Connect with us

Science

David Baltimore, Nobel Prize-winning scientist and former Caltech president, dies at 87

Published

on

David Baltimore, Nobel Prize-winning scientist and former Caltech president, dies at 87

In 2003, the Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore, then president of Caltech, paused to reflect on his role as one of the world’s most decorated scientists.

“People keep e-mailing me to ask, ‘What is the meaning of life?’” Baltimore told an interviewer, with amusement. “And they want me to e-mail them back quickly with an answer!”

Baltimore was then 65, an age when many people are retired from public life, yet he was still actively leading one of the world’s top research universities. Others, he said, found their meaning “in friends, in dogs, in religion, in the self-reflectiveness of writing, etc. But Caltech people largely find it in the continual contest with nature.”

It was a contest that Baltimore waged right to the end of his life as a scientist, businessman and internationally respected conscience of the new world of biological engineering. He died Saturday at his home in Woods Hole, Mass., according to his wife, as reported by the New York Times. Baltimore was 87.

Advertisement

His death concludes one of the most illustrious careers in 20th century science. The bearded scientist with the penetrating blue eyes played a role, usually a leading one, in virtually every important national debate over the use and potential misuse of the science of genetic engineering, whether it was gene-splicing and the search for an AIDS vaccine, or the dangers of tinkering with the human genome.

But it was as a working scientist that he made his most enduring contributions, the role he was most proud of.

“When you are a scientist, and you are trying to prove or disprove a notion, you work at the bench doing the dullest, most routine things over and over and over again,” Baltimore once explained.

“I can’t tell you how many ways things go wrong. All the time you are doing this because there is an idea behind it.”

In a statement, Caltech President Thomas Rosenbaum said Baltimore’s “contributions as a virologist, discerning fundamental mechanisms and applying those insights to immunology, to cancer, to AIDS, have transformed biology and medicine.”

Advertisement

“David’s profound influence as a mentor to generations of students and postdocs, his generosity as a colleague, his leadership of great scientific institutions, and his deep involvement in international efforts to define ethical boundaries for biological advances, fill out an extraordinary intellectual life,” he added.

David Baltimore was born March 7, 1938, in New York City, the son of a garment industry merchant, Richard Baltimore, and Gertrude Lipschitz-Baltimore.

Richard’s family was Orthodox Jewish, from Lithuania, and though the Baltimores in America were not overtly religious, the family communicated a moral code that influenced their son’s concern for the underprivileged.

This led him to take public stands on social issues, such as the AIDS epidemic and nuclear proliferation, that other scientists shunned. In 1970, while performing experiments that would win him the Nobel Prize, he shut down his lab for a week and joined demonstrators in Boston against the Vietnam War-era invasion of Cambodia.

In high school, Baltimore enrolled in a summer program at the prestigious Jackson Laboratory at Bar Harbor, Maine, where he made a discovery that altered his life and set him on the path to science.

Advertisement

“It was the process of research. I discovered that I could investigate the unknown as a high school student, that the frontier of knowledge was actually very close and very accessible,” he said, many years later.

After graduating from Swarthmore College, Baltimore earned his doctorate from the Rockefeller Institute (now University), before doing three years of research at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, where he met his future wife, Alice Shih Huang. His postdoctoral student, Huang collaborated in his research on animal viruses, later becoming a full professor at Harvard Medical School. At this time, Baltimore was particularly interested in the poliovirus, which attacks the RNA (ribonucleic acid) in cells.

He was on the cutting edge of molecular biology,” said science historian Daniel Kevles, his friend and colleague. “There was no molecular biology to speak of and very little virology. … It was a brave field of work.”

At the time, it was an ironclad rule in molecular biology that genetic information was a one-way street, flowing from the double-helix structure of DNA to the single-stranded RNA, which the cell’s machinery uses to make proteins. But some biologists were beginning to question that assumption, and Baltimore joined the hunt for evidence that genetic information might flow in both directions, which, if true, held enormous potential for understanding the spread of viruses.

