I am not here concerned with intent, but with scientific standards, especially the ability to tell the difference between a fact, an opinion, a hypothesis, and a hole in the ground.

I object to a legal approach when settling questions of science or scientific behavior.

Of course, there are diseases of which people die.

Originally, in the early eighties, the drug hypothesis was among the first which occurred to scientists.

To address questions of scientific responsibility does not necessarily imply that one needs technical competence in a particular field (e.g. biology) to evaluate certain technical matters.

What standards are upheld by the scientific community affect the community internally, and also affect its relations with society at large, including Congress.

Questions have also arisen about AIDS being transmitted to hemophiliacs via blood transfusions.