Ruthless Science Fraud
at the
University of Toronto
The following
pages can be read continuously or by clicking on separate sections and
going back. Links bring you to another place in this text or to a scanned
document. Documents have links in bold; from links in bold you need to
close the window to return to the text
Foreword
My research
The "academic"
decision
The first
two attempts
Finally, it's
all stolen
The case is
in court
How Prof.
Larsen apologized to the Editor
Prof. Larsen's
later explanation
My research,
they say, was "salvaged", not stolen
The first
investigation
The second
investigation: I lost a race with thieves
The government
upholds the fraud
My research
was mine alone; it was outstanding research
The true
reason behind the "salvaging"
Criminals
in academia
The obstruction
of justice. How far do they wish to go?
The appeal
to the scientific community
References
The evidence
The stolen
work: Titles, Authors and Abstracts..
_______________________________________________________
SEE
ANNOTATED LIST OF DOCUMENTS
BACK TO THE MAIN PAGE
________________________________________________________________________________________
Foreword
For many years my interest and
publications were concerned with the analysis of cell division in the organism.
I, then, went to a Ph.D. program at the University of Toronto and produced
outstanding research based entirely on my own ideas.
After five years, and a year before
the end of my program, I was removed from the laboratory by the supervisor,
E. Larsen (E. Rapport), and my research was stolen and published in several
articles under her name together with three other co-authors.
She, when caught with the fraud,
took refuge behind a communist demagogy and declared the new "concept
of intellectual property". According to it, my discoveries do not
belong to me, they belong to the "community", but under her name.
She also declared that I had "forfeited a publication for naught".
Still, the evidence, without exception,
showed a low, sadistic fraud, the fraud of an adventuress. Yet, the administration
(I. Orchard, D. Dewees) defended her without reservation: they perverted
and distorted the law and the rights of authorship still further, to exclude
the criterion of originality completely. They said that Larsen and others
"repeated", "replicated or extended" and "salvaged"
my research, and that my ideas were "picked up". They did not
return the research under my name.
The Canadian Research Integrity
office agreed and fully upheld the fraud. In all these reports, universally
established law and rights were violated in a cynical and contemptuous
manner, to cause outrage.
While maintaining this state of
intolerable and unparalleled persecution (I am without my work and without
a job since 1986), the clever administration, as soon as I asked members
of the Department for help, discouraged their involvement by a letter from
a lawyer, then, began spreading fear of possible violence. More than seventy
professors of the Department remain silent.
The determination of this University
to continue the crime has no limits: every governmental office that heard
my complaint, the law enforcement, the agencies concerned with education
and science were all swayed. The President of The Canadian Genetics Society
confirmed that my research was stolen, but advised me to stop "bugging"
the University. Furthermore, the press is unwilling to publish a single
word about this fraud.
Forty nine law firms declined my
court case (which I started in 1994), citing conflict of interest. I have
no means of bringing the case to trial. The story, below, contains extensive
quotations from the documents presented in the Affidavits, which give the
proof of astonishing corruption in the perpetrators' own words.
Authorship is the fact accomplished.
It can not be "forfeited"; no one can "salvage" it
or award to another.
According to the law, authorship
is not transferable, and for good reason. It is important to civilized
society that the wrong people do not replace the doers as the authors of
discoveries. It is intolerable, that people, foreign and inimical to both
science and morality, are able to make a mockery of all intellectual meaning
of research, using the high positions that they have come to occupy within
the University. It is intolerable that such precedent, abolishing the law,
is established with the full support of government. Principles of authorship,
never assaulted before, are now the last frontier of civilization, which
must be defended at any price.
A University, worshipping discoveries
and destroying the doers, has no right to exist. The schemes of substitute
scientists must fall.
If the criminals escape justice,
in this clearest of cases, through either their corrupt influence, money
or provocation, it would not only be the waste of my life and work, it
would be a disaster for everyone who works in science with honesty and
pride.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
My research
From 1981 to 1986 I was a Ph.D. student at
the Department of Zoology. My research for the thesis was based on my paper
of 1980 in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (see
Ref.1), (Doc.1A)
where I established a mathematical necessity for a definite pattern of
cell divisions in a tissue of an adult organism.
I proposed there that cell divisions must
proceed in a tissue as a WAVE, consecutively triggering the division in
neighboring cells. The resulting order of divisions allowed the tissue
to replace its dying cells with the new ones, but, at the same time, to
preserve its original shape.
As the arrangement of cells in a tissue displays
the pattern of polygonal mosaics, the order of divisions has to obey the
topological rules that are known to exist in such cell "mosaics".
When I began my Ph.D. research on the developing
tissues of Drosophila, this concept allowed me to consider development
(where the cells are not dying and replaced, but are multiplying) in a
new light and to predict certain phenomena not seen before.
Since the previous model showed how the arrangement
of cells affects the shape of the tissue, I made a prediction that in the
developing tissue (larvae), there must be some specific features of cell
arrangements (i.e., the overall patterns of cell "mosaics") that
reflect the future shape of the adult organ.
I, therefore, proposed to study cell arrangements
in different tissues which give rise to different organs, and in the known
mutants which give rise to the altered organs. The technique that I had
developed allowed me to see the cell borders and, indeed, to distinguish
the specific features of cell arrangements. I found that they are:
1) organ specific,
2) the same on the left and right sides (as
mirror images),
3) the same in two species of Drosophila,
4) correspondingly changed, when homeotic
mutation (altering the organ determination) occurs.
I made numerous observations of these patterns
and concluded that there is only one basic structure -- a WHORL, with cells
dividing in its center in a nearly standing wave, and cells growing around
it in a helical pattern. The number of such whorls (with different activities)
is not great in a disc (which makes the patterns distinguishable), and
the total picture is a combination of the large and small whorls.
I believe that the whorl must be an absolutely
universal structure (although, the appearance of the structure would depend
on the rates of division and growth).
It now appears that the development
of organs, the establishing of symmetry and various shapes in the organism
are predetermined by the very arrangement of cells in the tissue, and not
"regulated" by the hypothetical chemical substances -- "morphogenes".
While the development would be deficient without
certain substances or physical conditions, they alone are unable to establish
the pattern of development. There are still other factors present, for
instance, the inability of certain cells to divide and cell death, that
would either allow or prohibit certain pathways.
It also became clear that the transformation
of larval tissue (imaginal discs) into adult shapes can be "elastic",
i.e., without cell rearrangement.
My research was included by my supervisor,
Prof. Ellen Larsen (Ellen Rapport), in her extensive review paper (see Ref.2)
and was the sole contribution to the subject from her laboratory. The
only reference in her paper, somehow related to her laboratory, was a quotation
of my 1980 paper. It was also used as a foundation for the thesis of her
M.Sc. student (see
Ref.4).
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The "academic" decision
My research was highly esteemed by my supervisor;
she wrote: "Mr. Pyshnov's demonstrated creativity in conceiving
of this novel approach plus his superb technical skills uniquely qualify
him to carry out these studies of far reaching significance." (See
her recommendation). It was judged
as progressing satisfactorily eleven times, the last time, on May 3, 1985,
(Doc.5).
On October 18, 1985, I received a letter from
the Department reminding me: "...You should make every effort to complete
your thesis by the Fall of 1986....[schedules for Ph.D. and M.Sc. candidates
follow]...extensions are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain,
unless there are extenuating circumstances and evidence of substantial
progress. Good luck with your endeavours during the coming months."
(Doc.6)
Later on the same day, I received a hastily
written letter from Prof. Larsen:
"I am writing to communicate to you my
urgent concern about your PhD program. As you know, you have one more year
to complete your program. Since May 1985 I have seen no experimental progress
made and have been given no indication as to why this is so. Since I have
serious doubts about your ability to complete your experiments and thesis
requirements in the time remaining, I intend to convene a committee meeting
in early January to review your situation and make appropriate recommendations.
In the meantime I hope that you will discuss any problems you have or make
known any difficulties you forsee." (Doc.7)
This letter came as a complete surprise; I,
initially, did not take it seriously. She always said that I had an excellent
thesis, and, a couple of weeks earlier, I was given by the Department a
space where I could write the thesis. Her explanation was that she wanted
more experiments, but, that the decision would be left to the Graduate
Committee.
She, then, persuaded the Graduate Committee
to change my status to a lapsed student, i.e., to remove me from the laboratory.
But, since doing more experiments would require my staying in the laboratory,
Prof. Larsen, who, as it became clear later, wanted me out, changed
her requirement to another one.
She wrote this "academic" decision:
"The committee met on 24 January 1986
and found the work of the student may not be completed by the time his
financial support terminates in April 1986. If this occurs he would allow
his Ph.D. candidacy to lapse with the expectation of being reinstated when
his theoretical models have fully matured."
(Doc.8)
The meeting of the Graduate Committee, where
Prof. Larsen was the only member who had first-hand knowledge of my research,
lasted for half an hour. Not a single scientific question was raised after
my presentation. I proposed to write and present the thesis for their judgment,
but I was told: "Michael, you have no thesis."
For a few months more I kept coming to the
laboratory, trying to persuade her to change the decision, but that did
not help; no new meeting was set up in April or later.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The first two attempts
Back in May of 1985, at the request of Prof.
