Perhaps all the data should be published — excellent idea; maybe some people somewhere would be interested in looking at useless data. I don’t know how many, if any, experiments you’ve ever run, but if you have a 100% success rate, where all the data sets you collect are perfect and usable, then I commend you! You are a rare specimen in the scientific world. The nonsense about Henry having been burnt border on libel and are being investigated. The old maxim “Don’t believe everything you read” needs an update, just a little addition: “- especially if it’s written by Luke Dittrich.” Dr. Corkin had already written a loving tribute to Henry in the book called “Permanent Present Tense: The Unforgettable Life of the Amnesic Patient, H. M.” by Suzanne Corkin. It was a given by all her close colleagues how much of a treasure H.M. was, and his invaluable, generous contribution to neuroscience was. It did not need to be addressed, since it wasn’t the topic under discussion. Dittrich’s book is. And their “odious” mention of her illness pales in comparison to Dittrich’s odious publication of himself pestering the dying Dr. Corkin for more access to yet more of H.M.’s stuff. This is the only reason her close colleagues mentioned her illness. They’d known her for many years and could probably hear it clearly in her voice and words — the weakness, the frailty, the thought process, perhaps, and yet she retained her dignity and was as polite as possible, under the circumstances. They offer it as a possible explanation for her telling Dittrich that the useless H.M. files will be shredded. I personally think she told him that to get him off her case, but that’s because it’s what I would have done. Unfortunately it didn’t work. He persists in pestering Dr. Corkin (one wonders if she consented to have this interview recorded at all, much less published posthumously). “But why? WHY?” the wannabe investigative journalist continues to prod and whine to the esteemed scientist whose career revolved around H.M., but Dittrich obviously didn’t care; he seems to have no ethics — he pestered her for H.M.’s private info while he was alive, and pestered her about Henry’s stuff while she was on death’s door. (It’s because he’s not a journalist, but a sensationalist hack, and hasn’t been trained in ethics. He mentions having briefly studied it, but one wonders whether he managed to retain an iota of it.) Now, remind us which party’s the odious one, again? And if you still maintain it’s MIT, I’ll remind you that according to statistics, we all stand a pretty fair chance of being struck by cancer eventually. I really hope that anyone reading this does NOT encounter this cruel fate, but if they do, or if they know anyone who does, pay attention to the difference between how a healthy person feels and thinks, and how a person fighting cancer feels and thinks, particularly one who is undergoing chemotherapy. Then please get informed on the cognitive effects of cancer and its treatment. (NB: They don’t call it “chemo brain” for nothing.) MIT is not consistently ranked one of the top 3 universities in the world because it is populated by fools, and unethical ones at that.