Dear Mr. Sandusky,
Before anything else is said, we would first like to assure you that we hold the work you have done for our institution in the highest of regard, and would therefore feel as though we had lost a profoundly talented colleague should recent events lead us to terminate your employment. As you are doubtless aware, our institution believes in transparency, and you might have been under the impression that your recent decision to release your findings to the press was in accordance with this belief. We regret to inform you that this is incorrect, as we do not believe exaggerations about the work conducted at our institution are worthy of publication. It is not our belief that your motivation was to accuse our institution of any untoward activity, nor do we feel you are the sort who would slander us. We therefore believe that the content of your report was based around confusion. Consider this an attempt on our part to rectify this confusion.
The first case mentioned in your report was that of a James Anderson, who, you were correct to observe, had contracted a rash of certain proportions while using products developed at our institution. While pattern recognition is a positive quality in the hard sciences, and while the connection you drew between this rash and similar rashes from which earlier patients have suffered was a tour de force of pure research, rest assured that your speculations were considered entirely unfounded and in fact rather eccentric by those of us who have read your report. It is common for those who have used the object, such as Mr. Anderson, to develop allergic reactions, as this product is still in experimental stages. He has already been attended to, and we in fact have been assured that neither he nor his family will press charges against our institution. A team of our experts is doing diligent work to solve the problem of the rash, as they would with any problem our institution has encountered or will encounter.
The next concern you raised, while again understandable, again strikes us as perhaps better suited to the realm of yellow journalism than to that of science. As you are doubtless aware, your report made references to certain syllables uttered by a certain Noah Ravelstein. Again, we appreciate the concern for Mr. Ravelstein’s well-being your report expressed; however, our institution believes that the concern was unfounded. Furthermore, while your conclusions about the motivations behind his odd speech might have been regarded as acceptable to publish in the scientific realm four or five hundred years ago, they strike us as outdated and inappropriate for the modern age. The interest in demonology expressed in your report certainly made you stand out, and as you are doubtless aware, our institution prefers our candidates stand out. However, we would prefer it if in the future, you did not connect this knowledge to the products developed by our institution. Mr. Ravelstein’s speech has since normalized.
The final segment of your report dealt with a woman by the name of Jessica Porter. We will grant that this patient was notable for the paleness of her skin. Your description of it as being “translucent” after her use of our product was, in our institution’s opinion, a clear case of poetic license. While you are doubtless aware that this is the sort of creativity our institution admires in its members, we would nonetheless prefer it if your future reports stuck closer to the facts, and would furthermore like to assure you that Ms. Porter is well on her way to recovering from her recent battle with illness, which we assure you was in no way connected with her use of our product.
In conclusion, we have been duly impressed with the work you have done in the past, and we understand that your decision to release the report in question might have been borne out of the humanitarian urge so many of your generation seems to feel. We admire this, and we also admire your work in fields relevant to our institution, including but not limited to your Nobel Prize and the numerous patents for which you have successfully applied. All we wish to do is suggest there are those among us who might not find these credentials so impressive if you were to encounter them in a certain context, and to also make you aware that you risk offending them if you release your report as it stands. We are preparing an alternative report built around the corrections recommended above, and it is our strong suggestion that you inform the press of your error, threaten legal action if they do not retract the report you have released, and provide them with our alternative instead. Understand that, before this bout of unpleasantness, your presence at our institution was much appreciated, and it would be a shame if we had to release you over what we hope will prove to be a trifling matter.