Larsen, I presented (with her co-authorship) a poster with my latest results
at a conference. So, five months later, when she began removing me from
the laboratory, she thought that her co-authorship of my research was secured.
But, a few weeks before I left, she became
aware that it so happened that the abstract of this poster was never published
by the editors.
She quickly made her own, extremely crude,
compilation of the most demonstrative results of my research and offered
to publish it, as a Brief Note,
under both our names. (Doc.9)
I, at first, agreed, then, realizing that her automatic co-authorship (as
supervisor) was quite unsavory in the new situation, declined (July 11,
1986).
I left in August of 1986, in total desperation,
helpless to prove the value of my work then, or in the future.
A year after I left, in the last week of July
of 1987, Prof. Larsen phoned me, for the first time, and asked me to sign
the Copyright Transfer (Doc.15)
for publication of that same paper (Doc.11),
which she had secretly sent to another journal and which was already accepted.
(Doc.10),
(Doc.12),
(Doc.13),
(Doc.14)
While I had no means to continue the research,
she had the grant and she, when I came to see her, introduced me to her
new student, who was, she said, repeating my experiments.
I refused to sign the Copyright Transfer and
called her a thief. This had no effect, because she needed my signature.
She argued that she had committed money to pay for the pages and that this
publication would be an asset to me. She, incredibly, continued to pretend
total friendliness.
It was clear to me that her requirement of
the full maturity of my theoretical models was a pretext; that my research,
which was a continuation of my lifetime effort in one area, had ended without
the possibility to continue it in any capacity, and without the degree.
On the other hand, Prof. Larsen demanded the
publication, which, in no way, could be a decent conclusion to my research.
The paper did not even mention the number of experiments done, and it gave
almost none of my explanation of the findings.
It was blatantly obvious, that the only use
of this trifling paper was for her to claim the authorship of the findings.
Her authorship, however, could only be justified
by the custom allowing a supervisor to sign as a co-author, since she did
not ever contribute scientifically to my research. Such co-authorship would
also give her a clear way to subsequently plagiarize anything that remained
in her memory from the five years of my research, but withheld by her from
this paper.
My research, in fact, had opened a whole new
approach to the problem of morphogenesis. (See
Prof. Larsen's own statements.) It
was plain and obvious to me that both her "academic" decision
and her paper were conceived with the intent to steal the authorship of
my research. Later events proved that my perception of the situation was
not an exaggeration at all.
I complained to the Chair of the Department
in a letter (August 1, 1987), pointing to both of the above aspects, only
not saying the word "fraud":
"...The committee meeting was staged
in such a way that no scientific discussion was given time, but, instead,
Dr. Rapport's [as she then was] opinion was quickly accepted. Dr.
Rapport exercised her power in a swift manner of execution, since any discussion
would reveal impossible contradiction with all reports from the previous
years....
The paper...was horribly shortened and every
bit of my concept was removed from it. No one would be able now to understand
why such work was undertaken, what is the clue to the interpretation of
the results and what is the significance of it. I noted to Dr. Rapport
that her integrity is questionable if she wants to publish a discovery
after she got rid of a discoverer...
I am asking you as a Chairman to persuade
Dr. Rapport that she should not attempt publishing my paper and that her
duplicity has put an end to any of her rights on this work, and to her
right of using my work for the other students' research." (Doc.16)
The answer from the Chair (September 22, 1987)
was delivered in one sentence:
"Further to your letter of August 1st,
1987 addressed to me, regarding publication of work you did with Dr. E.
Larson, this is to inform you that Dr. Larsen has withdrawn the paper she
submitted for publication to the Transactions of the American Microscopical
Society." (Doc.20)
The rest of my complaint was ignored. I tried
some other routes, but no one responded seriously (or at all) to my complaint.
Some time after this, I angrily disposed my daily records of work into
the garbage (see more
on this).
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Finally, it's all stolen
The assurance from the Chair was, however,
a deception: the University intended to steal my discoveries and never
intended to see me back with my thesis, as the swindling operation continued.
In 1989, Prof. Larsen published my discoveries
under her name, acknowledging in a footnote:
"We thank Michael Pyshnov for sharing
his silver staining technique and his ideas with us."
(see Ref.5)
(Doc.21)
This acknowledgment was, of course, a fraudulent
and quite sadistic act, resembling a "thank you" note left by
burglars in the house. My letter to the Chair confirms that not only was
there no desire to "share", but, in fact, my vigorous protest.
My ideas, technique, etc., were, of course, "shared" with her
as the supervisor during the five years.
She cooked her "research" in about
51 days, as it follows from the U of T documents, by hiring an undergraduate
student to get some of my experiments repeated to fit my results and conclusions,
which were already well known to her.
The comparison with the withdrawn manuscript
leaves no doubt that all the technique, ideas, experiments, results and
conclusions were transferred from it into the new paper. The abstract claims
my discoveries almost identically to the one in the withdrawn MS. The title
is changed using the Editor's correction made in the withdrawn manuscript.
The authors, however, are different. (See
the titles, authors and abstracts compared.)
My discovery (described in the withdrawn manuscript)
of the changed cell arrangement in the homeotic (Ns) mutant as compared
to the cell arrangement in normal tissue, is claimed as their discovery.
But, ridiculously, the normal flies, which
should have been analyzed to make the comparison (this was reported in
the withdrawn manuscript), are not among the strains used in her new paper.
Instead of analyzing normal flies, the authors
claim results obtained on "hundreds"
of the "non-Ns"
(her euphemism for "normal") flies "in
the course of the last six years"!
The word "normal" is removed from
the abstract; but the comparison with the normal flies is, indeed, meant
there as their finding. The normal flies appear
in the title, otherwise, of course, the "discovery" of the mutant
cell arrangements wouldn't make any sense.
Yet, in 1993, Prof. Larsen made one more turn
and announced that "in the second paper, discs from two mutant strains
were compared", while "in the retracted work, wild-type
discs were compared to mutant discs". (Doc.25)
Indeed, her paper includes the new fly with
another mutation, but...this mutation is not investigated. The stated role
for the new mutant is to show that the presence of a mutation in another
organ does not change cell arrangements in normal tissue, unrelated to
this mutation, which would be, anyway, expected. This conclusion about
the new mutant is not even mentioned in the abstract.
However, this mutant was used to
show its normal tissue, to claim her "new"
findings, in fact, the same as the ones made by me with, simply, the normal
fly. So, the overt use of the normal flies was undesirable.
The experiments that she added to the stolen
research, were not the important part of the paper. None of the experiments
in this paper show any results that were not shown by me previously or
were not obviously expected from my experiments. I can even doubt that
the authors performed any experiments.
Some of the findings, made by me (temperature
effect), but not reported by Prof. Larsen in the withdrawn manuscript,
were brought to the new paper; they are not in the abstract either.
Other changes are also fraudulent, such as
renaming my "whorls" into "clusters". Curiously, an
article from California (see
Ref.6), referring to the "findings"
in this stolen paper (they don't say it is stolen, see
more on this), still mentions those structures by their original name,
used in the withdrawn manuscript. (How would they know? -- Prof. Rapport
spent her sabbatical there.)
This paper, I believe, is the filthiest forgery
ever published in a scientific journal.
Moreover, the stealing did not start with
this paper.
In July of 1987, when Prof. Larsen cunningly
tried to make me sign the Copyright Transfer, I did not know and she did
not tell me that she had already sent two other articles for publication
(published in 1987 (see
Ref.3) and 1988 (see
Ref.4)), in which my work and ideas
were appropriated by her and her co-authors.
She began stealing my research as soon as
I left and, notably, before I refused to sign that manuscript.
Furthermore, in these articles, my former
supervisor pretended that the abstract of the poster of 1985 was published
in the Abs. Soc. Devl. Biol., 44th Symposium,
(1985); and she made a reference to this
nonexistent "publication". So, she
blasted off the confidentiality of my research, made it look as if the
research had already been published, and, at the same time, demonstrated
her co-authorship.
The implications of my research (now -- their
research) are discussed in these articles in a ridiculously boasting manner,
totally irreconcilable with the treatment
my work received in 1986 at the Graduate Committee
meeting.
These two articles (particularly, the 1987
one), if compared to 1989 paper, betray the facts that her "discoveries"
in the 1989 paper were made years before, and that there was also another
co-author in an abstract that was never published. But, in the 1989 paper,
she does not make references to the 1987 paper, nor to the unpublished
abstract of the poster, nor to my 1980 paper, to which reference was made
in the withdrawn manuscript, nor does she mention this manuscript in any
way.
My role now appears as that of a somewhat
helpful outsider, not as the sole initiator and the sole author of the
research. The source of the numerous far-reaching ideas, the author of
the discoveries, the author of four publications (plus one, nonexistent,
but quoted) on the subject, is known as Prof. E. Larsen (and her three,
varying from paper to paper, co-authors).
