A California judge ignored pleas for leniency from scientists and supporters of W. French Anderson, the gene therapy pioneer convicted of molesting the teenage daughter of a research colleague at the University of Southern California, and sentenced Anderson Friday (February 2) to 14 years in prison.
"This is a great loss for science. It's a very sad day for science," Mary Ann Liebert, publisher of Human Gene Therapy, a journal founded by Anderson, told The Scientist.
Lawrence Kedes, director of the USC Institute for Genetic Medicine, was among Anderson's supporters at the sentencing. Kedes, too, said Anderson's sentencing is a loss for science. "It really is a multiple tragedy for all the parties concerned."
Anderson's wife Kathryn, in an interview with The Scientist, insisted her husband is innocent. She said Anderson has received what will amount to a death sentence when other inmates learn the nature of his conviction. "This is the destruction of a genius, a very naive person," said Kathryn Anderson, who is the retired chief of surgery at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles.
Anderson, part of the team that conducted the nation's first gene therapy protocol in 1990, was convicted in July of repeatedly abusing the daughter of a colleague at USC's Keck School of Medicine. Following his conviction, Anderson resigned from USC, which had barred him from campus.
Kedes told The Scientist Anderson's 2004 arrest and conviction had been a "mild distraction" at the medical school. Most of the several dozen scientists and students working directly with Anderson have now moved on to other positions. Kedes said gene therapy research at the medical school had already quieted before Anderson's arrest, although work is underway at the affiliated Childrens Hospital Los Angeles.
The victim, now a 19-year-old college student, testified during the sentencing Friday that Anderson molested her for five years beginning when she was 9 or 10. The abuse occurred at Anderson's home where he was instructing the girl in Tae Kwon Do. The young woman said she was so distraught, she began to cut herself and contemplated suicide while she was in high school.
"I am going to have to live with this -- what he did to me -- every day for the rest of my life," she told the court.
Anderson collected letters from dozens of supportive scientific colleagues, but Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor dismissed requests that Anderson be sentenced to probation while his conviction is under appeal. Kathryn Anderson said researchers offered to take Anderson on in projects to find treatments for multiple sclerosis and diabetes as a condition of probation. She declined to provide the names of scientists who had written on his behalf.
"I wish they had seen the evidence," the judge said of Anderson's backers.
During the trial, prosecutors introduced a tape secretly recorded by the victim when she was 17. On the tape Anderson does not specifically acknowledge molesting the girl, but said, "Something inside me was evil."
Pastor said Anderson used his intellectual power to coerce the girl into sexual activity. "It was aggravated, despicable misconduct as far as I'm concerned."
The judge also ordered Anderson to pay more than $52,000 to the victim and her family to cover costs of therapy and an additional $16,000 in state restitution.
Deputy District Attorney Cathryn Brougham told The Scientist the young woman is satisfied with the sentence. Anderson faced a maximum sentence of 18 years.
Before joining the University of Southern California in 1992, Anderson spent 27 years as a researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health. While there he inserted the adenosine deaminase gene via retrovirus into the T lymphocytes of a 4-year-old girl with severe combined immunodeficiency, or SCID. More recently, Anderson has focused on gene therapy delivery systems, including virus-based vectors to transfer genes and better vectors to insert genes into hematopoietic stem cells.
To date, Anderson has published almost 400 articles and been profiled by a number of publications, including the New York Times and Scientific American.
Susan Warner
mail@the-scientist.com
Links within this article
W. French Anderson
http://www.usc.edu/programs/pibbs/site/faculty/anderson_f.htm
Human Gene Therapy
http://www.liebertpub.com/publication.aspx?pub_id=19
I Ganguli, "W French Anderson convicted," The Scientist, July 20 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23996/
A McCook, "W. French Anderson arrested," The Scientist, August 5, 2004.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22328
MK Brenner, et al. "Gene marking to determine whether autologous marrow infusion restores long-term haemopoiesis in cancer patients," The Lancet, November 6 1993.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/790474

[Comment posted 2007-04-15 18:36:07]
First of all, I respectfully ask the judge to rethink this sentence, perhaps take some lessons on emotional intelligence first. I have seen judges (from TV news) who are no different from any regular persons who are being hijacked by their emotional brains all the time. In fact, to me, judge is a title created by human species out of illusion that someone can truly represent justice. My self conscience is so great that I donᅡメt think no matter how fair of a person I strive for to be, I can never assume a position as a judge.