After leaving the Salk, Baltimore returned to Boston and became an associate professor of microbiology at MIT. As it became apparent that not all viruses behaved alike, Baltimore launched a new classification system, one that is still in use, grouping them by families according to their genomes and replication systems.

Advertisement

It was during this work that he discovered an enzyme that enabled a virus made of RNA to be copied into DNA, a process known as reverse transcription. The discovery of reverse transcriptase was greeted with overheated predictions that science had at last found a cure for cancer. The thinking went, if one could use RNA to code DNA, scientists could seize control of the body’s defenses.

Baltimore knew his work did not augur a cure for cancer, but the discovery of reverse transcriptase was nonetheless important because it led to an understanding of how genes can modify cells, turning normal cells into cancer cells. Reverse transcriptase is also used by a unique family of viruses, known as retroviruses, to replicate themselves. This finding would be critical to understanding the AIDS virus, HIV, which is a retrovirus, and devising anti-HIV treatments.

Baltimore’s discovery was attended by great fanfare and led to his promotion to full professor at MIT. In 1973, he was awarded a lifetime research professorship by the American Cancer Society, and a year later was elected to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Finally, in 1975, with Howard Temin, a friend and colleague who had discovered reverse transcriptase around the same time, Baltimore was awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine.

With the prize came fame; people began referring to Baltimore as the most influential biologist of his generation. To the general public, who did not necessarily understand what he had done, only that it was important, he became, at the age of 37, a full-fledged savant.

The award had a profound effect on colleagues.

Advertisement

“I don’t see it as a burden, but you can’t get away from it,” Baltimore said. “I know that when I talk to young scientists, they are looking at me and saying, ‘God, I am talking to a Nobel Prize winner.’ I try to break that down. It gets harder every year.”

His new celebrity status gave him a platform to address issues of broad cultural and scientific importance, a role Baltimore embraced.

In the 1970s, when people became concerned that gene-splicing techniques could lead to the production of super viruses, Baltimore organized a conference at Asilomar near Monterey to design a self-regulating system to monitor those experiments. In the early 1980s, he led the fight against a crash program to map all human genes, fearing, once again, unknown consequences. In each case, when it was shown the dangers had been overestimated, he then led the effort to relax federal restrictions. He became an early champion of federal AIDS research and chaired a national commission that concluded the federal government’s response to the epidemic was dangerously inadequate.

As his reputation grew, he took leadership roles on political issues. When Pope John Paul II wanted to warn President Reagan of the danger of nuclear weapons, Baltimore was one of four scientists the pontiff appointed to carry his message.

In 1984, Baltimore was chosen founding director of the new Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, molding it into one of the world’s leading institutions of its kind. Following that success, he was appointed president of the Rockefeller University.

Advertisement

Along the way, he became not only a respected link between the government and scientists but also a key player in the burgeoning biotechnology industry. His early involvement in the industry made him a “relatively wealthy man,” according to a 1997 Times magazine profile.

The profile described a man in the fullness of middle age, harvesting the benefits he had earned, drinking the best wines and single-malt scotch, driving appropriately luxurious but not ostentatious vehicles. “With his wife, Dr. Alice Huang, he shares a luxury duplex condominium on Union Wharf, which has a commanding view of Boston Harbor,” it said.

In person, “Baltimore’s practiced elegance frames a fierce pride and a sometimes brutal intellect, softened only by his insistence that professional criticism be leavened by personal respect.”

And then, the entire edifice crumbled as Baltimore became the focus and fall guy for one of the more infamous investigations of scientific misconduct in the last half of the 20th century. A colleague wrote a paper claiming sensational results. When others could not reproduce those results, allegations of fraud were aired, causing Congress to get involved. With the decline of the space program, biology had emerged as the preeminent science, and Congress was becoming skeptical about how millions of dollars in federal research grants were being spent.