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The case is in court
Until 1993 I had no knowledge of all the "scientific"
activity that followed the assurance from the Chair that the article had
been withdrawn. I was unemployed and in a terrible situation. Upon finding
these publications and realizing what an elaborate fraud has been perpetrated
on me with devilish persistence, I wrote a letter (November 23, 1993) to
the President of the U of T, Prof. Robert Prichard, enclosing the "academic"
decision, the 1987 manuscript, the statement from the Chair that this MS
was withdrawn and Prof. Larsen's subsequent articles. (Doc.22)
He answered me that he asked the (at this
time, new) Chair of the Department to review my complaint and to reply
directly to me. (Doc.23)
The reply from the Chair (December 17, 1993)
was:
"In response to President Prichard's
letter (November 25, 1993), I initiated an objective investigation into
your allegation of plagiarism and corruption against Dr. E. Larsen.
I wish to inform you that there is no evidence
of plagiarism and that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable and responsible
manner in what was clearly a difficult situation.
I understand that you abandoned your Ph.D.
program amicably when your funding ran out and that you were informed that
you could return and submit a completed thesis. I believe that this option
is still open to you."
(Doc.26)
I did not answer; I went to the law library,
then, to court. At first, the University succeeded in striking out half
of my Statement of Claim (Doc.35),
saying that the court has no jurisdiction over "academic matters".
I, then, took the case to the Court of Appeal, and the important parts
of the Statement of Claim (in 12 paragraphs) were restored. Finally, after
a year and a half, the Statement of Defense (Doc.36),
written by the U of T together with Prof. Larsen, was delivered, and the
Affidavits with the documents were exchanged (November 1995).
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
How Prof. Larsen apologized to the
Editor
One of the documents that I found in the Affidavits,
was Prof. Larsen's letter of September 16, 1987, to the Editor (bearing
the stamp of the Chair of the Department with this date, i.e., preceding
the Chair's letter to me, which said that Prof. Larsen had withdrawn the
manuscript). Here it is:
"I am writing with reference to MS 483-87.
I regret that owing to circumstances I shall outline below, I must withdraw
this manuscript from consideration. I intend, however, to submit the results
of a similar study [sic] (performed by myself and an undergraduate)
in the very near future, one which because of its somewhat wider scope
may actually be a more satisfying contribution.
The first author of MS 483-87, Mr.
M. Pyshnov was a graduate student under my supervision for some five years.
In my opinion he is a very creative scientist with great technical flair.
Unfortunately, after discovering disc specific cell arrangements [sic]
and their modification in a homeotic mutant [sic] he became unable
to do more research. A year after he produced his last preparations (those
found in the MS) his graduate student status was changed to "lapsed
student", ie, one who is free to return to complete requirements but
who is no longer officially registered. I was hoping that publication of
his work would encourage him and enable him to resume his progress towards
a degree. Unfortunately he has changed his mind and decided for reasons
of his own [sic] that he does not want his work published. I am
not only disappointed with his decision but embarrassed to have to retract
the work after so many other people have given it their expert time and
effort.
In the new paper I shall try to incorporate
both the reviewers' and your excellent stylistic suggestions so that these
efforts will not have been entirely wasted."
(Doc.19),
also (Doc.18)
Here, the research is all "his",
four times. She had specified two particular
discoveries, made by me. There are not any claims to her authorship of
the research reported in the manuscript. She invented my inability to do
more research and feigned her desire to enable me, and made this the main
point of the letter.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Prof. Larsen's later explanation
Another document that I received, was Prof.
Larsen's explanation, (Doc.25),
to the Chair of the Department (December 9, 1993), in response to my letter
to President Prichard. First, she considered "the alleged plagiarism".
She says:
"The papers in question deal with the
significance of cell arrangement patterns which Michael discovered in fly
imaginal discs. I suggested that one could look at mutations which change
the type of appendage produced and see if the mutant also changed the cell
arrangement patterns. In the retracted work, wild-type discs were
compared to mutant discs, in the second paper, discs from two mutant strains
were compared and the effects of temperature on cell patterns were also
examined. The results of the second paper corroborate the first hence the
similarity in conclusions presented in the two abstracts. I can see no
justification for calling this plagiarism."
In the first sentence she omits the second
discovery, which she attributed to me in her letter to the Editor ("...and
their modification in a homeotic mutant").
Had she not omitted it, she would have had
to explain how in the next sentence she is now claiming to have "suggested"
something that I "discovered".
Although this is not an impossible situation,
in this case it is a lie. In fact, I had suggested the hypothesis in my
first thesis proposal in 1981 (Doc.1),
before proving it in 1984. The hypothesis in my proposal reads: "...Furthermore,
homeotic mutants which alter disc determination will be observed to see
if cell packing is also altered."
Moreover, she had, probably, forgotten that
in one of her recommendations, written ten years before, she clearly attributed
to me "conceiving" this approach and the hypothesis; or she thought
that the old recommendation would be unavailable to me now. (See
this already mentioned quotation.)
In the third sentence she is trying to disown
the title of her paper, the abstract, the conclusions, the discussion and
the photographs, in which she presented the stolen discovery of Ns
mutant cell arrangements as compared with
normal flies.
Now she says she did a comparison between
two mutants only.
(On the other hand, what she now says means
that her paper does not contain the subject of her "suggestion"
to compare a mutant with the normal fly,
thereby, she is dropping the noble argument that her paper was published
to assert her own scientific contribution.)
Her fourth sentence is also puzzling, because
her paper could hardly "corroborate the first", if avowedly different
objects were dealt with in the two papers.
Still, the experiments and the conclusions
are identical. Where is the truth?
Of course, her paper "corroborates the
first", the unpublished one. But, nowhere does it say that her "findings"
are "corroborating" something that was done before and by a different
researcher. Her paper is published as an original work.
Her desperate attempt to disown the subject
of her paper points, obviously, to plagiarism.
She, then, designs "the concept of intellectual
property" and tenders it as an accepted norm which is supposed to
give her a justification based on high social and ideological grounds.
It, actually, being a poorly concealed communist fraud transferred on science,
only proves that she published my research:
"I gather that Michael Pyshnov believes
that he "owns" the finding of cell patterns in discs and can
suppress the use of ideas or subsequent experiments flowing from that discovery.
I believe this point of view has no validity in the culture of science
or in the law. What is required by standards of common decency as well
as in the tradition of scientific courtesy is to cite works by or thank
individuals for their particular help. The Larsen/Zorn paper gratefully
and graciously acknowledged Michael's technical and intellectual contributions.
Perhaps Michael feels betrayed because he
forfeited a publication for naught. He has failed to recognize that science
is a community endeavor, paid for by the public with the obligation to
present the results, and with the reward of being acknowledged by those
who use them."
She means to say that she had the right to
publish the paper containing my work, in spite of my protest.
Why, then, did she withdraw the manuscript
without objections, and why did she not write to the Editor that, since
"...Michael Pyshnov believes that he "owns" the finding...and
can suppress the use of ideas or subsequent experiments...", she will
publish my discoveries anyway, in the interest of the community and with
the acknowledgment to me?
Then, she only wrote: "...owing to circumstances
I shall outline below, I must withdraw this manuscript..." And these
circumstances were that the work was mine and that I did not want to publish
it with her. She always knew that she did not have any right to publish
my work.
She, subsequently, made a forgery, a "similar
study", and she knew that she had committed fraud, once more; it was
her third paper stealing my research.
It was, clearly, the obligation of the Chair
of the Department to let me know what her "similar study" was
about.
Prof. Larsen's acknowledgment of my "sharing"
with her of the technique and ideas is proven false by all the documents
(including her above statement), which show that I refused to publish them
with her. The publication was not only unauthorized, it was protested.
Therefore, her publication of my technique
and ideas is a malicious breach of confidentiality, a sadistic violation
of the basic rules of academia.
Furthermore, she not only published my ideas,
she published them as her own ideas. They stand there as her own ideas,
since the reader is unable to attribute a single of these unspecified "shared"
ideas to me, let alone, to realize that they were stolen, after she, together
with the Department, deceitfully foiled my protest. The acknowledgment
she made is false, moreover, it is meaningless
to the reader. A more calculated fraud is
difficult to imagine.
She did not want to acknowledge my "particular
help" (as she put it), because all the
ideas in her paper were mine as it is clearly
evidenced from the comparison with the withdrawn manuscript and with other
documents.
It would be abhorrent to see this acknowledgment
as a "scientific courtesy" or "reward". Therefore,
what remains of her acknowledgment, is an admission (although, not made
to the other readers) that her paper is, indeed, my work. Her remorseless
and sadistic remark, that I, actually, received "naught" for
my work (not a "reward"!) and her words that she "gratefully
and graciously acknowledged Michael's technical and intellectual contributions",
together with her acknowledgment in the paper, are obviously products of
a deviant, criminal mind.
In the last part of her explanation she lies
about the cause of my departure. She does not say, as in her letter to
the Editor, that my status was changed to a "lapsed student",
"no longer officially registered" (which confirms the text of
the "academic" decision), but gives a concocted cause; she now
says that I was only "warned", but that my money "ran out":
"Contrary to the impression given in
Pyshnov's letter - he was not forced out of the Ph.D. He was warned that
time was closing in and he was not making progress. (I would have been
derelict in my duties as supervisor had I not done so.) He left the program
amicably [sic] when his money ran out [sic], with the understanding
that he could return with a thesis to submit. Nowhere in his submission
does he explain how he was deprived of a Ph.D. if he never submitted a
thesis [sic]."
