338
The Body Electric
VA research funds for people I felt were of little value to the VA pro-
gram itself; thus the money would have constituted a grant to the
school. I knew that if I didn't deliver I would eventually be removed
from the position of chief of research. In that case, I would go back on a
local clinical salary and my research program would again be in
jeopardy. Therefore, at the beginning of 1972 I applied for the position
of medical investigator in the VA research system, a post in which I
would be able to devote up to three fourths of my time to research. I was
accepted. The job was to begin a few months later; in the meantime I
continued as chief of research.
Apparently my new appointment escaped the notice of my local oppo-
nents. I'd accepted several invitations to speak at universities in the
South and combined them all into a week's trip. I left the office a day
early to prepare my material and pack. While I was still home, my
secretary called. She was crying, and said she'd just gotten a memo
firing me as chief of research and putting me to work as a general-duty
medical officer in the admitting office. This not only would have closed
our lab, but also would have kept me from practicing orthopedic sur-
gery.
It was a nice maneuver but, fortunately for me, it wasn't legal. As
medical investigator, I could be fired only by Washington, and the local
chief of staff soon got a letter from VACO ordering him to reinstate me.
Soon I began to get on some "enemies lists" at the national level, too.
In December 1974 I got word that our basic NIH grant (the one on
bone) hadn't been renewed. No reasons were given. This was highly
irregular, since applicants normally got the "pink sheets" with at least
the primary reviewer's comments, so they could find out what they'd
done wrong. Instead I was told I could write to the executive secretary
for a "summary" of the deliberations.
The summary was half a page of double-spaced typing. It said my
proposal had been lacking in clarity and direction, and that the experi-
mental procedures hadn't been spelled out in enough detail. The main
problem seemed to be that I was planning to do more than the reviewer
thought I could do with the money I was requesting. In addition, my
report on the perineural cell research with Bruce Baker was criticized as
"data poor." The statement concluded: "On the other hand, there are
some areas which appear to be worthy of support and are reasonably well
described, e.g., bone growth studies, regenerative growth, and electrical
field effects."
I was,
to say the least,
puzzled.
The subjects "worthy of support"
were precisely the main ones we were working on. It didn't make any