Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 21 August 2008 | 454, 1039 (2008) | doi:10.1038/4541039a
News
Too close for comfort
Nancy Haigwood, director of the Oregon National Primate Research Center, describes her encounters with anthrax suspect Bruce Ivins.
In early 2002, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) asked the American Society for Microbiology to canvas its 43,000 members for information about the 2001 anthrax mail attacks that killed five people. Nancy Haigwood, now director of the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Hillsboro, suggested that agents should investigate microbiologist Bruce Ivins, who had been harassing her for more than 20 years.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This article is odd. The points Haigwood makes regarding Bruce Ivins are FBI talking points that were put in circulation the first week in August but which have since been disproven. Ivins did not stand to gain financially; he did not cover up a spill but reported it to his Ethics officer; there is no KKG house in Princeton, only a storage facility; there is no evidence he tried to mislead the FBI with his sample and the FBI admitted as much in their last briefing to a Congressional group last Friday. In addition, what is always left out of this particular story is that Nancy Haigwood's center depends upon about $30 million in yearly federal funding.
I find this comment to be equally odd. If your job is in danger then you do stand to gain financially by securing it. Even if the KKG facility was a storage facility, it still relates to that sorority, and may have been safer for Ivans than doing the mailing in the middle of a busy college campus. Finally, I do not see how Ms. Haywood's center getting federal funding in any way discredits her. Even so, I echo Ms. Haywood’s call for letting people see as many of the cards as possible in this case. The case against Ivans is very interesting and somewhat compelling, but there are also some interesting gaps in it, such as the lack of so much as a credit card transaction placing Ivans either in Princeton on the days of the anthrax mailings or even gassing up on the road in between Fredrick, MD and Princeton.
There is no evidence that Ivins' job was in any danger whatsoever. The funding for one project might have been at some issue but he had other projects, including a new vaccine, that he was interested in moving forward. This was one of the first talking points the FBI put out. There are KKG locations all over the country. So, conceivably, there are many locations you could "connect" with that sorority just as the FBI was able to"connect" the Greenwood School with both Hatfill and Ivins. My point is, working journalists have gone over this material and found those talking points to be unfounded or questionable, at best, since they were first put out at the very beginning of the month by the FBI. And here they are, still being repeated. That is fairly odd. As far as the FBI case being compelling, they've yet to show motive, means or opportunity although they have done a good job of spreading conjecture as fact. I don't believe Haigwood's funding discredits her. On the other hand, her dependence on the Federal government for the bulk of her funding is a fact relevant to this case and should be disclosed in my opinion.
With all due respect to Ms. Haigwood... this article is very odd in a few respects. First, a dead man is being accused (when he can't defend himself) of a theft of a book in a locker in 1979. This has no basis in fact. Second, a dead man is being accused of defacing property in 1982. This also has no basis in established fact. Third, a broad generalization that Bruce Ivins had something to do with mailing anthrax is implied by the comment that he'd sent an e-mail to someone he'd been corresponding with, that contained a picture of him working in his lab to help the FBI discover who mailed the anthrax. Surely none of this is relevant to the case that is now being prosecuted in the press! As for Ms. Haigwood stating that the genetic evidence is the strongest... I wonder if she knows that the evidence points to a flask and not a person? There were at least 100 people at multiple facilities who had access to the strain of anthrax used in the letters. We do not know why Dr. Ivins became the sole suspect and the other 100+ were eliminated from any suspicion. We also do not know why the FBI is so sure this crime was perpetrated by a single individual. We also do not know how exactly Dr. Ivins "harassed" Ms. Haigwood. Sending e-mails? What exactly did Ms. Haigwood do to tell Dr. Ivins to leave her alone? Why would Dr. Ivins have kept in touch over 30 years unless the relationship with Ms. Haigwood went deeper than "maybe one lunch with him and his wife..."
I for one will give the FBI the benefit of the doubt here. It is difficult to get into someone's mind, but the FBI has had plenty of experience with this kind of thing. However, that is not to say that the questions being raised are not good ones. In fact, if I was a juror at Ivans' (now never-to-be) trial, I would be refuse to convict him based on the evidence presented so far. OTOH, Ms. Haywood's experience fits well with other anecdotal stories about Mr. Ivans in the press. I will say that the anthrax attacks had the feel of being the work of one person: It had a personality all its own and lacked the overall sophistication that comes from a group of people pooling thier knowledge. The real mystery to me has not been why the attacks started (which was obviously to scare people), but instead why they stopped. Usually someone like that keeps it up until they have gone to the well one too many times, and then gets caught. Maybe the attention that Ivans' coworker Mr. Hatfill got scared Ivans enough to prevent a third attack, but OTOH this is just my own trying to get into Mr. Ivans mind.