Money played no role in my departure. Moreover,
I told the Committee, when they, strangely, raised this issue, that I would
be able to finish the program after my scholarship ends in April, and that
I could, if needed, get the student loan, which I had not used before.
Nevertheless, Prof. Larsen included this bogus issue in the text of the
"academic" decision.
It is an outrage that while the "academic"
decision referred to the lack of funding, she, after my departure, found
money to hire someone else to repeat the work already done by me, obviously,
with the purpose to fraudulently represent it as her own.
In this explanation to the Chair of the Department,
Prof. Larsen carelessly celebrates the success of roguery and the demise
of the victim. This could only be written by an adventuress feeling total
impunity in a circle of friends.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
My research, they say, was "salvaged",
not stolen
Two U of T investigations of the matter were
conducted. (Although, apparently, there was also one earlier "investigation"
(Doc.17).)
Together with the Statement of Defense, they do not offer much of a denial
that Prof. Larsen's 1989 paper presents my research under her name, but
offer a theory that my research was "salvaged"
by her.
The Statement of Defense says:
"Indeed, due to the fact that Pyshnov
spent five years in Dr. Larsen's laboratory, received considerable academic
and financial support, Dr. Larsen had a responsibility to the sources of
the research funding to salvage [sic] as much as possible from the
paucity [sic] of work that Pyshnov had completed before his departure.
Accordingly, when Pyshnov was unable or unwilling to advance his work at
a satisfactory pace and unwilling even to publish results, Dr. Larsen was
entitled [sic] to have others conduct additional work in respect
of this area."
Again, as in Prof. Larsen's explanation, one
reason for "salvaging" appears to be the investment. The bill
was not presented to me, but, the cost of my five years of research to
the University, calculated with the help of the chemical catalogue, was
$190. Added to the cost should be the photographic paper, the flies and
the use of the microscope.
The scholarship, which I received, was, mainly,
the NSERC two-year award, the best in Canada, $21,600. (I also won the
best U of T scholarship, but could not use it along with the NSERC.) Each
of the six installments of this award was approved, as being requested
in accordance with the progress of my research, by Prof. Larsen.
Can this money take away the authorship of
my Ph.D. research and transfer this authorship to Prof. Larsen and her
three co-authors?
Together with this reason, the Statement of
Defense and the second U of T investigator maintain that my research (i.e.,
Ph.D. research) was a joint research with Prof. Larsen, and not mine alone.
They say that my refusal to publish the 1987 MS was her reason for "salvaging"
it.
However, the fact that she sent two other
papers, stealing my work, before
I refused to publish the manuscript (that is, before she was "entitled"
to "salvage") was completely ignored in both investigations.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The first investigation
The first investigation (December 1, 1993)
followed my letter to the President of the U of T and was conducted without
my knowledge by Prof. I. Orchard (Dept. of Zoology, now -- Vice-Provost
of the University!). (Doc.24)
He determined Prof. Larsen's rights in the
withdrawn MS thus:
"In my experience, it is routine for
a supervisor, who has funded and overseen a project, to be co-author.
Indeed, in this situation, since Dr. Larsen clearly wrote the MS, it could
be argued she should have been first author. In any case, in attempting
to salvage [sic] something from the 5 years of research, Dr. Larsen
is prevented from publishing due to Mr. Pyshnov's refusal to sign the Copyright
Transfer."
Knowing that this, his own, Department requires
Ph.D. students to submit and defend their own project (which I did) and
avoiding the question of whose ideas were behind my project, he further
determined that this supervisor could become the author of the research
even without me:
"I believe in all good conscience, and
with common sense, Dr. Larsen did the only thing open to her. She hired
another student, repeated the experiments and performed some others. Then,
a more substantial paper was produced and published in 1989 by Larsen and
Zorn."
He pretends that the criterion of originality
in authorship is not known to him. What about
the experiments of Isaac Newton, which are repeated every day in schools?
He, then, with gross contempt, continued to
negate any right of a researcher:
"His problems were probably his own making.
It would have been reasonable to have taken the senior authorship on the
1987 MS. In addition, Dr. Larsen is now, quite correctly, referencing her
own papers in reviews. This is a normal scientific practice, where it is
easier and more up-to-date to cite the most recent articles.
I am not persuaded by the rather naďve meanderings of Mr. Pyshnov in the
latter part of his letter regarding Dr. Larsen securing authorship for
all future works on the subject, and the part that others are referring
to Dr. Larsen's work."
A redneck-professor in a fit of antiintellectualism?
Or is this most "gentler and kindlier" University preparing The
New Science Order?
However, even this argument about her citing
"the most recent articles" is fabricated. What
is he talking about, when there is no single paper published on the subject
of my Ph.D. research, bearing my name on it?
When describing this research, she always
was referencing only her own papers, with the notable exception of the
reference to the nonexistent "publication" of the abstract from
the poster (who knows, what was in it?). On the poster, my name was followed
by her name, as the supervisor. At the time it looked quite innocent, but
subsequently, there was no "normal scientific practice"; her
papers were stealing my research.
All he said about my removal from the Ph.D.
program, was:
"Mr. Pyshnov left the Ph.D. programme
in 1986. I do not know the circumstances leading to this but it may be
worth finding out if he was asked to leave, or whether, as indicated by
the committee meeting report of January 24, 1986, his 5 year term was up
and the expectation was for him to lapse then become reinstated on completion
of further work."
Again, he fabricated a probable argument:
it was not indicated in this report that my term was up, on the contrary,
other documents clearly show that I had at least one more year. There could
not have been "the expectation for him to lapse" for this reason.
There is no word here about Prof. Larsen's
(second) version of events -- that my money "ran out", which
made me leave the program.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The second investigation: I lost
a race with thieves
The second investigation was initiated through
my complaint to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC). The U of T Provost asked D.N. Dewees, a Professor of Law,
the Vice-Dean responsible for investigations of plagiarism, a member of
Economic Council of Canada, Institute for Policy Analysis, etc., (who was
unable to understand the scientific articles in question) to investigate
my allegations of plagiarism.
When I asked him whether a biologist would
participate, he said: "We'll see." No biologist showed up. But,
he said in his report (April 25, 1995), (Doc.27),
that Prof. D. Van der Kooy (Dept. of Anatomy) helped him, that is -- behind
the scene. Later, the Vice-Provost of the University, responding to my
outrage, (Doc.28),
over Prof. Dewees's report and his faking of naivety in matters related
to plagiarism, said: "Dean Dewees did consult on scientific matters
where necessary." (Doc.29)
He questioned me two times, for one hour each;
I recorded it on tape, secretly. He said he "spent 12 hours on this
investigation."
A "genuinely joint research"?
Considering the 1987 withdrawn manuscript,
Prof. Dewees concluded: "There is no plagiarism, nor any allegation
of plagiarism regarding this paper."
But, two paragraphs earlier, speaking of my
refusal to publish it, he said: "...he thought Professor Larsen was
trying to steal his ideas."
Obviously, he knew that I made the allegation
of an attempted plagiarism when she wanted to put her name on the paper.
But, my allegation was not agreeable with his own approach to this investigation.
He rejected my denial of Prof. Larsen's scientific
contribution to my research. He stated: "Professor Larsen had contributed
the mutation idea, she had provided guidance and advice throughout the
project, she had grown the flies, and she had provided funding. Both parties
agree that Professor Larsen wrote the text; Mr. Pyshnov did not write it.
This manuscript was therefore a report on genuinely joint research based
on shared [sic] ideas. Professor Larsen's contribution was such
that she was properly listed as an author."
Prof. Larsen's guidance and advice had a purely
administrative nature. Her own recommendations given to me at an earlier
time and other documents quoted here, exclude the possibility of now attributing
any scientific contribution to her, particularly, the "suggestion",
which was, probably, the one turned by Prof. Dewees into "the mutation
idea".
This "mutation idea" was clearly
stated in my thesis proposal. Prof. Larsen attributed to me the conception
of the new approach, including this idea. Then, she attributed to me the
discovery of mutant cell arrangements without making any claim to the idea
itself. When she, in 1993, advanced her claim to the "suggestion",
she surrounded the claim with what judges usually call "a pack of
lies". All this evidence was "missed" by Prof. Dewees.
The flies were grown in large stocks for the
undergraduate course by a technician and used for research also. Prof.
Larsen, indeed, from time to time, would give me one or two bottles with
the flies that she freshly transplanted herself; sometimes, they constituted
all that I needed for a couple of days, though, the main work of maintaining
the flies I did.
She, indeed, was taking care of the funding,
but, how can this help her to turn my Ph.D. research into a "genuinely
joint research"?
Her contribution was not a scientific contribution
that can put her name on the authors' line.
It is amazing that, in five years, Prof. Larsen
did not try, a single time, to repeat my experiments, despite my invitations
to do so.
Here, it is impossible for me to discuss every
distortion and evasion that Prof. Orchard and Prof. Dewees used in their
reports. I do quote here their main arguments. To
expose the crime, it is quite sufficient to point out, what they do admit
and what can be proven using their own words.