The whiff of scandal was attached to Baltimore himself, even though his work was never questioned. Still, his refusal to admit error, or to abandon his problematic colleague, came to symbolize for many the arrogance of the new mandarins of the biological sciences.

Advertisement

“The Baltimore case is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal,” the New York Times wrote.

Four federal investigations and a grand jury probe later, Baltimore’s colleague, and Baltimore himself, were exonerated. The ordeal had consumed a decade of his life. Then, within months, everything changed. He was chosen to coordinate the federal effort to develop an AIDS vaccine and then appointed president of Caltech. It was a breathtaking reversal of fortune.

“It is even more breathtaking,” Baltimore said in 1997, shortly after taking the Caltech job, “to live through it.”

Kevles, a professor at Caltech at the time, recalled that when Baltimore’s name was announced to the assembled faculty, “the room erupted in cheers. I had never seen the biologists look so ecstatic. It legitimized their field.”

In his eight years as president, Baltimore raised the university’s profile, both as a place where cutting-edge biology is done and as a respected voice on pressing national scientific debates. Under his leadership, Caltech raised more than $1.1 billion. He cited the gift of $600 million to the school by Intel Corp. co-founder Gordon Moore and his wife, Betty, as the “decisive moment” of his presidency.

Advertisement

“Caltech is a wonderful place, the best place to do science I have ever seen,” Baltimore said in 2005, when he announced his resignation. “I will have done what I can do [as president], and it is time for somebody else to be thinking about it.”

As for what would come next, Baltimore said, “I have a fairly extensive life in science and in business that I will pursue.”

If he thought his return to the laboratory would be a placid coda to his career, he was soon proved wrong, by yet another advance in genetic engineering, this one called CRISPR. “I’ve seen revolution after revolution in biology,” Baltimore said in 2016. “This one is a big deal.”

As one writer noted, if the gene-splicing technology of the 1970s spurred images of laboratory-hatched plagues from the “Andromeda Strain” novel and movie, CRISPR inspired comparisons to “Brave New World.” MIT’s Technology Review wrote of labs in which “man rebuilds creation to suit himself” and warned of “a path toward a dystopia of superpeople.”

Just as he did decades earlier, Baltimore took a leadership role in starting a public discussion about how to manage the powerful new tool. “At Asilomar, we had identified the genetic modification of humans as the biggest coming issue,” Baltimore said. “We just didn’t know when it would come.”

Advertisement

A statement drafted by participants at a meeting in Napa in early 2015 spoke of the promise of “curing genetic disease” but also warned of “unknown risks to human health and well-being.”

The statement listed 18 authors, with Baltimore at the top. Though he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Let’s Hit ‘Pause’ Before Altering Humankind,” Baltimore admitted later that genome-editing would in all probability take place sooner rather than later.

After retiring as president of Caltech, he remained on staff in an emeritus capacity, and was appointed the Robert Andrews Millikan professor of biology. He finally shuttered his lab in 2019 but remained active in business. He helped found a number of companies, including Calimmune and Immune Design, which carried on the work he began in immunology and virology. Though he was most visible for his public advocacy of cancer and AIDS research, it was his work as a “lab-based, working biologist” that gave him the most pleasure, and for which he hoped to be remembered.

Besides the Nobel Prize, he received the National Medal of Science in 1999, and the Warren Alpert Foundation Prize in 2000. He was the 1999 recipient of the National Medal of Science and published more than 700 peer-reviewed articles.

He was also a member of numerous scientific advisory boards, including Amgen, the Broad Institute, Ragon Institute, and Regulus. Baltimore was past-president and chair of the American Assn. of the Advancement of Science.

Advertisement

He is survived by his wife, Alice, and daughter, T.K. Baltimore.

Johnson is a former Times staff writer. City News Service contributed to this report.

