The fraud is now continued by Mario Pinto, President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
The fraud of M. Pinto, President of NSERC
The President of The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Mario Pinto, as well as the whole line of crooks in the University of Toronto and NSERC who covered up Larsen’s fraud, D. Dewees, Susan Zimmerman and a half a dozen of others, have no fear of the law, they are cynical criminals who are a part of a criminal gang in academia. Their crimes are fully documented, but no one can touch them – this is truly an organised crime.
The story below is the story of 37 years of my life. (Documents are posted at http://www.universitytorontofraud.com). My PhD research of five years in the Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, (1981-1986), was characterised by my supervisor, Prof. E. Larsen, and by the Department thus:
“The theoretical published work shows extreme originality..”, “..he has been invited to international conferences to discuss this work..”, “..outlined an entirely novel approach..”, “This combination of technical and theoretical skill is rare.”, “..a tireless worker..”, “..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 make his contributions original.”, “..inquisitive mind..”, “.. great technical skill and perseverance..”, “..his contributions.. will continue to be above ordinary.”, “His devotion to ideas and the sacrifices he has made.. make it clear that he is a scholar by nature..”, “We estimate he is of first-class calibre.. our Departmental Graduate Committee ranked him 1st of 7 applicants for [the highest NSERC scholarship]. He has already proven himself as an independent researcher..”, “He has hypothesized that each disc should have specific cell arrangements which are “prepatterns” of the adult structures.. 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.”, “..a man of proven scholarly attainments..”, “..a very creative scientist..”.
In October of 1985, I was given by the Department a space to write up my dissertation, as my experimental work was accomplished with great success, I made outstanding discoveries and my hypotheses were proved true.
On October 18, 1985, I received a letter from the Graduate Secretary saying that I have one more year to complete my thesis. Yet, within one hour, Larsen declared that I had not done enough experiments (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc07.htm), and on January 24 of 1986, she wrote the academic decision that terminated my PhD program (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc08.htm):
“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.”
According to the first document I had to do more experiments, but then, Larsen, who wanted me out and wanted to steal my discoveries, realised that doing more experiments would need my staying in the laboratory. And in the second document she changed her requirement to the full maturity of my theoretical models, incidentally proving that neither was essential for my thesis. The rest of the academic decision was also a complete fabrication: I had money and never borrowed a penny from the students’ burse. I never said that I would allow my PhD candidacy to lapse. For some reason, she had no fear of the law or university administration. At the time, however, I had no idea what was going on.
I left in August of 1986. A year later, Larsen called me and asked me to sign an article which she sent to the journal without my knowledge, describing my two discoveries and under my and her names. I refused to sign it and called her a thief as she had never contributed anything to my research and hardly even understood it, and I complained to the Department. The Department told me that Larsen had withdrawn the paper.
Much later, in 1993, I found that in 1989 she published my two discoveries, ideas, etc. as her own. The title of the withdrawn paper read: “Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver Stained Drosophila Imaginal Discs”. Her 1989 paper was: “Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila”. In her paper she claimed as her own hundreds of my experiments. But moreover, I also found that she published another paper in 1987, claiming my discoveries and giving a fabricated reference to a nonexistent paper that she pretended was published under my and her names.
I made a complaint of plagiarism and fraud to the university and to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). NSERC asked the U of T to conduct an investigation. The U of T investigation denied my allegations. The investigation, contrary to the law, was conducted by a scientifically incompetent lawyer, D. Dewees, without an investigative committee. His report contained blatant lying and fraud in every paragraph.
For many years I complained to the NSERC of the illegality of the U of T investigation, but my complaints were met only with blatant concealment of the fraud and the mockery of the victim.
The fraud is continuing, and to this day no scientist was appointed to investigate my allegations of plagiarism and fraud.
NSERC policy and obligations.
NSERC is mandated to exercise control over the integrity of the research and procedures in universities and institutions receiving NSERC funding. Universities and institutions must comply with NSERC policies in their investigations of the allegations of research misconduct (fraud, plagiarism, etc.).
In 2011, the new Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) was created, with responsibilities to “consider allegations of breaches of Tri-Agency policies by reviewing institutional investigation reports”. The PRCR Secretariat is responsible for “managing allegations of breaches of Agency policies”, “reviewing institutional investigation reports to ensure the process followed by the institution is in accordance with its own responsible conduct of research policy and is consistent with the Framework [i. e. the policies]”, (http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/srcr-scrr/tor-cdr/).