She wrote up my research, and she became the
author of it
While Prof. Larsen admitted in her letter
to the Editor that the research she reported in the withdrawn MS was mine,
she said she is sending a "similar study". In her explanation
to the Chair she said that the 1989 paper is her new work and it only "corroborates"
the withdrawn MS. Prof. Dewees had to investigate my allegation that in
her 1989 paper she stole
my ideas, results, etc., previously described in the withdrawn manuscript.
Does the comparison of the abstracts of the
1989 paper and the 1987 MS (see,
again, the comparison) not show
the plagiarism? Of course it does, but not to Prof. Dewees who joined Prof.
Orchard in the task of perverting all intellectual meaning of research.
He said: "The abstract is very similar
to that of the 1987 paper, but this text was written by Prof. Larsen in
any event."
Prof. Orchard said: "However, since Dr.
Larsen wrote the 1987 version [sic] it cannot be considered plagiarism."
Both investigators, a biologist and a lawyer,
disposed of the irrefutable evidence of plagiarism, pretending that at
issue is only a literary plagiarism. They pretended that merely writing
this abstract in 1987 should give Prof. Larsen ("in any event")
the authorship of the scientific ideas and discoveries.
Who did the hundreds of experiments?
The following chain of statements proves not
only Prof. Larsen's fraud, but, also, the complete dishonesty of Prof.
Dewees:
1) On July 27, 1987, Prof. Larsen signed the
Copyright Transfer for the withdrawn MS, which she (on September 16) admitted
as my research. Prof. Dewees also admitted that the experiments described
in it were mine: "Mr. Pyshnov had adapted the silver staining technique,
he had the idea of studying cell patterns, he had performed the experiments
and taken the photographs."
2) On September 16, 1987, Prof. Larsen wrote
to the Editor: "I intend, however, to submit the results of a similar
study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in the very near future..."
In this "similar study" (the 1989 paper), the "Discussion"
on page 54 opens with the words: "In the course of the last six years,
hundreds of discs from non-Ns [i.e., normal] larvae have been silver
stained." (She and her co-author continued, throughout the paper,
to claim the results of these hundreds of experiments as part of their
research.)
3) Prof. Dewees's conclusion was: "The
1989 article does not report Mr. Pyshnov's original experimental results,
photographs or data except for one paragraph on page 54 which may refer
to his results as well as those of the authors."
So, who did the hundreds of experiments "in
the course of the last six years" (she had only 51 days for "a
similar study")?
Prof. Dewees fraudulently overlooked the connection
between this "paragraph on page 54" in her paper and the experiments
in the withdrawn MS, which he attributed to me (and he never said that
she had done any experiments before 1987). That is, despite the fact that
I showed this paragraph to him and said that these hundreds of experiments
were my research. (He, probably, did not realize that I was recording the
conversation.)
Moreover, he stated: "The experimental
research on which the 1987 paper was based was quite meagre, as noted by
the referees for an earlier submission [he means the withdrawn manuscript!].
The experimental data consisted of only four photographs. Professor Larsen
had tried to get Mr. Pyshnov to do more experimental work but he would
not."
In fact, in the 1987 MS, Prof. Larsen did
not indicate at all, the number of experiments. She, also, did not indicate
that it contained materials of my Ph.D. research. As a result, the MS looked
as if it contained a very small amount of data (though, no referee said
that the research was meager).
She chose to claim hundreds of experiments
later, in her own paper in 1989. Her acknowledgment did not include any
thanks for my experiments and my name was not mentioned anywhere else in
this paper, but, Prof. Dewees covered up this horrific fraud. Ridiculous
as it is, he did not accept my explanation that the four photographs are
only the illustrations for a much larger work.
Both, Prof. Dewees and Prof. Orchard, maintain
that Prof. Larsen began her own work when I refused to publish the manuscript.
Was it possible to overlook her fraudulent
claim to hundreds of experiments done in the last six years?
In the 1989 paper, the number of experiments
which the authors performed with the mutant
flies, is given as dozens ("In the dozens
of discs we observed...").
It becomes clear that:
1) the "hundreds" are the bulk of
the research claimed by Prof. Larsen and her co-author,
2) remembering that the "hundreds"
are described as only the "non-Ns" (i.e., normal) flies, Prof.
Larsen, in addition to making the fraudulent claim to the work of the "last
six years", gives the impression that
no Ns mutants were analyzed ever before.
Nowhere in this paper she says that the withdrawn
MS presented the experiments with Ns mutants as the main achievement and
that they were also reported on the poster in 1985. She includes the reference
to her 1988 article (as "In press", not yet published) where
the Ns mutants are dealt with, but she does not say that Ns mutants will
appear there. And the reader, of course, doesn't know that in her letter
to the Editor she attributed the discovery of the Ns mutant cell arrangements
to me.
Prof. Dewees, of course, knew all of this.
She replicated my experiments, and she became
the author of the discoveries
While absolutely denying Prof. Larsen's plagiarism,
Prof. Dewees made this casual remark:
"I believe that it would have been good
practice to include in the 1989 article a statement that some of these
results are replications or extensions of results first found by Mr. Pyshnov
in Professor Larsen's laboratory and perhaps to mention the 1985 abstract."
He, then, said:
"However I do not believe that the omission
of this statement and citation constitutes misconduct."
He did not dare to spell out which of her
results were "replications or extensions" of my results, but
he insisted that "the research for the 1989 article was done by Professor
Larsen and the co-author" and that I "did not do the experimental
research reported there."
To me, it would make no difference whether
Prof. Larsen and her co-author actually did the experiments with Ns mutants
(i.e., replicated my experiments) or just claimed my results as their own,
as they did with those "hundreds of discs" from the normal flies.
(In a like manner, it is not a justification
for a counterfeiter to say that he used his own paper for the bills.)
Had Prof. Dewees had no intention to conceal
the fraud, he would state, which results (and/or experiments) were replicated,
and would call this plagiarism. The same is true for Prof. Orchard, who
determined that Prof. Larsen "repeated the experiments".
Can others publish my research?
Prof. Dewees declared (and the Statement of
Defense says the same) that all my research was not confidential. In particular,
he says that my technique was not confidential, because it came to Prof.
Larsen's co-author (not to her) in this way: "Zorn, the co-author
of the 1989 article apparently learned the technique from another student
who learned it from Mr. Pyshnov."
I, indeed, had shown the technique once to
a student at the request of Prof. Larsen (who new it and had a full description
of it). I also delivered a presentation of my work at a seminar in the
Physics Department, and I explained my ideas and experiments to several
professors at the request of Prof. Larsen and, of course, to her.
Does it mean that anybody who heard me was
free to publish all this? Was Prof. Larsen
free to publish my research? Of course not.
While the communications between researchers
can be (and should be) open, they are still confidential, particularly,
in the sense that no one can publish
the research of another, learned from such communications.
Only the author, himself, can give permission
(and specify it, as he wishes) to publish his accomplishment to another
as a "personal communication", and it must be indicated as such
in the article.
Scientific journals require each author's
signature confirming that the research submitted for publication is original
research done by the author(s) of an article.
When Prof. Larsen and her three co-authors
published my research without my permission, they deceived the journal
and its readers, in addition to defrauding me.
Even if all the acknowledgments and thanks
were made, they could not present a justification for publishing a paper
with 99% of its content and 100% of its ideas being the unpublished work
of someone else, let alone, publishing it despite the vigorous protest
of the author and despite the assurance made to the author that it won't
be published. This is more than a breach of confidentiality, this is a
sadistic burglary.
I made a poster, and I lost the authorship
of my research
While faking naivety in scientific matters,
Prof. Dewees acted as a cunning lawyer. When he said that my research was
not confidential, it was done with the purpose to justify a more serious
crime than breach of confidentiality -- the crime of stealing the authorship
of my Ph.D. research. This is how he did it:
He determined that Prof. Larsen rightfully
derived her 1989 paper from my 1980 paper and from the never published
(he admitted this) abstract of the poster of 1985.
He said:
"But if 1989 article pursues [sic]
the ideas published in Mr. Pyshnov's 1980 article and the results presented
in 1985 poster paper [as he calls the nonexistent "paper"]
then those ideas cannot have been confidential. Once an idea is published
or presented [sic] the scientific community is entitled to explore
it further. I conclude that there was no impropriety in publishing the
1989 article without Mr. Pyshnov's name on it."
But, the poster was not published and no record
of it exists. Nobody is able to see what was on it -- but this is one of
the essential purposes of publishing and the reason why only a published
work can be used by others without permission. The poster was only presented,
and none of the two or three people who had looked at it (I was present
there during the poster session that lasted approximately two hours), stole
it or "explored it further".
Moreover, the poster presented only five photographs
with short comments, and to become familiar with my research of five years
by looking at it, was impossible.
Yet, Prof. Dewees determined that she "pursued"
the results shown on the poster. And, he found that there is no need to
say that she copied the withdrawn MS, because, as he says, "...Mr.
Pyshnov claims that the 1985 poster paper presented essentially the same
results [as the withdrawn MS]."
