I find the ad hominen attacks on Dittrich both distracting from the questions raised and rather unpleasant. I can see how respected, and venerated, Dr. Corkin was at MIT but destroying data from studies as important as the ones on H.M. is not justified. The controversy about the paper Annese paper sounds familiar to anyone working in academic research. Maybe Dittrich acquired the referee reports on the manuscript in which, presumably, Dr. Corkin, one of the referees, tried to reject the manuscript as its content reasonably challenged her own theses on the subject. She seems to have changed her mind eventually after having her name added to the list of authors. This is quite common in academic controversies in which a less established scientist challenges a more prominent academic. Unless open peer review is widely accepted in academia, these conflicts of interest will continue and be kept in the dark. Don’t hold your breath for this change to happen. Regarding the informed consent and the closeness of kin of Mr. Mooney, it seems that the MIT and Dittrich versions are contradictory. MIT indicates that Mr Mooney and his family had a close relationship with H.M. even though they were not his next of kin. Dittrich states that this relationship was not close in any way. Given that H.M.’s brain was so valuable, I can see how MIT would want to cut a few corners to secure this brain after H.M.’s death.