March 19, 2004

• The misnaming of Dr Tom Butler is another scandal waiting to be addressed.
• There are strong similarities to the Martha Stewart case.
• All we need now is someone to call him Dr. Harry Butler; then we'll have the full set. Ba-da-bing! *presses bladder* Buuut...seriously. This is really screwy. They're convicting him of not filling out his Fedex form correctly and doing consulting work? Good grief. What is more unbelievable is that the jury actually found him guilty! Losing bacteria specimens != Terrorism
• You know Harry Butler? Cripes! How about this Dr Richard Butler, currently Governor of Tasmania?
• This entire case and it's outcome is so egregious that it makes one physically ill.
• What was Tom Butler found "guilty" of? Only 3 of the original "serious" 15 federal charges - and all 3 of these "crimes" relate to mailing a single package via FedEx from Lubbock to Tanzania. This particular package contained samples of bacteria that had originally been collected in Tanzania, and Butler's colleagues there wanted the samples back for further research. He was found guilty of 1) not disclosing a detailed description of the contents of this package (as I recall from the court proceedings, he checked the box for "laboratory materials" on the FedEx mailing form, rather than "commercial merchandise" as was supposedly required), 2) not attaching a hazardous materials warning, and 3) not obtaining a Department of Commerce permit for the package. Those are the three counts he was convicted of. By the way, the FedEx package arrived safely without incident in Tanzania. He does not sound like a dangerous criminal. He's an individual who you would expect to deal with such packages. This is one of the reasons why I believe jail time for people like this and others like Martha Stewart, is crazy because they are not violent criminals. If you are going to make them understand their actions you are going to want to give them some kind of community service - maybe there are non profit corparations governments can set up to make these people use their skills to help others. The overfull prisons the US has should be an indication that they are solving the wrong problems. Maybe he did save time by checking the wrong box and not attaching a label, but two years in prison for safely contained materials? He should have some kind of reflection and understanding, but two years is a long time to be away from home.
• Actually I meant to refer to the governor in tazmania. Please disregard this physician whoever he is.
• I agree with you, niccolo. It is incredible to me that large amounts of time continue to be wasted on cases (or non-cases, really) like this. It's as if basic logic no longer exists that a reasonable decision could not have been made, in light of the facts, before this went so far.
• Are you guys reading the same articles as I am? This guy Fedexed the Black Plague to Tanzania, while engaging in what was apparently some fairly creative expense reporting. Now, it doesn't look like he committed ALL the crimes that the prosecution in this case charged him with (who does?) but I use Fedex all the time, and I'm pretty sure that the fecking Plague is on their list of Shit You're Definitely Not Supposed To Fedex. I doubt this guy is *physically* dangerous, but I don't see a railroad here, either.
• Further reading... OK, most of the crimes here are fraud and accounting related, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for the FBI to get involved when the origianl object at hand (or NOT at hand, in this case) was 30 vials of plague and a lot of divergent story-telling.
• I think you are the one who is not reading the facts of the case properly. See the write-up on the case from another Texas Tech scientist if you haven't already. While this may seem unusual to those not familiar with microbial research, this is exactly how materials are normally handled every day. Samples are shipped and ordered with standard courier services, by mail, or carried in person during normal travel from place to place. It has worked this way for decades without any serious problems. It has certainly proven less dangerous than tanker trucks full of gasoline driving down populated highways, so keep any hysteria in check with reality. Keep in mind that the type of samples we are talking about are for diseases that are easily treated by Western medicine. Plague may sound bad, but it is fairly easily treated by modern medicine. Much more dangerous and less treatable diseases such as small pox or ebola would never be shipped this way. As far as the 'fraud', he appears to be accused of doing exactly what the University wanted him to do. Every university in North America talks about private/public partnerships now, and that's exactly what the University was requiring here. The prof, like most researchers at the university, was expected to find private funding for the majority of his studies. The private funder was also expected to be paying the salary associated with any time the prof spent on those same studies. All the paperwork involved had been approved by the university for years. Frankly, given their behaviour in this case I would suspect that every rational scientist at Texas Tech is looking into jobs elsewhere. Not only can they expect no support from the university, the school goes out of its way to lie and destroy them.