He needed the poster, because it was, at least,
shown to somebody!
Also, Prof. Larsen was the co-author of the
poster. Why did Prof. Dewees see more potential for her rights in saying
that the "poster paper" was not confidential, rather than, directly,
in the fact that she was a co-author of it?
The fact that the poster was presented to
others gives Prof. Larsen the entitlement to use her own work? That is,
if it really was her own work and ideas, and not just her name entered
as the name of the supervisor.
Indeed, the Statement of Defense admits that
the experiments presented on the poster were based on my ideas.
(See the
quotation.)
What a criminal farce he substituted for an
investigation!
But, what does "pursues" mean? He
said that she "pursued" my ideas published in the 1980 article,
but this article said absolutely nothing about Drosophila or morphogenesis;
the article was only a first step.
Only after that, as Prof. Larsen's recommendation
for my scholarship in 1981 (see
the full quotation) admits, I "...reviewed
an extensive Drosophila literature, outlined an entirely novel approach
to looking at morphogenesis..." I did this at the beginning of my
Ph.D. research on Drosophila, and the results presented on the poster
and in the withdrawn MS would not be possible without this entirely novel
approach.
Did Prof. Larsen come independently
to this entirely novel approach in her 1989 paper? Of course not. Not independently,
not by honest "pursuing" and not just by reading my 1980 article
or the poster. She learned it from me during the five years of being my
supervisor, and she stole it.
She did not make references and she made a
fraudulent acknowledgment, but she "had no intent" and she "had
not done so"
If Prof. Dewees, indeed, believed that she
"pursued" or "explored further" my 1980 paper and the
poster, then he should have condemned this as plagiarism, since she made
no reference to either of these sources.
He did not call this a plagiarism. He "overlooked"
the absence of reference to my 1980 paper. He noted, though, the absence
of reference to the "poster paper", but he excused her (see the
quotation above), because, as he added: "the abstract of the 1985
poster paper was not published in a way to be accessible to the general
research community; many would not cite it."
Does it mean that the poster was just the
right thing to be stolen, but not referred to?
But then, Prof. Dewees, in the same paragraph,
turned to the paper that she published in 1987 (which he did not investigate),
and recalled with satisfaction that in it she did make references to the
nonexistent "poster paper" and to my 1980 paper.
(So, his excuse for the absence of reference
in 1989 to the same "poster paper" becomes nonsense.)
However, making reference to a nonexistent
"publication" is a fraud and it can not have any other purpose
besides fraud.
Curiously, in every subsequent attempt to
publish the work, Prof. Larsen wrote to the editor that the research was
new, never published before, which shows that she, herself, did not consider
the poster a publication.
Isn't it obvious, that in 1989 she published
my research shown on the poster as her own (i.e., she plagiarized it),
when the poster was not mentioned by her as a source and it was not published
and was only seen by two or three people?
When her 1989 paper did not contain reference
to any paper published by me, or any reference to a "personal communication",
how was it possible to justify her publishing of my research under her
name?
Prof. Dewees and Prof. Orchard covered up
this aspect of her fraud as they did with all the others. They accepted
Prof. Larsen's "acknowledgment" as genuine. Prof. Dewees ignored
my complaint that it fraudulently implied my permission and that it did
not, in fact, disclose to the readers the true authorship of the research
that she published.
Prof. Dewees and Prof. Orchard never even
mentioned my complaint.
Prof. Orchard: "I also not[e]
that Mr. Pyshnov was acknowledged in the 1989 paper."
Prof. Dewees: "Professor Larsen does
acknowledge Mr. Pyshnov's technique and ideas in the 1989 paper."
They were playing fools in the investigations
which should have inevitably resulted in the immediate expulsion of Prof.
Larsen from the University and in the restoration of my Ph.D. research
under my name.
Next, Prof. Dewees said: "She acknowledges
his experimental work in her 1986 survey (pp. 164, 165, 169) where she
also cites his 1980 paper."
And, he said: "I conclude that Professor
Larsen had no intent to represent his work as her own and that she had
not done so."
However, my work that she stole in the 1989
paper was much larger (and contained different research) than the one that
she acknowledged in her 1986 survey. Ridiculously, Prof. Dewees did not
deliver his conclusions on each individual publication of Prof. Larsen.
Furthermore, an investigation of plagiarism
is never concerned with the question of intent, since repeating the work
of another cannot be done unintentionally (when the work is well known
to the plagiarist).
But, what an opportunity for delivering fraudulent
judgment Prof. Dewees had, when he brought in the question of intent and
when he found the proof of "no intent" not in the paper which
he investigated, but in other papers, which he did not wish to investigate,
though, they, in fact, contained more stolen
work.
(He said that I did not allege plagiarism
in the withdrawn MS; he did not investigate the 1986 and 1987 papers for
plagiarism; he did not ever mention the 1988 paper.)
In addition, her acknowledgment of my "experimental
work", that he brought in to vindicate her, was in her 1986 review
paper (see Ref.2)
where she describes some of my experiments, presents my photographs and
my ideas, but, in most instances, does not make it clear that it was my
research and ideas and not her own. This review paper contained none of
her research whatsoever (and no references to her previous work, since
there was none), but it prepared her takeover of mine.
I lost a race with the thieves who "picked
up" my ideas
Finally, Prof. Dewees (who did not mention
in his four-page report that what I was doing was a Ph.D. research) gave
more strength to Prof. Larsen's position by presenting this research as
a kind of a competition or a race which I lost:
"...had he continued on this work, others
in the lab might have avoided replicating or extending this Larsen /Pyshnov
[sic] work immediately [sic], so that he could continue it
to finish his thesis. But when he refused to publish this joint research
and failed to carry on the work, he lost the right, if any existed, to
complain if other researchers picked up these ideas and carried them forward."
But, wasn't my Ph.D. research terminated a
year and a half before I refused to publish?
I would call this a fraudulent competition,
even if plagiarism were a thing justifiable in some circumstances, which
it is not.
And, who were those "others in the lab",
unable to wait, "so that he could continue it to finish his thesis"?
It was Prof. Larsen, who terminated my research
in 1986; then, she stole it in 1987-1989; then, in 1993 she said that she
did not publish my research, but only her own, "corroborating"
mine; then, in 1995 she declared in the Statement of Defense that she "salvaged"
my research.
This is not a university; this is the intellectual
property racket.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The government upholds the fraud
The answer that I received from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (January 29, 1996)
was:
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Mr. Pyshnov:
I am writing regarding the allegations brought
by you against Dr. Larsen. This matter has been reviewed by NSERC's Committee
on Professional and Scientific Integrity.
The Committee agrees with the conclusions of the
investigative report that there was no breach of scientific integrity by
Dr. Larsen. The Committee considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable
manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published.
NSERC now considers this matter closed.
Yours sincerely,
[signature]
Catherine Armour
Research Integrity Officer
(Doc.31)
I immediately sent the request for details
(Doc.32),
but there was no answer. And what answer could they give? "The Committee
considered to uphold the fraud."?
I waited for the answer from NSERC for more
than a year. It seemed to me impossible, that after comparing the two papers:
one with my name as the first author, and the other -- without my name,
NSERC would not find plagiarism.
The pretext that NSERC supplied is fraudulent:
Prof. Larsen admitted in her letter to the Editor that the 1987 article
was entirely my research. Was there any reason why I could not refuse to
sign it? Was this reason such that it allowed stealing of my research?
I could not imagine that their "policy
and procedure" is set up as a mere calculated farce. It turned out
to be so: the scum in the U of T has their kin represented as the Integrity
Office. And there was nothing I could do about this.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
My research
was mine alone; it was outstanding research
The quotations below show that the ideas for
my Ph.D. research were my, original ideas, and that I was perfectly on
my own in this research.
Statement of Defense
(Doc.36),admits:
"The theoretical foundation of Pyshnov's
studies was published in 1980 and experimental results bearing on the theory
were presented in 1985 on the poster."
Prof. Larsen's recommendation of 1981
for my NSERC scholarship (Doc.2),
says:
"...The theoretical published work shows
extreme originality in looking at old problems (cell lineages and maintenance
of crypt morphology) in novel ways. Although lacking a higher degree, he
has been invited to international conferences to discuss this work...
Pyshnov has reviewed an extensive Drosophila
literature, outlined an entirely novel approach to looking at morphogenesis
in imaginal discs...
Mr. Pyshnov is a tireless worker in solving
technical problems and has also demonstrated the capacity to read and think
and synthesize information for weeks at a time. His selection of problems
and approach to them show a clarity of thinking and an appreciation for
elegant work, which makes his contributions original....
Mr. Pyshnov's inquisitive mind coupled with
a talent for conceptualizing structures in three dimensions, combined with
great technical skill and perseverance, virtually assure that his contributions
to morphogenesis will continue to be above ordinary."
The recommendation for this scholarship (the
best available in Canada) given to me by the Department (Doc.3),
shows the same:
"...Departmental Graduate Committee ranked
him 1st of 7 applicants for PGS-3 awards. He has already proven himself
as an independent researcher on both the practical and theoretical levels.
We feel that he has the ability to make outstanding contributions to his
research field."
