AN EXAMPLE OF SCIENTIFIC MISINFORMATION
Etienne Baulieu and RU 486

Even those who are not very interested in new scientific developments have heard about two recent events which were widely covered by the media.

The first one concerns a research director at the French "Institute of Medical Studies and Research" (INSERM), Mr Benveniste. He stated that water has a memory and claimed that he had proved it through experiments. The journal "Nature", an international reference review, initially published this "discovery" and then, fearing the fraud, had the experiments repeated by his own experts -- the result was negative. Whether this was a mistake or a deliberate fraud, the conclusion was to nullify the "discovery". The reputation of French scientists did not gain through this affair. The uproar and scorn manifested in the international scientific community brought discredit, as has been noted by many researchers in professional conferences and congresses. As for Mr Benveniste, he almost lost his job at INSERM and was only reinstated thanks to the benevolence of his Director, Mr Lazar.

The second event is the "stolen invention", stolen from Dominique Stehelin, Research Director at the C.N.R.S. (Scientific Research National Center) and professor at the Pasteur Institute in Lille. Stehelin, well-known in the international scientific circles, complained bitterly at being passed over for the Nobel Prize of Medicine in 1989, which was awarded on October 9, exclusively to two American doctors (Bishop and Varnus) for the discovery of the cellular origin of retroviral oncogens; in fact nobody denies his contribution to this discovery. Mr Curien, the French Research Minister at that time, recognized the injustice and gave his support to Dominique Stehelin who has recently requested reconsideration by the Nobel Prize Committee, this being an "exceptional situation" as reported in the newspaper "Le Monde" (Nov. 12-13, 1989).

Is this a case of misinformation? Mr Stehelin considers this to be the case as he writes in his claim to the Nobel Prize Committee: "I ask the Nobel Prize Committee to find a way of respecting the history of this discovery, a history which is now being rewritten due to the intervention of the Committee. I request that this tort be rectified, tort against me personally and against the aims of the Nobel Prize Committee through this deformation of an objective reality".

Practically at the same time, on September 27, 1989, another prize was awarded in New York, the Lasker Award for Medicine, the most prestigious after the Nobel Prize. The beneficiary in clinical medicine was Etienne Baulieu and the media attributed to him this distinction because of RU 486. This however is a clear case of misinformation.

RU 486 (Roussel-Uclaf, molecule # 486) was patented on June 11, 1982, by Teutsch, Philibert, Torelli and Durat. The patent was extended to Europe the following year and a new patent -- including prostaglandins -- was granted on November 22, 1984. None of these patents mention the name Baulieu.

Both the medical and ordinary press claim this "truth", that Baulieu received the Lasker prize on account of RU 486. Nobody made any objection and the true inventors did not say that they had discovered and patented this molecule, not Baulieu.

Here we are not addressing the moral aspects of abortion -- because this is what RU 486 represents -- but we are presenting facts recognized by scientists and knowledgeable observers.

Ever since the "RU 486 affair", dating back to October/November 1988, after the suspension and then resumption of production, so-called specialized journalists, acting more as PR men -- or lobbyists -- than real scientific journalists, have assured the world that Baulieu has made an original discovery.
The prescription of RU 486 -- 1984 patent -- indicates an association with prostaglandins. The inventor of this use of prostaglandins is professor Marc Bidgeman of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. He has been completely ignored, not only for the Lasker Prize but also in all the information published about the RU 486. Neither does anyone mention that in Sweden prostaglandins are no longer used for abortions since the 60's, for technical rather than ethical reasons.

Why all this?
RU 486 is a molecule based on an "anti-glucocorticoïd" activity which has therapeutic usefulness in treating patients suffering from Curshing's disease, characterized by an overproduction of glucocorticoïds. This aspect did not interest Baulieu, since he is not the inventor of this molecule with an exclusive therapeutic use. His interest was aroused only when its anti-progesteron properties were discovered. Progesteron is a vital hormone necessary for an ongoing pregnancy and it was discovered almost accidentally that RU 486 temporarily stops its production. This was not an extraordinary discovery -- Roussel already has RU 23 which can be used for the same end-result.