Science

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

Published

on

Video: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

new video loaded: NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

transcript

transcript

NASA Announces Artemis III Crew

NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

“I am excited to welcome you as the next crew in the Artemis journey to successfully return to the moon — this time to stay.” “I’m honored by the role that I’ve been given. I’m also very humbled by the task in front of us. But first and foremost, I’m grateful.” “So with that, the Artemis II crew, comrade, hands you the baton. You got the controls.” “As you know, we had a significant anomaly at our Launch Complex 36A on May 28. We’ve redoubled our efforts and are moving forward.”

Advertisement
NASA announced the crew of Artemis III mission, which will fly to low-Earth orbit to test rendezvous and docking maneuvers with one or two lunar landers.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 9, 2026

Continue Reading

Science

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Published

on

Santa Monica Mountains’ last steelhead trout survived the Palisades fire — and even had babies

Scientists feared the Santa Monica Mountains’ last remaining steelhead trout were dead, smothered by debris flows unleashed by the Palisades fire.

But the endangered fish surprised them: A team of biologists recently spotted 30 of the rare trout — and 21 babies — in Topanga Creek.

“There was a lot of happy dancing in the creek,” said Rosi Dagit, principal conservation biologist for the Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, which works with public and private landowners to conserve natural resources.

That’s because the steelhead here are endangered, at both the state and federal levels. Once, they swam in most streams of the Santa Monicas, but their numbers plummeted amid overfishing and coastal development. Increasingly frequent wildfire has further stressed their habitat. Topanga Creek, a biodiversity hot spot, is home to their last known population in the mountains that stretch from the Hollywood Hills to Point Mugu in Ventura County.

The trout that were spotted, including this one, are part of a distinct Southern California population that’s listed as endangered at the state and federal levels.

Advertisement

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife spearheaded a complex mission to rescue trout threatened by the Palisades fire that sparked in January 2025.

Time was of the essence. The fire hadn’t yet been fully contained. But rain was on the way, which would sweep massive amounts of sediment from the denuded hillsides into the water. Fish are often killed this way.

Crews stunned the fish with electricity, scooped them up in buckets, trucked them to a hatchery and ultimately moved them to Arroyo Hondo Creek in Santa Barbara County.

Advertisement

Within days, Topanga Creek was choked with mud. Some assumed the fish left behind were goners.

But in March, the conservation district’s team found four. The following month, when water conditions were clearer, they saw more.

“These fish continue to amaze me,” said Kyle Evans, environmental program manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, who had seen the damage to the creek. “I had seen populations get wiped out in similar situations. So when I heard, I was thrilled.”

Evans surmises the fish that survived were in an area of the creek where less charred material and sediment were swept in.

“These fish likely hunkered down, were hiding under some rocks or places to try to get away from the main concentration of flow,” he said. “And luckily they weren’t buried.”

Advertisement

The ones that were spotted were fairly small, around 6 to 14 inches. Rainbow trout and steelhead trout are the same species, but with different lifestyles. If the fish remain in freshwater, they’ll be considered rainbows. However, they can migrate to the ocean and become steelhead, where they typically grow larger before returning to their natal waters to spawn.

Topanga Creek hasn’t fully recovered from the damage it sustained, but scientists say it’s looking better. Surveys last year were “so depressing,” Dagit said, with very few animals, and stretches that were essentially transformed into flat roads from all the sediment buildup. Some of the riparian canopy burned right down to the creek.

Then came 32 inches of rain over the last nine months, scouring out and moving sediment, creating deeper pools. Dagit said they recently found newt egg masses for the first time in years, as well as a few adult newts and many frogs. Plants that provide cover are starting to recover.

She provided photos comparing certain pools last year and this year, some dramatically transformed. In September 2025, the Shrine Pool could have been an overgrown hiking trail. This April, it was filled with shallow water.

Shrine Pool, Sept. 2025, left, and the same location, April 2026, right.

The Shrine Pool in September 2025, left, and the same location in April 2026, right, with RCDSMM’s Isaac Yelchin donning a wetsuit.