Prof.
Larsen's next recommendation (1983), (Doc.4),
confirms the originality of my work and, also
(compare it, again,
with the abstract of her 1989 paper)
-- her stealing of my work, in particular, my idea to study the mutant
cell arrangements:
"Mr. Pyshnov has shown great creativity
in his published analysis of the vertebrate intestinal crypt in which he
was able to derive a theoretical model in which cell division rules depended
on cell arrangements within the crypt....
In his current work he is attempting to develop
similar rules which might account for cell arrangements which give rise
to the shape of developing organs....
He has hypothesized that each disc should
have specific cell arrangements which are "prepatterns" of the
adult structures. [sic] Thus far he has demonstrated disc and age
specific cell arrangements...
The work which remains...and how the rules
are modified when genes are introduced which convert a disc for, say, an
antenna to a disc producing a leg [sic]. Similarly the transformation
of disc cell arrangements into adult cell arrangements must be modelled.
Mr. Pyshnov's demonstrated creativity in conceiving [sic] of this
novel approach plus his superb technical skills uniquely qualify him to
carry out these studies of far reaching significance....
Mr. Pyshnov is a man of proven scholarly attainments..."
In the 1987 MS, Prof. Larsen described the
significance of my research thus:
"We have reason to believe that the cell
arrays described, however enigmatic, open a new level for considering the
general problems of growth in epithelial sheets as well as insight into
the material basis of morphogenesis and embryonic determination."
[these cell arrays] "possess the characteristics
of long sought after "pre-patterns" for morphogenesis."
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The true reason behind the "salvaging"
Whatever were the expressions she used, and
whatever was the depth of her understanding of my work, she knew the high
scientific value of it.
Before I left, she wrote a review establishing
her name in the area where she had done nothing, but, using my research
and giving the impression that she is actively involved in it and, preparing
the takeover. After I left, she published three articles with three other
co-authors, stealing my work. (Only one of them, the 1988 one, presented
experiments of her student, following from my ideas, but with the discussion
stolen from my earlier work.)
To the readers of these articles she presented
many claims of her discoveries and ideas, attribution of which appears
false in the light of the documents quoted here (and even without studying
the withdrawn manuscript).
On the other hand, she, herself, when asked
to answer my allegations of plagiarism, only dared to consider one article
and made claim of authorship to one only, her own, "suggestion",
and, according to the Statement of Defense, was publishing something that
was "salvaged" by her.
The Statement of Defense, the U of T investigations
and Prof. Larsen's statements say that the reasons for "salvaging"
were:
1) my failure to continue the work,
2) my refusal to publish,
3) her responsibility to the sources of funding
for the investment of money into my Ph.D. program and
4) her scientific contribution to my research.
Together with this, their post-"salvaging"
statements say that I had accomplished almost nothing; and they say this
with utmost insult.
But, if my research was worthless, then,
1) why would my supposed failure make a "salvaging"
necessary?
2) why would my refusal to publish matter?
3) why did Prof. Larsen spend even more money
on repeating my work and its publication?
As to Prof. Larsen's own scientific contribution,
this argument can hardly be taken seriously by anyone, because the only
scientific contribution that she claimed in her explanation to the Chair
of the Department, -- her "suggestion", was left by her without
any role in the "salvaging", while she was trying to disown and
deny her main fraud.
And, why didn't the U of T, simply, demand
money from me, instead of repeating and "salvaging" supposedly
insignificant work?
Obviously, in their explanation of "salvaging",
the main point, i.e., that my work had high scientific value, is, fraudulently,
missing. But, if the U of T had admitted this, it would become clear that
Prof. Larsen terminated my Ph.D. program fraudulently.
Even if we suppose that she only intended
to publish my
research, her "salvaging" effort involved, at least, the following:
violating the law, violating the custom of science, deceiving the journal,
breaching the assurance made by the Department, injury to my rights as
an author, injury to my dissertation, making a mockery of her own academic
decision, and, as she was already warned by me -- injury to the quality
of the publication.
If the purpose of this costly effort were
to publish my research, would she, in her right mind, declare, subsequently,
that this research was worth nothing, which means that there could not
be any possible benefits from her "salvaging"?
And, wouldn't she, at every point of her "salvaging"
effort, make sure that the authorship was not stolen by her? Looking at
the truly shocking number of forgeries and omissions made in her publications
(before and after I refused to publish the MS), resulting in the assertion
of her own, and not my, authorship of the research, there can be no doubt
that Prof. Larsen's "salvaging" was a fraud.
Prof. Larsen's prerogative to judge my work
had certain limits. This prerogative of an honest professor lasted only
until her personal interest in failing me became obvious.
Her "academic" decision promised
that I could return to finish the thesis, but she started plundering my
research as soon as I left.
Clearly, Prof. Larsen's academic decision
was fraudulent; she intended to steal my research, knowing its high scientific
value. The excuse of "salvaging" appeared later; the excuse is
not only unlawful, it is false. Her own "academic"
decision, if it were not made as a sham, would absolutely prohibit plundering
my research.
Prof. Dewees knew that it was a sham, so,
he (as quoted above) defended her immediate
"salvaging" and he (and Prof. Orchard) did not wish to investigate
the two papers that she sent before I refused to publish the third one,
i.e., before she, according to these investigators, became "entitled"
to "salvage" my research.
My allegation that Prof. Larsen made the "academic"
decision with the intent to steal my research, was struck out by the first
court from my Statement of Claim on the demand of the U of T. It was later
restored by the Court of Appeal.
Prof. Larsen's argument (1993) that I "failed
to recognize" the interests of science and the community and that
I do not "own" my discoveries, is an outrage. These were my rights,
which were consonant with the interests of science and community, not hers,
because I was the doer, while her activity, for years, has been an obstinate
profanation of science.
Her argument is only a recurrent communist
fraud, by which property of the legal owners is confiscated "on behalf
of the community", but then, the communist demagogue is found living
in the palace. The "community" did not become the author of my
research, she did.
I, of course, never wanted to "suppress
the use of ideas", provided that "the use" is not just a
pretext for swindling. What I wanted to own was the authorship, this connection
between the brain and the brainchild, which should not be stolen by an
impostor.
Prof. Larsen never had any (decent) use for
my ideas and never added a single new idea to the ones she stole. Her goal
and/or ability was never greater than destroying the author and stealing
the authorship. She badly envied the substance in my work, but she had
counterfeited it with the exalted "scientific" jargon (see,
as an example, the title of the Ref.3).
Did she salvage my research? She only killed
it. First -- when she removed me, then -- when she made her fabrications,
in which the discoveries are claimed, but their logical origins are absent.
The grant she procured for my work, was taken away from her for failure
to accomplish anything, as I was told by Prof. Dewees. Her science ended
with theft.
She is now an evolutionist. She has also become
a Councilor of the Royal Canadian Institute (which has a goal of "creating
environment in which science can flourish").
Why is Prof. Larsen so much preferred by the
University to be the author of discoveries? This is the one question which
I would like the administration to answer.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Criminals in academia
Since the articles and the documents of the
case are there, the investigators could not deny the main (and the most
damning) facts. They ignored all Prof. Larsen's lies and only added more
lies and fabricated their own fraudulent arguments.
Then, the academic judges took the route of
a superfraud: they distorted and perverted the law and custom of university
to justify the theft and fraud and to make them look legal. They pretended
that the criterion of originality in authorship, universally understood,
is unknown to them.
What else does publication of repeated or
replicated work of another mean, when this is the very definition of plagiarism?
Can one publish my research with a fraudulent acknowledgment of my sharing
some unspecified ideas? Or, maybe, my ideas were also replicated and repeated?
What is this monstrous perversion of law primarily
aimed at: concealment of fraud or deliberate mockery? Aren't their judgments
calculated to cause outrage?
Prof. Larsen's and her colleagues' interpretation
of originality and authorship is deficient in a criminal way. Falsifying
the authorship of my Ph.D. research, as Prof. Larsen, her co-authors and
the academic judges at the U of T and the NSERC are doing, is a criminal
fraud, followed by a concealment of the fraud.
Moreover, she did not just plagiarize an already
published work; she completely appropriated the authorship and took it
away from me.
The evidence shows unequivocally, that salvaging
of research was never on her mind. Doing justice was never on the mind
of these academic judges. What this evidence proves, above all, is the
criminal intent to commit fraud.
Perpetrating fraud in science is the same
crime as fraud in any other area where the man is dishonestly deprived
of the product of his labor. But, the results were far more devastating
here. The impostors who stole my research have the prestige of scientists,
the force of organized crime and the protection of the government; they,
next, destroyed me completely. They must be put in prison for life for
their crimes and for the obstruction of justice.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
The obstruction of justice. How
far do they wish to go?
In my five years at the U of T, when I was
led to believe that I worked for my degree, there was not a single instance
of displeasure with me.
As soon as the fraud became evident, I tried
to stop it from going further, at every stage of it, as the documents clearly
show. Three times I have demanded a declaration returning my research under
my name, but the University is still silent. The fraud and the atrocious
playing on time, both, continue.