• well, I don't know about a letter of support from a fellow scientist being evidence, but OK, a closer look reveals that there are some inconsistencies. He likely signed off on the document saying he destroyed the vials in hopes that all this would go away (which means that those vials are MIA); however, handling materials of this nature sounds like it violates some federal laws (the articles are kind of unclear as to which). Because everyone's doing it has never been a valid excuse for violating the law, and though I may be a layman? Transporting potential hazardous pathogens in one's pocket seems far more frought with danger than carrying liquid gasoline in a truck. That nothing has happened so far? Luck, and the idea that those who might want some of those pathogens simply don't know that scientists routinely carry them on their person. Nevertheless, he was found non guilty of those charges, so we can proabably assume that you're right and this is SOP. The fraud charges, on the other hand, are far sketchier - basically, that his arrangements with the pharmaceutical companies for whom he was doing research essentially stole money from Texas Tech and, alter, avoided paying taxes on it. IF the paperwork involved had actually been approved by the university, I can't see what Butler couldn't have (a) subpeonaed the paperwork, or (b) subpeonaed fellow scientists who engage in similar financial arrangements to testify as to their appropriateness. I cannot find any place, however, that Butler's attorney did either (doesn't mean that he didn't. I just couldn't find it, and I'll stand corrected if someone does). In light of that, and in light of Texas Tech's willingness to see Butler prosecuted for these alleged frauds, leads me to believe that he crossed the line, as it did the jury apparently. I find it very difficult to believe, otoh, that Texas Tech would literally trump charges against a long-time, highly successful scientist on the basis of a personal grudge with a co-worker, however, as has been posited. I will concede that this smacks of piling on by the FBI, but I will also say that it looks very much that he did in fact commit those frauds. The judge is unlikely to be part of a FBI witchhunt, and the jury certainly so. And I cannot imagine that the FBI would not take VERY seriously the impetus, the missing vials. Perhaps it is now easily treatable, but the idea that the Plague had been let loose somewhere could cause a great deal of suffering totally unrelated to the medical consequences, and perhaps far in excess of them. I also cannot imagine that scientists could not conceive that hand-carrying or fedexing pathogens might violate the law, especially post-9/11. Nor do I find it probable that a long-time researcher who routinely sent various bacteria aroudn the world would make a mistake of this magnitude on a fedex label. Like I say, it could be that he's being scapegoated, but there's definitely some fire here amid all the smoke.
• I suspect I am not going to change your mind at this point, but I would like some points of circumstance to be clear. Butler's violation of the law in regards to the microbes amounted to checking off what was supposedly the wrong box on a form, and even that is apparently open to bureaucratic debate. Further, while it may cause some cognitive dissonance, the truth is that much more dangerous substances than microbial samples are shipped every day with no greater precautions. Certainly the entire system depends on a certain amount of luck, but modern society would cease to function otherwise. Everyone just has to deal with it, even though thinking about the specifics might make people uncomfortable at times. The balance to taking these types of statistically minor risks is expecting people to do the right thing when necessary, as Dr. Butler did in reporting his possibly missing vials. Unfortunately Dr. Butler has learned a terrible lesson about human nature, which has a well documented tendency to blame the messenger. It is an unfortunate cliche that reporting a potential danger can often be most dangerous to the reporter. Anyone involved in a bureaucratic organization has heard the advice to sweep unusual mistakes under the rug. In this case, Texas Tech backed themselves into a corner by publicly bringing the case to the FBI. When evidence of wrongdoing proved negligable at best, Texas Tech was unwilling to risk the embarassment of a mea culpa. As far as the 'fraud', the paperwork involved WAS submitted as evidence, along with the attached approvals from the university, and testimony from Texas Tech affirming those approvals. Some Texas Tech officials denied knowledge of the contracts or Dr. Butler until confronted with the evidence of their own approvals of these arrangements. There might certainly be additional damning evidence that I'm unaware of, but it appears the jury ruled on the same logic you are employing. Why would Texas Tech go out of their way to scape goat an innocent scientist? As far as the judge being some part of the witchhunt, I think the sentencing report shows the opposite. The report is a litany of everything that was wrong with the case against Butler, all of which the judge used as justification in reducing the resultant sentence well below the sentencing guidelines. In the current U.S. climate of zealous judicial oversight and mandatory sentencing, I would suspect the judge felt that was all he could do.