My letter to the NSERC President, B. Mario Pinto, and his answer.
A year ago, I asked the President of the NSERC, M. Pinto, to declare the U of T investigation and the three subsequent NSERC decisions, illegally relying on this fraudulent investigation, null and void. Below is my letter.
Dr. B. Mario Pinto,
President of The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
December 30, 2016
Dear Dr. Pinto,
I hereby request that NSERC, without delay, will declare the following four documents in my case null and void.
1). “Investigation Regarding Mr. Pyshnov’s Complaint”, April 25, 1995, signed by Donald N. Dewees, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc27.htm).
This is the report of an investigation resulted from NSERC request made to the University of Toronto to conduct an investigation of my allegations of fraud and plagiarism at the UofT. The report denied my allegations of plagiarism against Dr. Larsen.
This investigation was conducted in brutal violation of NSERC and UofT policies on such investigations, which required establishing an investigative committee including members having appropriate scholarly background.
Contrary to the policy, this investigation was conducted by a single person, a lawyer, who did not have scientific background and was not qualified to be a sole investigator of my allegations. He also was not qualified to communicate with me competently. The report, on the face of it, is the report of the sole incompetent investigator. The report should have been declared by NSERC invalid.
2). A letter to me from NSERC, January 29, 1996, signed by Catherine Armour, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc31.htm).
The letter said that NSERC Committee “agrees with the conclusions of the investigative report that there was no breach of scientific integrity by Dr. Larsen”. This NSERC decision quite illegally and in violation of NSERC policy denied my allegations of plagiarism when it relied on the report of the incompetent investigation. This NSERC decision used an illegal procedure and denied me the fundamental justice. The NSERC decision amounts to the concealment of fraud and plagiarism in UofT.
3). A letter to me from Dr. T. A. Brzustowski, President of NSERC, February 24, 2003, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/NSERC.htm).
Brzustowski said: “I am satisfied that this difficult case was treated fairly and in accordance with policies in effect at the time.” This statement was false because “the policies in effect at the time” clearly required establishing an investigative committee having members with appropriate scholarly background, as it was stated in the UofT policy from March 1995, at the time when the UofT investigation was being conducted, (http//:www.universitytorontofraud.com/p10.gif). And obviously, no legitimate policy can support an investigation conducted by a sole incompetent investigator.
4). A letter to me from the NSERC Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, May 9, 2012, signed by Karen Wallace, (http//:www.universitytorontofraud.com/wallace.gif)
This letter was the answer to my “Allegations of Extreme Breaches of Policy by the University of Toronto”, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/Allegations.html), submitted to the Secretariat. The Secretariat, contrary to their obligation to investigate such allegations, did not do this. Moreover, the Secretariat fraudulently said that these allegations were already “addressed” in two previous NSERC letters (para 2 and 3 above). In fact, however, in these two letters, not a single of these my allegations was mentioned, let alone investigated.
NSERC knows perfectly well that the UofT investigation was an incompetent investigation as it brutally violated the NSERC own policy designed to forbid such incompetent investigations in universities. NSERC, by its mandate, has an obligation to reject the university policies and decisions made in violations of the NSERC policies. Yet, NSERC, for twenty years, has been making illegal decisions relying on this incompetent investigation and, so, disrupting the due process and denying me fundamental justice. NSERC has corrupted the due process, and to this day, no scientist had investigated my allegations of fraud and plagiarism in the UofT.
4 Dromore Cres.
Canada. M2R 2H5
Below is the answer to my letter.
Let’s see what Pinto is saying.
Paragraph 3. Here he admits that 1) there was no investigative committee and that 2) the sole investigator was scientifically incompetent and used another person as the “subject matter expert”. The investigative committee and the competence of the investigators are required by the Administrative Law and by all ever existed university and NSERC policies. But Pinto is trying to circumvent the law by offering a completely fraudulent “justification”:
“… while the university did not strike an investigating committee as defined in its draft policy (i.e. a policy that was not yet in force), the investigation did respect the spirit of the draft policy, in that the investigation had the benefit of input from a subject matter expert.”
The first question to Pinto should be: Why the actual draft policy was not used but, instead, the investigation used the “spirit” of the draft policy? Was there something wrong with using the draft policy, but nothing wrong with using its “spirit”? Even an idiot can see that invention of the “spirit” of the policy is a fraud designed to justify the criminal manipulation of the procedure by which the two central requirements of the draft policy – appointment of the investigative committee and the competence of the investigators were removed. Disposing with a competent investigative committee allowed Dewees to write a completely fraudulent Report denying my allegations.
Finally, why the investigation had to be conducted when the policy was not yet in force? Why I was not even made aware of it?
The second question is: In which way the investigation “had the benefit of input from a subject matter expert”?
First, the “subject matter expert” did not have the functions of a member of an investigative committee. I became aware of his existence only when I read the Report of the investigation. He was not an investigator. He did not sign the Report.
Second, the “subject matter expert” did not make the sole investigator, Dewees, a competent investigator. Dewees still could not read the evidence in the case. He could not communicate with me competently and my talking to him was not unlike talking to a wall. In addition to my written complaint, I showed to him where my PhD research was plagiarised in Larsen’s papers. Yet, his Report does not contain a single quotation from these papers which he was supposed to investigate. The Report does not quote any documents.
Obviously, Pinto is lying when he next says that “The investigation therefore satisfied the requirements of the due process, and complied with the spirit of the draft policy in ensuring expert input on the subject matter of the allegation.”
The facts are clear: the procedure of the investigation was deliberately fraudulent, the investigation was a fraud, my allegations were denied illegally, without a due process, and the fundamental justice was denied to me. Saying the opposite, as Pinto does, is a blatant falsification of the facts. His letter is a proof of the criminal collusion between University of Toronto and NSERC where they conspired to illegally deny my allegations of fraud and plagiarism.
It becomes quite clear why the university did not appoint scientists to conduct the investigation. The task of Dewees was to falsify both, the facts of the case and the academic rules, and deny my allegations. In case someone asks questions, his defence would be that he was not a scientist.
And it is quite amazing to see how this criminal gang in the NSERC, including its President, is avoiding for 20 years a simple solution – appointing a panel of scientists to do a competent investigation. There are papers and the documents written by Larsen herself proving her fraud and plagiarism beyond any doubt.
In the beginning of this third paragraph, Pinto says that he “must consider” “the role of NSERC in addressing allegations of research misconduct”. He did not do this. The role of NSERC, however, is defined by the NSERC policy as “reviewing institutional investigation reports to ensure the process followed by the institution is in accordance with its own responsible conduct of research policy and is consistent with the Framework [i. e. the policies]“. NSERC never did this despite my repeated complaints, and Pinto did not do this either.
Paragraph 4. Pinto says that the Agencies (NSERC and two other Agencies) have no right “to re-open old cases”. But how my case was closed and when? NSERC declared my case closed in its first decision in 1996 (see my letter to Pinto), which illegally denied my allegations. And the NSRC had continued the concealment of fraud ever since. This is how the case became “old”.
No, Dr Pinto, NSERC cannot continue concealing the fraud for 20 years and now tell me that my case is “old”.
Paragraph 5. It must be known to you, Dr Pinto, that in academia, any paper found to be plagiarised must be retracted without any regard for the date of its publication. It should be known to you that the right of authorship is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basic Human Right. It should be also known to you that my allegations present documentary evidence for three plagiarised papers, not one paper as you say. It should be known to you that plagiarised was my PhD research of 5 years, and that my allegations also present the documentary evidence of fraud by which E. Larsen terminated my PhD program to prevent me from writing my thesis and falsify the authorship of my important discoveries. No time can change these documents. There was no any good reason for you to decide to stop answering my letters.
The fraud of the investigator
Do I complain only about formalities of the procedure? No, I don’t. I believe it is unlikely that the panel of scientists (and the policy recommends including scientists from a different university) could be bribed to write such fraudulent report as was written by Dewees (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc27.htm).
The Dewees’s Report was built on a multitude of falsifications of the well known academic rules. Some effort was spent on fraudulently declaring my ideas, technique and results not confidential. His findings of facts are never supported by documentary evidence. He falsified the facts as well.
Let’s now look at some of the multiple frauds committed by Dewees.
1. The abstracts
Larsen’s own explanation of the similarity between her withdrawn manuscript of 1987 and her paper of 1989 was a curious one: “The results of the second paper corroborate the first.. I can see no justification for calling this plagiarism.” (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc25.htm)
Below are the titles, authors, abstracts and footnotes from two papers.
On the left is the manuscript that Larsen tried to publish in 1987, without my knowledge. When the manuscript was accepted for publication, the journal needed my signature. Larsen’s authorship on the manuscript was an outrage, she could not even understand my research, and, so, I refused to sign it and called her a thief. She had to withdraw this manuscript (www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc11.htm).
On the right side is the paper that she published in the same journal in 1989, claiming my research as her own (www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc21.htm)
In both abstracts the same my discoveries are claimed. But this is what Dewees said about the 1989 abstract:
“The abstract is very similar to that of the 1987 paper, but this text was written by Professor Larsen in any event.”
Dewees is falsifying the facts and the academic law. While Larsen wrote both abstracts, in the 1987 manuscript she described my discoveries, and she had withdrawn this manuscript without any argument because she could not make any claim of her authorship of the research in this manuscript. Dewees fraudulently ignored the fact that in the abstract of the 1989 paper Larsen plagiarised my discoveries, not the text of the 1987 abstract.
Here is an interesting note about these abstracts. Larsen had no clear understanding of what were the results of my experiments that she had stolen. Both abstracts are giving an incorrect description of the phenomenon. Larsen says that in the mutant, “antennae are transformed into leg-like structures” (1987), and “antennae are converted to leg-like structures” (1989). In fact, antennae were not transformed or converted into anything, they were not formed in the mutants at all. Simply, the antennal discs in the mutants produced leg-like structures.
2. Who made the discoveries claimed by Larsen in 1989?
One of my complaints was that on page 54 of the 1989 paper Larsen claimed, as her own, “hundreds” of my experiments done “in the course of the last six years”. Dewees did not investigate what these experiments were and who did them, although these experiments were present in the 1987 manuscript and in other documents as my experiments. He fraudulently declared that:
“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.”
There is, however, a letter that Larsen wrote to the journal editor in 1987, 6 weeks after I refused to sign her manuscript. In this letter she admitted that the two discoveries and the experiments reported in 1987 manuscript were mine, not hers. But, she deceived the editor saying that she will “submit the results of a similar study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in the very near future” and that her “new paper” will “actually be a more satisfying contribution.” In fact, she then published, as her own, the same experiments and discoveries which she, in this letter, admitted to be my experiments and discoveries.
In this letter she lied that I became “unable to do more research”. In other documents she gave two more, equally fraudulent, versions of the reasons for my removal from university (in her academic decision, it was lack of funding). And she also lied about the reason for my refusal to publish 1987 manuscript: “he has changed his mind and decided for reasons of his own that he does not want his work published.” In fact, I did not even know that she sent this paper.
The Larsen’s letter is stamped by the Department of Zoology, September 16, 1987, (www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc19.htm), (emphasis in red is mine):
Dr. Eugene H. Schmitz, Editor
Transactions of the American
Department of Zoology
University of Arkansas
Fayettville, Arkansas 72701 USA
Dear Dr. Schmitz,
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 (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 and their modification in a homeotic mutant 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 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.
3. The 1989 paper. Dewees found “justifications”.
Below is the paragraph of the Dewees Report, where he gives an openly fraudulent and completely illegal “justifications” for finding Larsen not guilty of plagiarism:
Dewees says that in 1989 Larsen’s paper “some of these results are replications or extensions of the results first found by Mr. Pyshnov in Professor Larsen’s laboratory”, which was not acknowledged by Larsen.
Dewees never said what “the results first found by Mr. Pyshnov” were, although this was his main job in answering my allegations of plagiarism. He fraudulently ignored the fact that these results were the ONLY results in the abstract of Larsen’s 1989 paper.
4. The Dewees’s fraud with the “poster paper”.
In the same paragraph above, Dewees says that Larsen “perhaps” had “to mention the 1985 abstract” in her 1989 paper. Here, he is perpetrating a major fraud.
