Posted on 04/08/2005 10:04:53 AM PDT by Pyshnov
In 1985 I was a mature PhD student at the University of Toronto. Two of my papers were published earlier in The Journal of Theoretical Biology. I postulated and described a "division wave" of cells in the tissue and showed that the division wave is the only way in which the cells can divide and multiply without destroying the structure of the tissue. In my PhD research I made the discovery (predicted by me) of embryonic cell patterns responsible for the structure of adult organs in Drosophila.
The opinion of the Department about me was this: "We estimate he is of first-class calibre.., our Departmental Graduate Committee ranked him 1st of 7 applicants for PGS-3 awards [the highest scholarship in Canada, NSERC]. He has already proven himself as an independent researcher". My supervisor's opinion was: "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." She said that I am "a man of proven scholarly attainments" and "a very creative scientist".
However, in 1986 my status was fraudulently changed to "lapsed candidate". When I left, my former supervisor published, in American journals, three papers claiming credit for my discoveries. I did not know about them till several years later. But, at one point, she attempted to publish my research as a co-author and she, without my knowledge, sent an inferior and clumsy article written by her to a journal. The manuscript (1987) was accepted since the ideas and the results were new, but the journal required my signature. However, this research as well as the ideas behind it did not belong to her and I complained to the Department. She had to withdraw the manuscript. She was warned, but, incredibly, she published it (1989), slightly changed, removing not only my name but also the reference to my earlier paper containing my original ideas. In a footnote, among thanks to other people, last thanks were given for my "sharing" with her unspecified "ideas" and my technique. Two other articles stealing my research were sent for publication before I refused to sign the above manuscript.
We know well that not a single university rule, anywhere in the world, allows any justifications for plagiarism, because there are no such circumstances when the fact of original authorship should be falsified or altered and because no one can be allowed to claim academic credit by fraud. But, the University of Toronto justified the plagiarism of my former supervisor.
The answer to my complaint said: "there is no evidence of plagiarism". When I went to court, the Affidavits revealed documents written by the supervisor herself and by the university officials admitting that in her paper she published my PhD research. This fact was undeniable. In her letter to the Editor, withdrawing the manuscript, she admitted that I made two discoveries that were the subject of the manuscript. And, she said: "I intend, however, to submit the results of a similar study (performed by myself and an undergraduate)..." In the "similar study", the two discoveries appeared as her own. In the Statement of Defense filed in court jointly by her and the University of Toronto, they admit: "the theoretical foundation of Pyshnov's studies was published in 1980". This refers to my paper published in 1980 (a year before I came to the U of T) that was quoted in the withdrawn manuscript, but is absent in the "similar study". The university investigations admitted that she "repeated" my experiments and that her paper contained "replications or extensions" of my results without acknowledging my original authorship. In fact, she claimed "hundreds" of experiments done "in the course of the last six years". But, this was my PhD research. How can this plagiarism be justified?
Below are quotations from the explanation she gave to the Department: "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." Next, she gave "the concept of intellectual property": "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."
No one said to her: "How dare you? The community needs scientists, not thieves!" The administration formulated another justification: she "salvaged" my research! The university openly transferred the authorship of my research to the supervisor and, so, falsified my academic record. The university investigator: "I am not persuaded by the rather naïve 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", and: "since Dr. Larsen wrote the 1987 version it cannot be considered plagiarism."
The Canadian Government then legitimized the fraud. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) gave me a single sentence in response to my complaint: "The Committee considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published." I pointed to the NSERC President that she published two other articles before my refusal, but he did not answer. University investigations avoided these two articles.
The quoted documents are available on my web site http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/
The documents show the pathological dishonesty of this former supervisor and the criminal cover-up perpetrated by the university administration and NSERC. It is clear that "salvaging" of research (that involves falsification of the fact of authorship) and the assertion that I "forfeited a publication" were only formulas invented as a cover for fraud. Why did my research have to be "salvaged", secretly from me, in three publications, while I was fired? Why did my supervisor publish still another paper, a review, boasting of the ideas and the results obtained in her laboratory (given as "personal communications" from me as I was still in the laboratory), while her contribution to the field was zero and she was unable to give any references to her own research? After all, what were the real academic and scientific merits of my research?
This can now happen to anyone. The process of obtaining a degree in science has been turned into a fraud. The fraud of my former supervisor was turned into the university policy that makes the fact of authorship open to fraudulent machinations (it forms a part of the Statement of Defense).
I am fighting this war for 18 years now, but I cannot get back the authorship of my research. I need justice. Others should become aware of the justifications of plagiarism practiced by the corrupt academia. The documents scanned on my web site must be made known in universities, as Canadian media and University of Toronto campus press have categorically refused to report this fraud.
You signed up yesterday to post this esoteric bit of....?
You should send certified letters (return receipt requested) to every researcher in your field stating that your former advisor is an intellectual property thief. It won't get you a job and it won't make you any friends, but it will make you feel better and it might make people look at your advisor in a slightly different way the next time they see her. Send a copy of the letter to her, too, of course; that way, you'll know that she knows what you've done.
This sounds like a good idea. It seems a common practice for professors to use grad students' work for their own CV padding. But this is extreme. Hope you eventually get justice, but also that you don't let bitterness keep you from accomplishing even greater things.
Sorry to hear your story. I hope you were able to
salvage your career. Academia is like a prison,
the tenured professors are the warrens and the students (and
maybe the untenured assistant professors) are the
prisoners. It seems like you are a smart guy.
There must be lots of opportunities for you out there.
All the best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.