• Nal: First, I appreciate your taking the time on this. Second, I concede each point until: As far as the 'fraud', the paperwork involved WAS submitted as evidence, along with the attached approvals from the university, and testimony from Texas Tech affirming those approvals. Some Texas Tech officials denied knowledge of the contracts or Dr. Butler until confronted with the evidence of their own approvals of these arrangements. If this is indeed the case, then as a prospective armchair jury member this would seem to *immediately* resolve those particular charges, wouldn't it? If the charge is that he conducted his business relations with the pharmcos in such a way as to effectively steal money, but his defense attorney could demonstrate that the conduct of his business was not only appropriate but approved, I can't see how a jury could reasonably convict on that, especially after being instructed on the law by a ostensibly sympathetic judge, even if Texas Tech was attempting to scapegoat him. Knowing what I do of human nature (which tends to favor the underdog against large organizations), I would suspect that, if presented with this apparent chicanery on TT's part, the jury would be very much predisposed toward Dr. Butler. Nevertheless, upon reading the sentencing transcript, and while I agreee with your assessment of the judge's sympathies, it seems odd that the majority of it is devoted to the export of y. pestis, and only tertiarily to the question of fraud; there are only two paragraphs that address it - in the first the judge observes that if Butler had not been employed at Texas Tech, they would have received nothing from the pharmcos at all, and the second, lauding Butler's substantial contributions to the welfare of mankind via his work. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of scapegoating, which the judge certainly, given his defense of Butler throughout the sentencing hearing, might easily have made. In light of that, I would have to suspect that Butler did indeed commit those particular crimes, and the judge, in light of Butler's contributions and obvious lack of malevolence AND cavalier treatment at the hands of the FBI, tried to lower the penalty as much as he was able.
• I believe you have more optimistic expectations of our fellow human beings than myself. With all sincerity, because I would honestly prefer to be wrong, I hope your assessment is correct should either of us ever find ourselves in similar circumstance.
• Look, it should be a crime to put infectious pathogens through the commercial mail without a biohazard label. What if they treated the package just like regular packages, and it got crushed or mangled? Then it would be a health hazard. This particular charge (#2) is pretty damn serious and yeah, he should be punished as an example for being so callous with other peoples' health. Whether that punishment is 2 years in prison, I'll defer to the lynch mob on that.
• Dirt straight from the ground is highly infectious. Certainly more dangerous than these samples, believe me. Should I put a biohazard label on the box if I mail some dirt? A biohazard label might well be a nice idea, but it still amounts to dotting the i's in a case like this. Just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's actually a dangerous crime. Even the jury agreed. They only convicted him on paperwork crimes.
• The scientific community is still reeling. "Rather than demonstrating the importance of strict care in the handling of research materials," wrote the Nobel prizewinners, "the determination to convict Dr Butler and put him in jail sends a strong message to the scientific community. It says: this 62-year-old man, who voluntarily reported missing material and cooperated with federal investigators, is now being repaid with a ruined career and a personal cost from which he and his family will never recover." It also says that the next time a scientist misplaces 30 vials of a dangerous pathogen, they're hardly likely to call the FBI. It says that the biggest casualty in the Tom Butler case might be goodwill between the administration and the bio-weapons community, just when it needs it most.