670 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



any. For this reason, although I consider * * * to be a rogue and a robber in 

 scientific domains, I should not pass over his scientific deserts where they ought to 

 be mentioned. But it is my conviction that he has no such merits. What he 

 claims as his, is either stolen or fabricated, and the remainder is too small for me 

 to consider myself under any obligation to mention it as a valuable addition to 

 knowledge. Statements regarding the development of the malarial parasite in the 

 stomach of the mosquito, if he really saw them as he states (which, by the way, I 

 do not believe), are only a confirmation of your discoveries. His illustrations are 

 nothing more than copies of yours. The first infection experiments, which were 

 made in Rome by * * * and his colleagues, and so very loudly advertised to all 

 the world, I consider to be inventions ; for they were made in a season when there 

 are no fresh infections in Italy. Unfortunately * * * is not the only one in Rome 

 to manufacture science in this manner. His immediate colleagues do not behave 

 better, as I myself experienced. And in earlier times * * * tried to rob Golgi 

 and Laveran in a similar way as * * * has done with you — Laveran has described 

 it in his Traite du paludisme, 1898, p. 42, note 2. It seems to me one has to be 

 very careful and also very sceptical as regards the so-called Roman School. I do 

 not believe these people further than is indisputably proved and is testified to by 

 reliable witnesses." 



I sent this letter to Dr. Laveran and he replied to me on March 26, 1901 : 



" Je vous remercie de votre lettre, ainsi que de la copie de celle de Koch. Je 

 connais trop vos adversaires dans ce de"bat pour m'^tonner de leur maniere d'agir 

 a votre egard. Ceux qui ont suivi attentivement vos recherches savent a quoi s'en 

 tenir au sujet des assertions de Grassi, mais c'est le petit nombre. Vous faites 

 done bien de vous defendre et de devoiler les proce'dds mesquins et malhonnetes 

 de ceux des auteurs italiens qui cherchent a diminuer a leur profit l'importance de 

 vos travaux." l 



I then sent both these letters together with the facts of the case to Lord Lister— 

 at his request, as he was then investigating the history of the subject for his 

 address as President of the Royal Society ; and he replied on April 1, 1901 : 



" Your letter is not too long, considering the interest of its contents. It is terribly 

 sad to think of such roguery in men who call themselves scientific ; but you show 

 too serious grounds for believing that it exists in * * * and Co. . . ." 



Compare his address, 1901. 



Lastly, next year, the Committee of the Nobel Medical Prize, after scrupulous 

 examination, finally adjudicated upon the claims of the pirates. Nevertheless, I 

 see that some of the more simple people who write upon these matters without 

 verifying statements still believe in their pretensions. This is largely due to the 

 fact that, by an astute Italian trick worthy of Caesar Borgia, B. Grassi dedicated 

 his book to a third person who has always been good enough to claim me as his 

 pupil, but who never had the decency to disclaim the falsifications about my work 

 published under the sponsion of his name. 



Another case was that of the late Prof. Calandruccio of Catania, who in 1902 

 complained to the Royal Society that it had given a medal to the Zoologo men- 

 tioned above for work which he (Calandruccio) had not only really originated but 

 had mostly done ! And this was a hard case because Calandruccio never received 

 adequate recognition for his labours (on the life-history of eels). 



So long afterwards, such occurrences have their humorous as well as their 

 serious side, especially when the bandits are foiled ; but at the time my experiences 

 so disgusted me with the not very admirable class of men who seem to be engaged 



1 The English journals were not bold enough to publish my reply, and it had to 

 be brought out in Italian ! 



