J. Galasso, Acting Deputy Director for Extramural Research and Training, in a letter dated October 1, 1986 stated on behalf of the then NIH Director, James Wyngaarden: "The debate you suggest has some merit but it would be more appropriate in a larger forum much as a national meeting of the Federated Societies" (For the outcome of precisely such a planned debate for the Federation Societies, see linked page lp30).

The same Dr. Galasso, writing on April 14, also on behalf of Dr. Wyngaarden in response to yet another letter I wrote on March 24, 1987, stated: " ...we will not address the merits of the two theories (the membrane-pump theory versus the Association-Induction Hypothesis)...".

It is well known or certainly should be well known to those making decision on Science like NIH directors, that all valid scientific knowledge originated as a correct theory. Therefore I was, and still am flabbergasted to learn that the NIH Director and his Deputy had no interests in finding out whether or not the taxpayers money has been spent on supporting a wrong (or right) theory--- which can lead to nowhere. What were they interested in then?