Subject: University of Toronto fraud Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:31:50 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: isabelle.blain@nserc.ca
Dear Dr. Blain,
Please, see my web site http://ca.oocities.com/UofTfraud/
Read my last complaint to the officials (Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities).
Canada must stop harboring criminals. Please, help me.
Yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Please, restore justice! Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 16:15:31 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: isabelle.blain@nserc.ca
Ms. Isabelle Blain
Vice-President
Research Grants and Scholarships NSERC
350 Albert Street Ottawa, Canada K1A 1H5
January 6, 2003
Dear Ms. Blain,
I have received the letter from Mr. Robert Roy as a response to my message to you. Mr. Roy says that he reviewed the information provided on my web site and he has not seen "any information that warrants reopening this case". I am outraged by his letter. I am sending my answer to him and sending you the copy of both letters.
I have listed, in my letter to him, six documents proving that NSERC letter closing my case was wrong and that it covered up the fraud perpetrated by the University of Toronto. I believe that Mr. Roy continues to cover up this fraud; I do not believe that he could have missed these documents or missed their meaning. I insist that my case should be transferred to a person or to a panel that will act properly and will give full explanation of their process and conclusions and will give me the opportunity to be heard.
So far, NSERC has been concealing the reasons and explanations for its decision and concealing from me the documents. It had not judged my case in good faith, but had closed it improperly, giving me only a completely untenable remark and not answering my further correspondence when I asked to send me the report of the NSERC Committee on Professional and Scientific Integrity that according to the NSERC letter of January 29, 1996 had reviewed my case. I insist that this report be forwarded to me now together with my complete file. I want to receive from NSERC a detailed explanation of why my refusal to publish 1987 manuscript (a stupid and improper article written and secretly sent by E. Larsen to the journal, bearing my and her name as authors without my consent) was used by NSERC to justify her stealing of my research. I, likewise, want to know how NSERC could possibly agree with the U of T investigation when this investigation did not give me opportunity to talk to any person who were able to understand the articles that were the subject of the investigation.
Below, is the correspondence with Mr. Roy.
Sincerely,
Michael Pyshnov.
LETTER FROM MR. ROY:
December 20, 2002
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
Your message to Isabelle Blain, Vice-President Research Grants and Scholarships, was forwarded to me for reply.
I have reviewed the information provided on your website and consulted our files regarding the allegations you brought towards Dr. Larsen.
I note that in a letter from NSERC dated January 29, 1996, you were informed that NSERC considers this matter closed. I have not seen any information that warrants reopening this case.
Sincerely,
Robert Roy
Research Ethics Officer NSERC
MY LETTER TO MR. ROY:
Mr. Robert Roy
Research Ethics Officer
NSERC 350 Albert Street Ottawa, Canada K1A 1H5
January 6, 2003
Dear Mr. Roy,
I have received your letter of December 20, 2002. I have to say the following.
1. The letter from NSERC closing my case was wrong. Referred in this letter, obviously as the grounds on which E. Larsen was cleared of any wrongdoing and my case was closed, was my refusal to publish the manuscript of 1987. However, the documents on my web site, seen by you, clearly show that this manuscript contained my research, that my refusal to publish it was perfectly legitimate, that my perception that she had intention to steal my research was correct and that she, indeed, stole/plagiarized my research.
2. The NSERC letter did not give any details. The report of the NSERC Committee was not given to me. The case was closed, obviously, to avoid explanations. There is no slightest doubt that this answer to my complaint and closing the case in such manner was the result of corruption within NSERC.
3. The documents on my web site which give you the proof that Larsen, indeed, stole/plagiarized my research and that my refusal to publish the 1987 manuscript could not, in good faith, be used by NSERC to clear Larsen of stealing/plagiarizing my research are:
a) The said manuscript of 1987
(Document # 11, http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc11.htm)
and Larsen's article of 1989 (Document # 21, http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc21.htm ).
b) The letter from the Department
(Document # 20, http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc20.htm ) notifying me of the withdrawal of the 1987 manuscript from publication following my complaint to the Department.
c) The letter from Larsen to the Editor admitting that the manuscript of 1987 was my research (Document # 19, http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc19.htm ).
d) The letter from Larsen to the Department admitting that the article she published in 1989 was based on my research and ideas
(Document # 25, http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc25.htm ). In this document Larsen also lied that this article was considering only mutant flies. The lie is quite blatant since this article has both, normal and mutant flies not only in the text, but, also, right in the title of it. This document proves that Larsen published my research and ideas as her own, i.e. that she stole/plagiarized my research and that she lied about it.
e) The report of investigation by D. N. Dewees
(Document #27, http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc27.htm ) falsifying universally accepted academic rules and definitions, full of fraud and lies, and brutally violating the procedure.