Nancy Haigwood's mostly unprovable, irrelevant, illogical, and disjointed ramblings only prove that she and Ivans did not seem to like each other, for whatever justified or unjustified reasons. While it might be socially acceptable to some, and even incriminating to others, to presume that if someone exhibits behaviors or views outside the acceptable norms, that their character is tainted in all aspects of their life, there is little to support this presumption. It is mearly a socially convenient tool of lazy minds - the "if he is mean or nasty at one thing he must be criminal in all ways" just is nonsense. History has shown us a great number of examples of men and women who are unpleasant characters, even with behaviors or attitudes way outside the norm for the times, who were honorable and otherwise folks of good character. Is there reason to suspect Ivan's was a little "tilted" in his attitudes to women and even some women's organizations - yup, I think we have enough to say that is probably true. Does this mean he violated his professional integrity, civilized morality, and the law to send anthrax, nooo - at least so far, all we have publically stated is that he had access and might not have been forthcoming on some issues or facts. This whole thing stinks like a great setup - everyone pointing fingers, making accusations that are vague and irrelevant to paint his character and behavioral history as "suspect" and no firm and specific proof of anything. Innuendo and dislike and opportunity do not make guilt. If so, we would need to start arresting everyone we might not agree with for speeding - after all, we find their attitudes suspect, they have a car, gas, had opportunity, and would benefit from getting to a destination faster - ergo they had motive, opportunity, and the tools needed for the crime - so lets go arrest them and convict them of speeding ... Sorry - this lack of discipline intellectually - or rather the replacement of intellectual discipline and proof with goofy statements of opportunity and character assignation ... just don't wash as ... rational. Everyone from Nancy Haigwood to the FBI ought to be ashamed of themselves. The least they owe us as citizens is to at least put together a better cover-up. So in the end it comes down to - either our govt is incompetent at a cover-up, or so sloppy in reasoning it is an embarrassment for the entire nation - or just plan dumb and lying ... Is there ANY reason that the facts on this can not be brought forward to the public openly? Vague statements of "national security" just dont wash. If their clearance procedures and security reviews are so bad that Ivans was allowed to continue to work if he was a real risk ... then we need to air that out publically ... Our favorite theory here is that no matter if he was a tad depressed or hated women or whatever ... that he was loyal and honorable to the point that he would comply with orders, he beleived came from an executive source - even if they were distasteful. Sounds to me like he was used and discarded - whether by our side and guys, or by others running some false flag game that got him to be the judas goat for their needs, who knows. Till someone talks, something that seems unlikely given the example of Ivans death (would you talk if you knew the last guy died?). Oh, and don't forget Hatfill ... one career destroyed and another terminated ... even if someone knew - what actually happened ... if they were rational at all, they would get a very short memory. Could he have done what he was accused of, sure, did he? With what has been presented so far, seems weak indeed ... Odds of anyone every knowing what really happened? Damn near zero.
The cause of death here is reported as "acetaminophen poisoning". This raises certain issues. Was this really a suicide or just an accidental poisoning? The addition of acetaminophen to an opiate lowers the controlled substance classification from C-II (requiring triplicate forms, etc.) to CIII. The rationale is that the toxicity of actaminophen prevents dose escalation as tolerance sets in. Acetaminophen toxicity generally takes a while to kill you. First, your liver has to fail. Then you have to die of liver failure. This means you die over days to weeks, not overnight. Dying miserably over time is a very poor way to commit suicide. Surely someone as technically-trained as Dr. Ivins would have picked a better way. Similarly, the signs and symptoms of liver failure are pretty apparent, at least terminally. What was Dr. Ivin's clinical history? I would love to get a copy of the autopsy report.
Edward Schaefer wrote: "OTOH, Ms. Haywood's experience fits well with other anecdotal stories about Mr. Ivans in the press." Precisely. And as my original post points out, those anecdotes turn out to be untrue or to be distortions. The reason this story fits well is because it comes, as do the others, from sources handled by the FBI and disseminated by our supine media. His "therapist" who made all kinds of claim about him turns out not to be a psychologist or even a social worker but a troubled person with a criminal record and handled by the FBI. If you read Ivins' email or letters that the FBI refers to as evidence, it turns out he wasn't angry with the government, wasn't a rabid anti-choice Catholic or inordinately worried about being defunded. If you read the accounts of his co-workers and neighbors and former colleagues, the FBI "loner" fiction falls apart entirely. The tropes turn out to be tropes, not truth. To simply accept this story uncritically is an error, in my opinion.
I agree that scientific community need to see all the data, but before printing such slopy articles.
As an outside observer, it appears to me that Nancy Haigwood is exaggerating her claim that Bruce Ivins stalked her. We have no evidence that Haigwood tried to break off the "regular updates" she was receiving from Ivins. We have no proof that Ivins stole anything from her or vandalized anything near where she lived. Given what we know of Ivins from family and friends, it is likely that he assumed Haigwood was a friend. As it turns out, Haigwood was turning over every e-mail she got from Ivins to the FBI for at least 6 years, at the FBI's urging. Ms. Haigwood, with all due respect, if you really thought Ivins was "stalking" you, what did you ever do to discourage his behavior? Did you ever ask him to stop corresponding with you? Did he ever follow you down a street? Did he ever stand outside your residence, waiting for you to emerge? Did he ever verbally or physically threaten you in any way?