In addition, RU 486 on its own is effective only in at best 70 % of the cases. What has not been communicated is that the Swiss experimented for several years RU 486 in Geneva. They abandoned this research on account of high teratogenic risks and of risks of cancer of the liver, even though experiments have now been started again in Lausanne(1). Also, the association of RU 486 with prostaglandins is technically suspect because it is not clear how you can compensate for the insufficient activity in one molecule with that of another molecule with similar properties.
In spite of all this, Baulieu won the prize; the prize was not for anything else, and, to be sure, Baulieu is renown for taking credit for other people's discoveries and not at all for his own ones.
The discovery of the progesteron receptor, made by Frenchmen, one of whom was Chambon, would be exemplar, but not the only determinant factor: Baulieu is known for his skill to become the "first" to exploit in France discoveries made elsewhere, particularly in the United States, where he has several "friendships".

Why? Why are we faced with this scheme to promote a man who is nothing but the commercial agent of a product he has not invented, even if he lends his name to the cause in order to recruit department heads to do experiments? The aim is to give Baulieu a certain authority in scientific circles so that he becomes "taboo", protected by the distinction of the Lasker Award which is the antechamber of the Nobel Prize...

Because in this affair Baulieu does not behave as a scientist but as an ideologist, as the promoter of RU 486, that he did not invent, his interest only due to the abortive properties of that drug.

Who is Baulieu? He comes from a medical dynasty -- his father professor Blum taught at the Medical Faculty in Strasbourg and his sister, Miss Blum, is also a doctor and a researcher in a Paris hospital. He himself is a professor in the Medical Faculty of the Kremlin-Bicêtre hospital in Paris and he is the Director of the Unit 33 in the INSERM, labeled "Hormonal Communications". Extremely ambitious, he dreams of making a name in science, just as Pincus, whom he admires greatly, did in the area of contraception. For about 20 years Baulieu has been a paid and privileged consultant to the Roussel Laboratories. He has strong connections with Mr Sakiz, the present Chief Executive, a former colleague of R. Guillemin(2) in R. Courrier's laboratory at the "Collège de France". In fact it is through Sakiz that Baulieu obtained the application for the marketing authorization of RU 486 by Roussel-Uclaf in 1986.

What is it about?
In his book "ANTIJUSTICE" (Published by UNI Editions, 1989), Raoul Béteille studies a remarkable phenomenon: dissonance (pp.21-22)(3). At one time they tell the truth, afterwards they say something different, even the complete opposite, but they continue doing the same thing. The words change but not the actions or the method. This consists of having created a system of conception and reproduction of life and a new word: "contragestion". "Contra" as in contraception (which hinders conception) and "gestion" in the etymological sense of the word gestation. The direct origin of "gestion" is the Latin gerere, meaning "to carry", in the sense of bearing a child. In addition "gestare" which has given us the word gestation ("state of a viviparous female, carrying her young from conception to delivery") is the frequentative form of gerere.

Baulieu does want to make RU 486 a contragestive. The presentation of RU 486 changes depending on the situation: "RU 486 will probably be taken monthly, in place of contraceptives."(4) and, already in 1982: in the field of contraceptives, RU 486 is "the only really logical option". It "will probably become the foremost method in contraception" because it is the "only one based on modern knowledge of molecular biology"(5).

Presently however, RU 486 is only used as a medical alternative to surgical abortion within the framework of the Veil-Pelletier law(6). However Baulieu has not given up the fight. "We have to adapt the drug to the law. Obviously the law is restrictive but that is regular. It is fine in that way for a few more years" -- i.e. the duration necessary for their harassment campaign to bear fruit(7).

This is Baulieu's goal -- to obtain recognition for RU 486 as a contragestive. The feature article written in Le Monde (February 10-11, 1985) presented RU 486 the way Baulieu wants it -- as a contragestive, i.e. as a drug which will replace both abortion and contraception. Women will not take it every day for 3 weeks as they do with the contraceptive pill, but at the end of their menstrual cycle. If conception has taken place the fetus would be killed and eliminated -- an abortion. If the drug is taken before a fertile sexual intercourse, it would prevent conception.