The administration of the University now does
everything to prevent me from even approaching justice. The connections,
which this big University (with a budget of over one billion dollars) has,
became the tools of a conspiracy.
The U of T has attributes of organized crime,
but with license to operate in science and education.
They were able to surround me and this case
with a wall of silence. The Ministry of Education flatly refused to deal
with the case. The police (at all levels) have refused to investigate fraud.
They refused to even write a report. The Attorney General of Ontario refused
to do anything. (Doc.37),
(Doc.38),
(Doc.39),
(Doc.40)
My attempt to obtain expert opinion from 78
professors of the Department of Zoology and to get them involved was, apparently,
frustrated by a letter, each of them immediately received from the U of T
lawyer. The second appeal to speak out, sent by the Graduate Students'
Union, also fell on deaf ears. (Doc.34)
I am quite concerned about my personal safety.
The press, which, in free society, guarantees that the crimes of the powerful
will not remain concealed, does not work for me. No newspaper (including
U of T press) or a television station in Toronto would publish a single
word. The story always strikes a stone on the higher level. Journalists
disappear without explanation or mumble incoherent apologies for months.
Some of these encounters with CBC, the U of T paper and others are recorded.
When people are chasing reluctant journalists
who can only print stories dictated by their executives, as it is in Canada,
these people may cease to exist at all. Very similar things happened to
many people under Stalin and under Mao. Many were given the "silence
treatment", some were provoked to violent acts. The Chinese cut off
the fingers on the hands of their best pianist; their press would not report
this.
The Canadian cultural revolution began with
the "responsible" press, which refuses to be "manipulated"
by the people.
This case is not the first of its kind in
Canada. Professor V. Fabrikant, who was a leading scientist and the best
lecturer in his department at Concordia University, was robbed of his work
mercilessly for years. For years he complained, but the only result was
that his reputation was destroyed completely and he was losing his job.
The corruption in Concordia was admitted in
two newspaper articles, but only after he killed four of his colleagues.
The press let the provocation to succeed and only published the story when
the crimes of scientific establishment were overshadowed by his own.
After his trial, he was prohibited by the
court to talk to the press when some American journalists showed interest.
But, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) showed a disgusting movie,
absolving the officials from any responsibility for what happened, moreover,
condemning Prof. Fabricant's repeated, truly desperate complaints of corruption
and persecution as unacceptable in academia.
Since the moment I first asked the members
of the Department of Zoology for help, his case (the bloody part of it)
has been cunningly used by the administration to scare people from involvement.
Where is the end to the filth?
I am having enormous difficulties in finding
a lawyer for the trial. I do not have any money, and contingency fees are
prohibited to Ontario lawyers (apparently, the only such place on the continent).
Forty nine law firms have declared conflict
of interest. Any governmental help was repeatedly refused to me.
I have no means of bringing this matter to
trial.
While I can prove the facts (if I could overcome
the emotional stress once more), I would still have no chance in court,
because the major part of the Statement of Defense contains the distorted
and perverted statement "Custom in the Scientific Research Community"
that will, as one can expect from the crushing course taken by the administration
and the complete absence of honor of the ones involved, be supported by
perjured testimony of their academic "experts". I
need people who will give to the court a true account of the rules and
customs of honest science.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
THE APPEAL TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
I am appealing to the community of honest
scientists for immediate and manifest protection. I ask that the following
proposed measures be taken:
I ask that my Appeal be published and the
case given publicity, since this is the first remedy in the situation and,
also, important means of protection against retaliation by this University.
I ask the Editors of scientific journals to
deny all publications from the Department of Zoology of the University
of Toronto.
Wherever a joint project with the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) exists, such
would be canceled, because this agency has shown savage contempt for the
honest science and savage contempt for my desire to restore justice.
I ask scientists with expertise in the field
to give some of their time, when possible, to form an expert opinion on
the articles in question for the court.
I ask that a trust fund for donations to cover
legal expenses of the case and of the work of experts be established and
announced publicly.
I ask scientists to condemn the fraudulent
scheme of "salvaging" and to make public statements in my defense.
Together with this Appeal for immediate and
manifest protection, I welcome an inquiry into the matter.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
REFERENCES
1. Pyshnov, M.B. 1980 Topological Solution for
Cell Proliferation in Intestinal Crypt. 1.Elastic Growth without Cell Loss.,
J. Theoret. Biol., 87: 189-200.
2. Larsen-Rapport, E.W. 1986 Imaginal Disc Determination:
Molecular and Cellular Correlates., Ann. Rev. Entomol., 31: 145-175.
3. Larsen, E. and McLaughlin, H.M.G. 1987 The
Morphogenetic Alphabet: Lessons for Simple-Minded Genes., BioEssays, 7(3):
130-132.
4. Mathi, S.K. and Larsen, E. 1988 Patterns of
Cell Division in Imaginal Discs of Drosophila., Tissue & Cell,
20(3): 461-472.
5. Larsen, E. and Zorn, A. 1989 Cell Patterns
Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal
Discs of Drosophila., Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57.
6. Condic, M.L., Fristrom, D. and Fristrom, J.W.
1991 Apical Cell Shape Changes during Drosophila Imaginal Leg Disc
Elongation: A Novel Morphogenetic Mechanism., Development, 111: 23-33.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
THE EVIDENCE
1. The Affidavits with the documents.
2. The documents which I consider to be the
main evidence, now scanned and available here (see
the list of documents).
Included in the documents
are two letters of expertise from Prof. A.J. Hilliker (who is the President
of Canadian Genetics Society) and Prof. S.R. Blecher (University of Guelph).
(Doc.30),
(Doc.33)
These letters say that the articles and the documents show that my "primary
intellectual" and "crucial experimental" "contributions"
entered Prof. Larsen's paper without being adequately acknowledged. (Surely,
not a voluntary contribution.)
However, they protested my previous using
of their names in a letter that I distributed.
Naturally, upon receiving their letters, I
asked, where I could use them, and I was told -- everywhere. Yet, since
their letters do not contain the words that they, indeed, found plagiarism,
I had to say, vaguely, that they support my allegations against Prof. Larsen
and the U of T investigation. But the allegations in my letter, several
paragraphs above, stated fraud and malicious breach of trust and fiduciary
duty; that appeared to be more than Prof. Hilliker and Prof. Blecher wanted
to say.
In a telephone conversation with me, Prof.
Hilliker said that they both, "of course", support my allegations
of plagiarism and believe that Prof. Larsen plagiarized my work intentionally,
but they do not support my allegations of fraud and breach of trust. Although,
he said that this should be left to the judge. He did not answer when I
noted to him that plagiarism is always condemned as fraud and a theft,
by every University.
He consistently refused to do anything against
the U of T publicly; and he even warned me to stop "bugging"
the U of T. He predicted my complete frustration. He proposed that I should
keep quiet because... Jews were persecuted in Second World War.
He, also, declined my offer to send him the
full Affidavits with documents.
I must say that I, probably, do not understand
some important points of his position. I, however, decided that the 1-hour
tape of this conversation should be available, as, added to their two letters,
it formally proves that the fact of plagiarism is confirmed by the two
experts.
__________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Below,
are the titles, authors and abstracts:
(Top) - from the unpublished
manuscript #483-87, Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., (MS received April 14, 1987),
(Doc.11).
(Bottom) - from the article
published in January of 1989, in the same journal, [Ref.5], (Doc.21).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cell Patterns Associated with Normal
and Mutant Morphogenesis
in Silver Stained Drosophila
Imaginal Discs1
MICHAEL PYSHNOV and ELLEN LARSEN
Department of Zoology, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Cananda
Abstract. Outlines of cell borders
on the basal side of cells in the imaginal discs of Drosophila larvae
were studied after impregnation with silver. Disc-specific cell arrays
were found in each type of disc studied. To determine if these patterns
have morphogenetic significance, we compared normal antennal disc patterns
with those of the Nasobemia mutant in which antennae are transformed
into leg-like structures. The cell arrangement of mutant antenna discs
resembles the one specific for leg discs but not antenna discs. We suggest
that these cell arrays are under genetic influence, and are generated by
specific patterns of cell division. Thus, they possess the characteristics
of long sought after "pre-patterns" for morphogenesis.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cell Patterns Associated
with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis
in Silver-impregnated
Imaginal Discs of Drosophila1
ELLEN
LARSEN AND AARON
ZORN
Department of Zoology, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada
Abstract. Cell borders on the basal
side of imaginal discs of Drosophila melanogaster were delineated
after impregnation with silver. Leg discs differ from antennal discs in
the kind of cell arrangement found. The arrangements in the antennal disc
of the Nasobemia mutant (in which antennae are converted to leg-like
structures) resemble those of leg discs rather than antenna discs. This
finding suggests that the disc-specific cell arrays have morphogenetic
significance, and may in fact create a "pre-pattern" for the
development of appendages.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Below, is the quotation from the article
by Larsen and McLaughlin,
1987, page 131, [Ref.3]:
"We have presented a scenario of Nasobemia
cell effects suggesting that cell-division patterns are altered in mutant
antenna discs leading to altered cell arrangements which, following metamorphosis,
result in leg rather than antenna morphology."
_________________________________TABLE
OF CONTENTS