It is hard to say that this article touched upon nothing about science, but it really seems to be an article on politics, or maybe military and national defense. In short,I think it has been a mistake to upload this article.
This is just wrong to discuss in a scientific journal. It is nothing more or less than distributing propaganda for the FBI investigators and has nothing to do with current scientific understanding.
Ms Ferrari is making allegations about the therapist that I have not seen before, and which makes me wonder what her bias is and why. I have noticed that the defenders of Mr. Ivans are amazingly vocal, but that proves nothing. However, Ms. Ferrari is quite correct in that accepting this story uncritically is a mistake. While IMO the pieces seem to fit, overall this whole business is very, very strange.
Edward Schaefer: I first became interested in this story because Ms. Duley's language at her public hearing sounded like no clinician I'd ever heard -- and certainly not a clinician at a public hearing. Her statements were very extreme and in using language that sounded like a diagnosis but that is not found in the standard diagnostic manual. So, I started digging around and found out the the actual situation was not what was being presented here in our media by outlets such as The Associated Press. You could say my first bias is against misinformation. It turns out that this young lady has a four year degree with a major in social work but is not a licensed clinical social worker. She has a certificate to do drug counseling but no degree in psychology. And unfortunately, she's had several DUIs in the last few years (found that by searching public records), the last one this summer. So, this lady that was sold in the media as a drug counselor had no sobriety to speak of herself as these events unfolded. And, far from being critical of her as an individual, it occurs to me that this drama cannot have been good for someone struggling with some kind of drug habit as she was. She no longer is employed at the clinic where she saw Bruce Ivins. Glenn Greenwald at Salon found the same information independently as did Larissa Alexandrova at RawStory. Here's a link to one of Larissa's articles: http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/jean-c-duley-te.html I didn't start out to defend Bruce Ivins but to understand in what context Jean Duley's testimony made sense. What emerged the more I worked the puzzle was that it didn't, really. And the charges she made against Dr. Ivins under the eye of her FBI contacts were wildly exaggerated and unconfirmed as well. But, that didn't stop them from being broadcast everywhere like slanderous spam. So, that's my deal. :-)
One last niggle. The FBI allowed Haigwood to read their case files? Doesn't that impeach her as a witness? "Haigwood said FBI agents were "very ethical and above board." And reading their case files convinced her they have the right suspect. "The evidence was compelling," she said." All the witnesses for the FBI say the evidence is compelling. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1218165908122730.xml&coll=7
Unfortunately, Nancy Haigwoods certainty comes with little if any hard proof. It should be noted that Steven Hatfill was pursued by the FBI and his response was to defend his innocence and get a substantial settlement from the government. This seems much more stable and rational than killing yourself with over the counter drugs as a response to FBI suspicion. Can someone unstable enough to commit suicide mail out anthrax or fly planes into buildings for that matter? We may never know.
EF: "She has a certificate to do drug counseling but no degree in psychology. And unfortunately, she's had several DUIs in the last few years (found that by searching public records), the last one this summer. So, this lady that was sold in the media as a drug counselor had no sobriety to speak of herself as these events unfolded" As an aside I know of a marriage councillor who is in her third abusive relationship. The curtains don't always match the carpet, as it were. However, I have to say that although I enjoy the (ir)regular frontmatter of Nature, and the debates that can ensue, this piece doesn't deserve publication. I'm genuinly puzzled as to why this "news" item is even here. Is a Q&A gossip column going to be a new feature in Nature?
I think we need to blame neocons,Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Guantanamo, and Haliburton for this. It works for everything else
I can't believe such a speculative and biassed article can be printed in nature, laced with nothing but circumstance and unproven accusations. Only in the last 2 weeks, a nature editorial called for provable facts to be presented at a real official enquiry in this case. Why is nature now publishing this drivel?
Why are we trying Ivins in scientific journals. He was never proven guilty and the FBI has not taken his case to the courts for fair judgment despite his act. We do not have the right to condemn him. It is entirely possible that he was not working alone or that he was not responsible. But here we are passing judgment on him. I too find this article odd. The fact that Nature stands also to gain by augmenting the controversy is an interesting aside. It is not morally correct to promote such a culture of fear. The U.S. was founded on principles that included the sentiment that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, NOT IN THE PRESS. Look to your T.V. for entertainment and hope that scientific journals provide us with advances in science, not speculation and controversy.
What a bizarre article. I, for one, think that Nature has really missed the mark here. More science, less wild gossip.
Phillip Bentley wrote: "I can't believe such a speculative and biassed article can be printed in nature..." -- I guess you don't read Nature News much. It's a tabloid.