This is a real revolution, ideological and economic. It is an ideological revolution in so far as it definitively does away with the debate over abortion. This is in fact the argument used by the Health Minister of that time, Mr Claude Évin, who refused to set an inquiry commission on RU 486. To justify it, he claimed that it would reopen the abortion debate, what was out of question. Whether we are pro or against it, abortion remains the elimination of a living being. It is therefore necessary to nullify its existence to get rid of this recurring debate, to turn abortion into an acceptable way of life. This not only reduces the abortion to a commonplace occurrence but also communicates the notion that abortion is invincible and this, via the tool RU 486. Moreover, it is a relief for many doctors who are reluctant to practice abortion and will leave full responsibility with the woman to self-abort (8).
The abortion issue will disappear, in particular since in the United States it is a major problem, being the key issue in the 1988 Presidential campaign and the following elections.

It is also a huge financial operation. If it succeeds completely, if "contragestion" replaces contraception, marketing will be on an international scale as this drug will replace other pills and contraceptives. Moreover, not one country in South America legalized abortion, even Marxist countries like Guyana and Suriname. Neither is it legal in Africa, more: the Africans themselves demanded the reintroduction -- into the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child -- of the phrase: "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".

It would distort the legislation in these countries and it would violate their women, physically by having them taking an abortive drug, in their consciences, naturally respectful of life, and in their laws, forbidding and repressing abortion.

Thus, considering the importance of the stakes, we understand Baulieu's determination to obtain the Lasker Prize today and, if the scientist community does not react, the Nobel Prize tomorrow. This would be the final guarantee. Such was his determination that Roussel initially announced an "Autorisation de mise sur la marché" (A.M.M.(9) ­ Authorization to put on the market) for RU 486 on September 23, 1988, even though the A.M.M. commission was reluctant to give its approval because of the teratogenic effects and the risks of cancer. The commission could not give this authorization even though it was falsely announced on September 23, 1988. This authorization was only extorted -- "bestowed", the official text says -- on December 28, 1988 -- Holy Innocents Day!). The Roussel Laboratory was immediately notified and the same day a ministerial decree was signed "referring to the possession, distribution and administering of Mifegyne 200 mg, tablet form" (Mifegyne is the commercial brand name of RU 486).

Nobody reacted to this falsehood. Not one member of Parliament questioned the government about this abuse of authority, undertaken with Mr Évin's complicity, who, on October 28, 1988, had "ordered" Roussel-Uclaf to resume distribution of RU 486 "for the interest of public health". This, even after Hoechst, majority shareholder in Roussel, had decided to give up RU 486 on October 26, 1988.

Is not Social-Democracy -- that some want to impose in France and elsewhere -- simply a new form of capitalism represented by Mr Évin's socialism, Mr Baulieu's contragestion and Roussel-Uclaf's huge profits?

This matter is so important to the French State that the government has entrusted its agents with the protection of this affair so that it can be brought to a successful conclusion, and has given them the mission of neutralizing and eliminating -- not yet physically! -- any effective opposition.

This storyboard fits neatly into the definition of misinformation as given by Volkov: an indirect operation; words are told to influence in such a way that through a process of straight reasoning, a false conclusion is reached.

Pierre Nemo, November 1989

Notes :
1. Switzerland's Experiments: "Professor Walter Hermann, who was the first to test the RU 486, is very skeptical about its uses" (Geneva Tribune, December 4, 1987). In his interview he draws attention to the numerous failings of the RU 486: its association with prostaglandins, possible malformation of the fetus, non-termination of pregnancy despite taking RU 486, risk of hemorrhaging (up to one litre) and infection, and "diminished responsibility among the people".
2. Nobel Prize winner for Physiology and Medicine, member of the Lasker Committee and of the scientific council of Roussel-Uclaf
3. see the annex in French language only (not translated)
4. interview in the Nouvel Observateur, from September 30 to October 6, 1988
5. Nouvel Observateur, April 30, 1982
6. decree passed on December 28, 1988 and published in the Journal Officiel on January 12, 1989
7. in Explora # 1, November 1988
8. cf. Pierre NEMO in the newsletter of the organization "La Trêve de Dieu" Oct. Nov. 1989: "Physicians -- a corporation under influence"
9. The A.M.M. Commission is in France something similar to the US FDA, but restricted to compounds for human therapeutic purposes. This commission grants permissions for the drugs to be released on the pharmaceutical market.