4) The above documents are the ones, but not the only ones, that should have prohibited you to say that you "have not seen any information that warrants reopening this case". Please, also consult the annotated list of documents (http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/list.htm) and further details of the case (http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/ruthless.htm)
Sincerely,
Michael Pyshnov.
Copy: Ms. Isabelle Blain, Vice-President Research Grants and Scholarships, NSERC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Your recent queries to Isabelle Blain and Robert Roy Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:33:03 -0500 From: MARTINE.DUPRE@NSERC.CA To: michael@tht.net
Dear Dr. Pyshnov:
I am writing in reply to your e-mail communications dated January 6th addressed to Robert Roy and Isabelle Blain, respectively.
In particular, I am responding to your comment that NSERC has not provided you with sufficient information, and to your request for more details about the decision of NSERC's Committee on Scientific and Professional Integrity (CSPI) related to a researcher against whom you made allegations of plagiarism in 1994.
Under the Tri-Council Policy on Integrity in Scholarship and Research (TCPIRS), research institutions are responsible for conducting inquiries, not the federal councils. As a council, NSERC's role is quite limited. We are concerned with process: we screen allegations to ensure that they fit the criteria described in the policy; we direct individuals bringing allegations to the appropriate institution; we require that institutions eligible for NSERC support have policies and that they adhere to them.
As you are probably aware, NSERC is prohibited by the federal Privacy Act from disclosing personal information about identifiable individuals without their consent. By definition, the information in a TCPIRS case file is personal information related the person who is the subject of an allegation. NSERC cannot even confirm or deny whether a particular individual is or was the subject of an inquiry.
It is also important to remember that an inquiry conducted by a research institution under this policy is an internal administrative inquiry about an employee of that institution. Essentially, it is a private matter. Certainly, it is not a criminal investigation and it does not have associated with it the same public entitlement to information.
Under the policy, an individual who brings forward an allegation is not explicitly entitled to information about the outcome of the investigation. If in the case to which you refer your views were solicited as part of the inquiry you were provided with a copy of the final report, it was because the policy requires that inquiries be conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and fairness. A person affected by alleged misconduct may be asked to provide their views and may receive information about the outcome commensurate with the extent to which he/she had been affected.
I hope this clarifies NSERC's position. You do have the right, of course, to make a formal request under the Access to Information Act for access to documentation related to the NSERC CSPI decision. Please bear in mind, however, that before anything could be disclosed to you, it would first have to be edited in accordance with the mandatory exemption for personal information described above.
Martine Dupre
Corporate Secretary to Council
********************************************************************************************************** *************** Martine Dupré Corporate Secretary / Secrétaire du Conseil NSERC / CRSNG 350 Albert St / 350, rue Albert Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1H5 martine.dupre@nserc.ca / martine.dupre@crsng.ca Tel /Tél. (613) 995-5896 FAX / Télec. (613) 943-1222 www.nserc.ca / www.crsng.ca ***************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Your recent queries to Isabelle Blain and Robert Roy Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:27:06 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: MARTINE.DUPRE@NSERC.CA References: 1
Dear Mme Dupre,
Thank you for your letter of January 30, 2003.
Your letter tells me that the NSERC answer to my complaint was made in accordance with your policies. You say: "we require that institutions eligible for NSERC support have policies and that they adhere to them".
However, when NSERC agreed with the U of T report (U of T had no officially adopted policy and it did not adhere to the draft policy), NSERC had committed cover-up. Now, NSERC is engaged in the second round of cover-up, continuing concealing the fraud.
This is what U of T told me when I objected that the investigation was not conducted by a panel and that no biologist who could understand the articles under investigation was present: "..the Guidelines for inquiry and investigation were only in draft and not officially adopted when I asked Dean Dewees to begin his independent investigation" (Doc. 29 on my web site). But, D. Dewees knew the Guidelines (which required the panel of investigators) - he quoted them in the report to NSERC, but he brutally violated them.
Secondly, I repeat here, that NSERC could not, in good faith, have agreed with D. Dewees's report in any case, as this report was a fraud, a falsification of professional opinion, a falsification of the universally established academic rules and definitions. This report could not be in agreement with NSERC policies.
Presently, when the violations committed by NSERC and the U of T have been explained to you in my letters to Ms. Blain, Mr. Roy and in this letter, NSERC can no longer pretend that it is acting in good faith.
I propose that NSERC now reconsider its position and stop the fraud and concealment of fraud. Ms. Blain should have responded to my letter and repeated phone calls.
Please, tell me how to make request under Access to Information Act.
Yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Your recent queries to Isabelle Blain and Robert Roy Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:10:31 -0500 From: MARTINE.DUPRE@NSERC.CA To: michael@tht.net CC: VICTOR.WALLWORK@NSERC.CA
Good afternoon:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail which I am forwarding to Victor Wallwork, Coordinator, Access to Information and Privacy for necessary action regarding the procedures to make a request under the Access to Information Act.
Martine Dupré
*************** Martine Dupré Corporate Secretary / Secrétaire du Conseil NSERC / CRSNG 350 Albert St / 350, rue Albert Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1H5 martine.dupre@nserc.ca / martine.dupre@crsng.ca Tel /Tél. (613) 995-5896 FAX / Télec. (613) 943-1222 www.nserc.ca / www.crsng.ca ***************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Rquest for intervention Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:55:22 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: tom.brzustowski@nserc.ca
Dr. Tom Brzustowski,
President,
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Dear Dr. Brzustowski,
In 1994-1995 NSERC had conducted an inquiry into my complaint that Dr. E. Larsen, my former supervisor at the University of Toronto, had stolen/plagiarized my research that I carried out for five years for my PhD thesis with the NSERC scholarship.
This inquiry had concluded that "there was no breach of scientific integrity by Dr. Larsen", despite the fact that her stealing of my ideas, experiments, etc. and her falsifying the authorship of this research was quite obvious in the documents.
Moreover, the NSERC improperly closed the case without answering my subsequent letter and without giving me access to the documents that were requested by me. It appears now that I had the right to request this information and that my request had to be answered. The NSERC was wrong in the substance and in the procedure as well. Furthermore, the NSERC had covered up the violations of investigative procedure by the University of Toronto: the University investigation was conducted by one person, not by investigative committee and without giving me the opportunity to speak to anyone having understanding of the scientific articles under investigation. The NSERC had agreed with the conclusions of the University of Toronto report, although, this report was a falsification of professional opinion and it relied on falsified academic rules and definitions. Both, the University of Toronto and NSERC made a mockery of the due process.
As a result of this cover-up by NSERC and the improper closing of the case, my research remains stolen and the fraud is presently continuing.
Recently, I again asked the officials at the NSERC to stop the fraud and the cover-up. The NSERC responded with two letters (from Mr. R. Roy and Ms. M. Dupre) that, again, had ignored my legitimate complaint. Ms. I. Blain did not respond at all. Ms. Dupre had listed the NSERC policies, but ignored the fact that these policies were brutally violated by both, the University of Toronto and the NSERC.
I request your immediate personal intervention. Please, make sure that the NSERC staff does not, for the second time, conceal the fraud committed by the University of Toronto and that my research is restored under my name.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Pyshnov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Rquest for intervention Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:46:51 -0500 From: TOM.BRZUSTOWSKI@NSERC.CA To: michael@tht.net
Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
This is my response to your request to me, sent by e-mail on February 17, 2003. I have read your letter carefully and reviewed the file. There is no basis for any new action on this matter by NSERC. I can assure you that NSERC officials have acted with the highest probity and integrity. NSERC has not ever, and would never, participate in any fraud and cover-up.
I am satisfied that this difficult case was treated fairly and in accordance with policies in effect at the time. Thus, I see no requirement for my intervention.
As for information related to your complaint, I would remind you that the inquiry was conducted by the university, not by NSERC. Accordingly, you participated in the process, you were provided with a copy of the final report by the institution, and, subsequently, you were advised by NSERC that our Committee agreed with the university's conclusion. More recently, you have been invited to make a request using the Access to Information Act, which is the required approach for individuals seeking access to government documents. This is a process determined by law in which I cannot intervene. NSERC is required to provide you with information to which you are entitled, after which you will have recourse to the Information Commissioner and to the courts.
Yours truly,
T. A. Brzustowski
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rquest for intervention Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:15:46 -0500 From: Michael Pyshnov <michael@tht.net> To: TOM.BRZUSTOWSKI@NSERC.CA References: 1
Dear Dr. Brzustowski,
In your letter of February 24, 2003, you have admitted that you reviewed the file.
You know that NSERC said: "The Committee considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published."
You know that the Committee covered up the fraud, because:
1. Larsen herself withdrew this publication when I complained to the Department that it was my work and not hers.
2. Larsen had admitted twice that 1987 article was my work.
3. Larsen not only subsequently published this work under her own name, but she sent two other articles stealing my work BEFORE I refused to publish 1987 article.
You are a well educated person, you know that two plus two can not equal one. When you see such fraudulent result, but you write: "There is no basis for any new action on this matter by NSERC", you are continuing covering up the fraud. You refer to the "policies in effect at the time", but you know that there can not be any policy that allows covering up fraud.
You must stop this fraud or resign.
Yours,
Michael Pyshnov.