The same requests go to those self-claimed scientists who cannot wait to put more fire on top of Dr. Andersonᅡメs punishment and appear to enjoy seeing someone lose a life-time accumulated reputation by contribution to mankind down to the drain. More so, even ask his wife to recognize this ᅡモmonsterᅡヤ. To me whoever uses ᅡモevilᅡヤ, ᅡモmonsterᅡヤ or the like of words is no scientist. This type of person will never be a fair reviewer for the journal manuscripts, and never be a fair reviewer on the Study Sections or any grant review committees. And I have seen them in both settings.
To refrain myself from saying too much, the bottom line is: If Dr. Anderson truly committed the crime, I support the idea posted by Anupama from India and by von Haddleburg, that we should change our current system to a more intellectually oriented than an emotionally charged one. True, science and scientists are not above anything or anyone (just looked at those emotional comments from those scientists) especially justice or the victims respectively. But science is the final frontier that may get us out of this hypertrophied emotional brain stem that evolved through millions of year to for the sake of survival, but has now become a burden in this highly developed civilization that created by science and technology. World peace can never achieved with this hyperactive emotional brain. Science has a lot more to go. We should put more funds to support science on how to improve ourselves than funds to punishment which is equivalent to retaliation.
[Comment posted 2007-03-17 21:02:40]
A fourteen-year sentence is simple barbarism. Prison is a medieval institution.
Dr. Anderson was himself a victim of sexual abuse as a child, and, notwithstanding his reported IQ of 176, he could never recover from it.
In fact, one can argue that it is a curse, not a blessing, to have an IQ of 176. The judge's remarks that Dr. Anderson used his high IQ to seduce the child are absurd.
An intelligent sentence would have required Dr. Anderson to research alternative methods for combatting sexual abuse of children. As it is now, almost all sex offenders were once victims of sexual abuse.
Dr. Anderson is to be pitied, not punished.
[Comment posted 2007-02-14 12:40:44]
In my opinion Anderson going to prison is not a sad day for science at all; that's almost like saying it was a bad day for science when Mengele fled to South America. Science does not need criminals, especially pedophiles, working its midst. It will be a sad day if Anderson ever returns. It was a sad day(s) for science, society and particularly his victim, when Anderson committed those atrocities and I cannot believe that anyone campaigned to reduce this evil mans sentence.
I am especially concerned at the implication that the campaign was raised "in the name of science" i.e. in my name! How dare they besmirch my name and that of my fellow scientists! This man got exactly what he deserved and whatever happens to him in prison, it will be a consequence of his own actions (actions he made by choice as an educated, intelligent, adult) and a lot less than the damage he inflicted, for life, on an innocent child who trusted in him.
Obviously the people who campaigned on his behalf have been lucky enough not to have been subjected to such torture; otherwise they would feel sick to the stomach at even contemplating such a campaign. I have some, albeit not much, sympathy with his wife who must be wondering how on earth she married such a monster.
Please pass my sympathies on to his victim, my thoughts are with her.
[Comment posted 2007-02-06 08:20:07]
[Comment posted 2007-02-06 08:19:49]
[Comment posted 2007-02-06 08:19:05]
[Comment posted 2007-02-06 00:03:39]
[Comment posted 2007-02-05 23:33:04]
[Comment posted 2007-02-05 23:31:53]
[Comment posted 2007-02-05 23:31:20]
Your article implies that all scientists are defending him. This is an outrageous lie. The vast majority of scientists, like any other citizens, are shocked and dismayed by child abuse, and want it severely punished.
[Comment posted 2007-02-05 23:22:34]
[Comment posted 2007-02-05 20:52:16]
I think it is reprehensible for the scientific community to "mourn" the loss of a child molestor - no matter how great a genius and/or scientist they may be. Perhaps they mourn - perhaps this report has overstated or twisted the sentiments.
Yes - it is agreed it is a tragedy for everyone involved - but it must also be recognized that the tragedy emanates from the person that committed the crime - not from the legal system that sought to protect the victim, or from the spouse/family/friends that can't believe it is true.
The court has made its decision and sufficient evidence was found to convict him. I have not followed the trial. Obviously - he still has options to appeal the conviction. The victim's options to deal with this are much more limited.
[Comment posted 2007-02-05 20:44:35]
[Comment posted 2007-02-05 20:43:48]