(RCDSMM Stream Team)

Advertisement

Topanga Creek is home to another endangered fish, the small but hardy northern tidewater goby, often described as cute. Not long before the trout operation, Dagit led a rescue of hundreds of these fish too. Many were repatriated to the lagoon at the mouth of the creek in a moving ceremony last June.

There’s still the matter of what to do with the trout that were moved to Santa Barbara County last year. Evans would like to bring them home to the Santa Monicas at some point, but isn’t sure if it will happen. On one hand, they could bolster the small, genetically isolated surviving population. On the other, they might inadvertently bring in a disease or bacteria. There is some time to decide. Evans estimates the creek still needs to recover for two to three more years.

For now, the fish are functioning fine in their adopted creek. Experts worried the trauma wrought by the move would disrupt their spawning process, but they had babies that spring. This year, they spawned again.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Pacifica pier cracks, another coastal casualty as seas continue to rise

Published

on

Pacifica pier cracks, another coastal casualty as seas continue to rise

The Pacifica Municipal Pier was shut down and taped off Thursday after city workers noticed cracks running through the landmark structure and concrete chunks falling into the ocean.

It’s just one of many coastal California structures that have recently crumbled under pressure from a rising and relentless ocean.

Officials from the small, beach city south of San Francisco said the pier was closed due to “cracking, separation, and displacement of the concrete walkway and structural elements.”

It will stay closed while structural engineers asses its safety.

Advertisement

Photos taken by city employees show a wide crack that runs from top to bottom and across the structure as well. Other photos show a large horizontal crack under the foundation of a small restaurant on the pier, the Chit Chat Cafe.

The cafe was also shut down.

This is not the first time the 53-year-old pier has shown signs of stress. In 2021, part of it was shut down after handrails along the edge collapsed. And in 2023, after a series of storms pummeled the Central California coast, damaging parts of the pier, the structure was partially closed for more than year.

Those same storms caused extensive damage in Aptos and Capitola, 70 miles south, where piers and waterfront infrastructure were swept away or damaged.

In 2024, a 150- to 180- foot section of the Santa Cruz wharf was ripped off by powerful waves.

Advertisement

At least 10 of the state’s dozens of coastal public piers were closed for part or all of 2024 due to structural damage sustained in winter storms since 2022. At least five others have longer-term upgrades planned to address structural issues.

“These things are costly to maintain,” said Zach Plopper, senior environmental director at Surfrider. “They are a part of our California coastal culture in many ways, but we’re going to need to reckon with, one, the state that they’re in, and two, the continuous and worsening threats they’re going to experience,”

He said most of the piers were constructed in the early 1900s, and they weren’t built to withstand decades of rough seas, storms and rising sea level.

“With this incoming El Niño, which is forecasted to be significant, and this marine heat wave we’re in the midst of, we’re kind of in uncharted waters as far as what this winter could bring in terms of storms and swells to the California coast, and we’re likely going to see a lot more damage,” he said. “Not just piers, but roads and other coastal infrastructure up and down the state.”

There was no storm in Pacifica earlier this week, so no single event could be blamed for the destruction.

Advertisement

However, a 2025 report from an outside engineering firm, GHD, found that several sections of the pier were in “poor” or “serious” condition, and they recommended closure before anticipated storms or events that could “subject the piles to high winds, swells and large waves.”

The firm found several areas of the pier where concrete was missing and rebar was exposed and corroding.

“The pier has continued to experience high winds and large waves in a harsh marine environment,” the engineers wrote in the report, noting that continuous exposure to seawater or marine spray was “detrimental” to the structure.

A 2023 city report estimated it would cost $19 million to repair.

That same year, a state law was enacted to require local governments along the California coast to plan for sea level rise in the coming decades.

Advertisement

Sea level has risen some 8 inches, on average, along the coast in the past 150 years, Plopper said, and researchers anticipate another foot in the next 25 years.

“We’re going to see profound shifts on our coastline, none that we have ever experienced before, and building static structures on the coast just doesn’t work all that well,” he said. “We’re going to have to make some really hard decisions.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending