July 24, 2008

Purdue U. Scientist Appeals Findings of Research Misconduct

A Purdue University professor of nuclear engineering, accused last week of research misconduct and of falsely asserting that other researchers had independently confirmed his claims of producing nuclear fusion, is appealing those charges, the Associated Press reported.

The professor, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, informed the university on Tuesday that he would challenge a university panel’s findings. By Monday he is supposed to give Purdue details about how he disputes the panel’s conclusions. His lawyer told the AP that Purdue had left out of its inquiry important information that would have cleared Mr. Taleyarkhan.

The university then has until August 18 to decide, based on the appeal, whether Mr. Taleyarkhan will face sanctions, a university spokesman said. He did not provide any details on what those sanctions might entail. —Josh Fischman

Comments

1. Merely challenge? Professor Taleyarkhan should demand the right to repeat his experiment in front of an audience of peers, skeptics, and administrators.
   “left out important information”: who cares? This drama is science, not law: either Prof. T. can reproduce the results – winning him a Nobel Prize – or he cannot – winning him the Ignobel Prize.

   — richard    Jul 24, 09:19 PM    #

2. Actually, the Ig Nobel Prize is given to researchers who make people laugh and make them think. It’s a wonderful ceremony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize

   Still, after Ward Churchill was found guilty of research misconduct for inadequate citations, it’s good to see a real case of research misconduct. However, I wonder if this professor will be punished as severely as Churchill was.

   — John K. Wilson    Jul 25, 08:08 AM    #

3. This is reposted from my blog

   http://stevensclark.typepad.com/bioscience_biz/

   Purdue U guilty of misconduct

   Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University, was found guilty of 2 of the 12 charges of research misconduct by a special scientific panel appointed by the university. In 2002, Taleyarkhan published papers claiming to have created what was commonly called “tabletop fusion” or “bubble fusion.”

   When other scholars found themselves unable to replicate his findings, questions emerged about the veracity of his work. This led to an earlier Purdue probe into Taleyarkhan’s research that found no evidence of misconduct. But, this did not eliminate the swirling accusations and the university capitulated to Congressional pressure to launch a second investigation.

   A report from the second investigation, issued Friday, like the report from the first investigation, did not find that any of the original work was falsified. However, it did find that Taleyarkhan was guilty of “gift authorship”, or adding a name to a paper on which the researcher played no role. In addition, the panel also found that Taleyarkhan overstated a claim in a scientific paper that his findings had been independently verified. Taleyarkhan’s lawyer told The Indianapolis Star that his client was considering an appeal.

   In other words, this is what transpired: competitors who were unable to replicate the Purdue Prof’s research accused him of faking it. Two panels at Purdue looked into this allegation and neither faulted him on his research findings. Rather, one panel, but not the other faulted him for comparatively minor (important, but minor) infractions that seem unrelated to the original accusation, which was the reason for launching the investigation. And these infractions were only found after very close scrutiny of the Prof’s day-to-day activities.

   Put all research professors to the same stringent test and you will find similar minor problems of gift authorships, hyperbole, negligence in attribution, etc. Put anyone in any profession to such a stringent test and you will find similar minor problems.

   To be sure, people need to be transparent in their professional lives where the appearance of proper behavior is just as important as behaving properly. We need to have people believe in our research and have confidence in our findings and when we give an appearance of sloppiness, even if we are not sloppy, that confidence is lost.

   This applies not just for individuals, but for institutions as well. It certainly appears that Purdue went witch hunting in order to find or manufacture anything against Taleyarkhan. Even if this is not true, the perception of the University’s behavior in this case is very troubling.

   The infractions that Taleyarkhan was found guilty of were not the basis for the original complaint but were uncovered during the process of investigating that complaint. Was Purdue going to try the guy until they could find something to pin on him? To what extent would they have gone to do this?

   Committee 1 finds no fault. Committee 2 finds just a little bit. Which is it? What about committee 3?

   This is double jeopardy. What a terrible blow for due process in the academy and Purdue’s faculty is the big loser here.

   — Steven S. Clark, PhD    Jul 25, 08:33 AM    #

4. Is there any wonder why cheating is rampant among our students?

   — Kyle David    Jul 25, 10:26 AM    #

5. John K. Wilson,

   Ward Churchill for “inadequate citations”? Please read over the report on his misconduct you will find a lot worse than that. He actually wrote a paper and the published it under someone else’s name, then used this reference as “independent” support for a future work. The list goes on and on. I read the entire, meticulous and thoroughly prepared report, as well as Churchill’s reply. He definitely got what he deserved.

   — dave    Jul 25, 11:27 AM    #

Previous: Embattled Congressman Calls for Investigation Into His Actions on Behalf of CCNY
Next: Bible Professor Will Leave Seminary Instead of Facing Hearing