The story was this: in 1985 I made a poster with my results, under my name and Larsen’s name as my PhD supervisor; it was displayed for about 2 hours in the Symposium of the Society for Developmental Biology in Toronto. Not the poster, nor the abstract of it were published. Yet, Dewees is fraudulently calling this poster a “poster paper”. In his list of documents “poster paper” stands as “Pyshnov, M. and Larsen-Rapport, E. Cell patterns in imaginal discs morphogenesis. Ab. Am. Soc. Devl. Biol. (unpublished)”. This, of course, cannot be used as reference as there never was such publication and, of course, the “reference” leads nowhere. But, with a couple of twists and turns, Dewees makes it into a “paper” and fraudulently declares that my research was published and, therefore, it was not confidential.
According to the U of T policy (or any academic policy), the unpublished poster falls under the rules of confidentiality, in the same manner as, for instance, will be the data reported on a scientific seminar but not published. To publish such data as “personal communication”, anyone would need a permission from the author. But, not only I did not give Larsen such permission, I vigorously protested the publication of the 1987 manuscript in which Larsen had put her name as a co-author.
5. Did Larsen have no intent to plagiarise?
In the same paragraph above, continuing his fraud, Dewees says that he believes that Larsen’s omission of the statement that her results were in fact “first found by Mr. Pyshnov” does not constitute misconduct.
He puts forward a completely fraudulent argument saying that since Larsen did not plagiarise my research in her “survey” in 1986 and elsewhere, she had no intent to plagiarise my research. He then says that since she had no such intent, she did not plagiarise my research in her 1989 paper. But, obviously, the fact of plagiarism in one paper cannot be denied by the absence of plagiarism in other papers.
6. Dewees ignored the fact that Larsen plagiarised my research in her 1987 paper.
As a matter of fact, the 1989 paper was the SECOND paper where Larsen plagiarised my research. The FIRST was published in September of 1987, only a month after I refused to sign her manuscript. This is this paper:
“The Morphogenetic Alphabet: Lessons for Simple-Minded Genes”
E. Larsen and H. M. G. McLaughlin, BioEssays Vol. 7, No. 3, 1987, p. 130-132.
This paper is in the Dewees’s list of documents but he ignored my complaint that this paper plagiarised my research. Moreover, he played another fraud around this paper. In the same paragraph above he said:
“In her 1987 paper with McLaughlin, she acknowledges his work and cites his 1980 paper and the 1985 poster paper.”
How Larsen “acknowledged” my work in this paper? This acknowledgment was the reference to the nonexisting “1985 poster paper”. By giving this fabricated reference Larsen and McLaughlin created impression that there exists a paper where Larsen was a co-author of my discoveries. And then the two thieves claimed my research as their own:
The reference #10:
They go further:
These two crooks posed as the discoverers and gave “general conclusions about research strategies”. They said: “we marshal evidence”, “we concluded”, “we have presented a scenario”, etc.
When Larsen asked me to sign the 1987 manuscript I had no idea that she was in a process of stealing my research in her paper with McLaughlin. It takes time to write and publish a paper. It is absolutely clear that Larsen began stealing my research when I left the laboratory.
7. The “salvaging” operation.
The concluding paragraph of the Report of the investigation is full of lies:
1. Dewees described my work during “five years in Professor Larsen’s lab.” thus: “During this time he prepared one poster paper, prepared several photographs for the 1986 review article, [nothing else]“.
This is a lie, and it is also a lie that I was “unwilling even to publish the results”.
In fact, in the Larsen’s 1986 review article, not only the photographs were mine. In this article, Larsen described my ideas and the discoveries that I made in her laboratory. She asked my permission to publish them as “personal communications”, and I agreed. The interesting moment was this: among 145 references in this review, there is not one to her own work; it is even strange that the editors asked her to write a review in this area. The only reference to a work from her laboratory was the reference to my earlier paper (published before I came to this university). (See:
EW Larsen-Rapport, Imaginal disc determination: molecular and cellular correlates. Annual review of entomology, 1986, Vol.31, pp 145-175.)
2. Dewees says: “…by the Fall of 1985 he was not close to finishing a thesis, in the view of his supervisor and committee.”
