Viewing page 105 of 164

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 86 -

The benefits that the Smithsonian claims to have resulted from the activities under investigation appear illusory.

* * *

[T]here is no basis to conclude that Dr. Mitchell is being investigated for any act that significantly benefitted the Smithsonian.

The Secretary regretted that the GAO opinion does not mention the contrary views of Dr. Hoffmann, who was Dr. Mitchell's supervisor, or of the detailed analysis in the Drinker, Biddle & Reath memorandum and opinion of December 6, 1991, both of which were submitted to the GAO. As Dr. Hoffmann has pointed out in reply to the foregoing observations:

Mitchell's decision to take the trip may have been personal but, when he told me of his travel plans, and I asked him to carry out specific tasks for me, that portion of the trip became official Smithsonian business.

* * *

The tissue samples were sent to Utah State University because a world expert in wild sheep chromosomes, Dr. Thomas Bunch, works there. The paper credited the Smithsonian program with providing the sample. This is a routine practice in scientific research.

* * *

The opportunistic collecting of a tissue sample from sheep belonging to a hitherto unstudied population, which was subsequently shown to have a characteristic chromosome complement that links it with sheep populations in mountains far to the northwest, did in my opinion significantly benefit the Smithsonian. It is my understanding from reading this 'Decision' that he is being investigated in part for this act; indeed, it was this particular act that led to the wider investigation of Mitchell.

With the approval of the Chairman of the Regents' Executive Committee, the firm of Drinker, Biddle & Reath has been asked to review the scope of employment portions of the GAO opinion in the light of its earlier report on this issue.