The facts in the documents, however, showed the opposite. The last yearly report, signed by Larsen and the Committee (May 3, 1985), as all previous, said that I was “progressing satisfactorily” (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc05.htm). My research was most highly praised for all five years. The Graduate Secretary said (Oct. 16, 1985), (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc06.htm), that I had one more year to complete my thesis. My research project, all items of it, (http://www.universitytorontofraud.com/doc01.htm), as the documents written by Larsen show, was fully finished. The Department provided a space for me to start writing my thesis.
3. Then, Dewees is inventing a new fraud: “Professor Larsen had a responsibility to the sources of the research funding to salvage as much as possible from this investment [i. e. from my scholarships]”.
Dewees then says that in salvaging the investment Larsen “was entitled, perhaps obliged, to put others on to the task and to publish as much as possible of their follow-up work”.
Here, Dewees blatantly lied that my research was worthless and that I was unwilling to publish it, so, creating a false need for “salvaging” my scholarship money. The bill was not presented to me, but instead, Dewees declared that Larsen had a responsibility to “salvage” the money. He, then, provided Larsen with a benign explanation for the various parts of her fraud.
The Larsen’s 1986 “academic decision” giving me the “expectation of being reinstated” was definitely a fraud. Following my departure, her activity was directed to falsification of the authorship of my research. She never wanted me to return and present my thesis.
The Pinto’s letter to me and the Dewees’s Report of the investigation are frauds. Canadian science administration is all selected from the lowest scum of society; they form a gang of criminals. For my analysis of the social aspects of this disaster in science, please, see articles at
After the shootings in Concordia University and several editorials in the Journal of Canadian Medical Association calling for establishing of a panel of competent scientists to investigate allegations of fraud in Canadian universities, the Government spat in the face of scientists and appointed a politically correct liar and crook, Susan Zimmerman, to be the only judge and decision maker in all “integrity” matters throughout Canada.
In 2011, Susan Zimmerman became the Executive Director of 3 Secretariats on Responsible Conduct of Research, in all 3 Governmental Agencies exercising control over universities and scientific institutions, in all sciences and throughout all Canada. Her Secretariats are made exclusively of females and do not have one scientist. Zimmerman herself has nothing to do with any science: she was a lawyer defending the administration of hospitals against the claims of the patients in courts. She is also known as an architect of the Canadian law allowing homosexual marriage.
In the same manner as in my case, the criminal mafia in Canadian academia has destroyed Prof. Valery Fabrikant, a very talented scientist. In the same manner, the mafia conducted fraudulent investigations of his legitimate complaints of corruption and plagiarism. When the persecution and provocation became intolerable, Fabrikant shot four people. Only after that, the external investigation (Arthurs Report: https://pyshnov.wordpress.com/arthurs-report/) concluded that Fabrikant’s complaints were correct and that the two Concordia University investigations were “misleading”, “superficial”, “not based on a proper inquiry”, “clearly and seriously deficient” and “inadequate”. No causes of this fraud in Concordia were investigated further because the Vice Rector Rose Sheinin (who did the investigation) was untouchable.
The publication at http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev2.htm
(Documents from 1998 to 2004), gives the following comments from Canadian scientists:
The York University professor Geoffrey Hunter wrote on March 7, 1995, in a message to The Canadian Federation of Biological Societies:
“…the perception that NSERC, together with the 200 or so scientists that are coopted to work on its various committees, operates as a closed, self-serving, “old-boys club” (or Masonic Lodge if you prefer a quasi-religious simile).”
“Let us remember that Fabrikant only resorted to physical violence (in a vain attempt to administer justice) after his legitimate complaints (vindicated by the Arthurs Report) had been ignored (twice) by the corrupt and/or irresponsible senior administrators at his university.”
Then, in the Opening remarks by Donald R. Forsdyke of the Department of Biochemistry, Queens University to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology:
“You will recall the Fabricant case in 1992 when a professor went on a shooting rampage at Concordia University. Here the level of real injustice was sufficient to push over the brink someone who, in other circumstances, might have behaved sanely.”
By the August of 2017 Fabrikant had served all 25 years of his sentence. Canada has published nothing about what happened to him after that. His web site has disappeared. His last communication speaks of his torture by the doctors: https://mobile.twitter.com/vfabrikant/status/841397028676595712/photo/1
(This post can be viewed in a graphic program. If the mafia removes this post, I have a copy.)
Recently, two other cases of humiliation and persecution of scientists by the Canadian mafia in academia came to light; one ended in suicide.