Administrative banditism


When I discovered the three Larsen’s plagiarised papers in 1993, I complained to the university and also sent my complaints to the Committee on Professional and Scientific Integrity of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) which, however, sent them back to the university for investigation.

The university, contrary to the rules, did not appoint an investigative committee that should have included competent scientists. The university appointed the vice-Dean, D. Dewees, a lawyer, as a sole investigator. He wrote a report that left out the direct proof of plagiarism and fraud that was clearly present throughout the articles and all other documents. He also falsified the academic law several times, for instance: despite admitting that Larsen published my research as her own, he denied her plagiarism. The report was clearly a fraud. However, NSERC accepted this report and denied Larsen’s plagiarism.

I subsequently made several complaints to the NSERC regarding this report, showing that the report brutally violated academic rules, violated NSERC policy and was conducted illegitimately.

NSERC policy and obligations

NSERC is mandated to exercise control over the integrity of the research and procedures in universities and institutions using NSERC funding. Universities and institutions must comply with NSERC policies in their investigations of allegations of research misconduct (fraud, plagiarism, etc.) NSERC policy said:

“Once the agency receives the institutional investigation report and is satisfied that the investigation and procedure followed by the institution have been exercised in a manner consistent with agency policy, the agency reviews the report to determine the appropriate course of action.” (

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 recently sent my letter to the NSERC President, B. Mario Pinto. Below are my letter and his answer.

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, (

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, (

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, (

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, ( 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, (

This letter was the answer to my “Allegations of Extreme Breaches of Policy by the University of Toronto”, (, 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.

Yours truly,
Michael Pyshnov

4 Dromore Cres.
Toronto, Ontario,
M2R 2H5

Let’s see what Dr. Pinto is saying.

I will start with the paragraph 3 where he admits that there was no investigative committee and admits that the sole investigator was incompetent and used another person as the “subject matter expert”. Both requirements were always present in the NSERC and the University of Toronto policies, and the university had committed gross violations of the policy. But Dr. Pinto is trying to circumvent the law:

“… 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 here is: Why this investigation needed to use the “spirit” of the draft policy but not the actual draft policy? Was there something wrong with using the draft policy, but nothing wrong with using its “spirit”? Even an idiot would understand that using the “spirit” of the policy was an obvious fraud because this “spirit” disposed with two central requirements of the policy, which are, of course, the requirements of the administrative law.

The second question is: Did the “subject matter expert” made the investigation legitimate? No, he did not. He was not an investigator. He did not sign the report. I could not see the “subject matter expert”. I became aware of his existence only when I read the report. Whatever he did behind the scene, he did not make D. Dewees a competent investigator. D. Dewees still could not read the evidence in the case and could not communicate with me competently. His investigation was a mockery. His report denied my allegations of plagiarism, but the report does not contain a single quotation from the scientific papers that I showed to him pointing to plagiarism, which he was supposed to investigate. His report did not quote any documents.

The “subject matter expert” did not act as an investigative committee or as a competent investigator. The fact is that there was no fair procedure and that fundamental justice was denied to me. Suggesting the opposite, as Dr. Pinto does, is a blatant falsification of the facts.

There cannot be any doubt that:
1) The manipulation of the procedure was an unconscionable fraud.
2) My allegations of fraud and plagiarism were denied illegally.
3) Dr. Pinto is covering up this fraud.

The letter of Dr. Pinto is a clear proof of the collusion between University of Toronto and NSERC where they conspired to illegally deny my allegations of fraud and plagiarism.

Paragraph 2. Dr. Pinto presents the report of D. Dewees and the following NSERC decisions as “considered opinions of the writers in the exercise of their functions”. Whatever that means, these were administrative decisions that affected my rights and continue to gravely affect my rights. And, in paragraph 4, he calls these “opinions of the writers” by their real name – “institutional decisions”.

Paragraph 3. In the beginning of this paragraph Dr. Pinto says that he “must consider” “the role of NSERC in addressing allegations of research misconduct”. He never did 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”. NSERC never did this despite my repeated complaints.

Paragraph 4. Dr. Pinto says 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 denying my allegations in 1996 and continued the concealment of fraud ever since. That’s how the case became “old”. No, Dr. Pinto, NSERC cannot continue concealing the fraud for 20 years and now declare my case to be “old”.

Paragraph 5. It must be known to you, Dr. Pinto, as you are a scientist, that in academia, any paper found to be plagiarised must be retracted without any regard for the date of 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 of plagiarism 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 rely on 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 case for which Dr. Pinto cannot find money is about huge cover-up in canadian science administration. There is undeniable public interest in doing justice in this case and in doing the justice publicly.

Plagiarism and the fraud of the investigator

This is in the documents and described in chronological order here. I will continue going to the documents, but here is one example.

Below are the titles, authors, abstracts and footnotes from two papers.

On the left is the manuscript of 1987 (Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., MS #483-87, received April 14, 1987) that Larsen, after she terminated my PhD program, wrote and sent to the journal without my knowledge. When the manuscript was accepted for publication, she asked me to sign it. Her authorship on the manuscript was an outrage, she could not even understand my research, so, of course, I refused to sign it and called her a thief. She had to withdraw this manuscript.

On the right side is the paper of 1989 (Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57, 1989) that she published in the same journal, claiming my research as her own.

1989 abstract is the same thing, undeniably, right? But this is what Dewees said of the 1989 paper:

“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.”

On page 54 of this paper Larsen claimed, as her own, “hundreds” of my experiments done “in the course of the last six years”. Dewees never said what these experiments were and who did them, although the evidence in a number of other documents, including her letter copied below, clearly shows that they were my experiments. He fraudulently declared that they could be mine as well as hers.

This is what Dewees said about the abstracts:
“The abstract is very similar to that of the 1987 paper, but this text was written by Professor Larsen in any event.”

Here Dewees falsified the academic law. He is trying to say that the text was not plagiarised. But the problem is that Larsen in the 1987 manuscript described my research and discoveries. In 1989 she published the same my research, but under her own name. She plagiarised my research, not the text.

(Interesting note: This thief 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.)

Now, below is Larsen’s letter which she wrote to the journal editor, where she admitted that the research and the two discoveries in 1987 manuscript were mine, not hers. The letter also proves that Dewees lied about 1989 paper not reporting my original experimental results. (Emphasis in red is mine.)

September 16, 1987

Dr. Eugene H. Schmitz, Editor
Transactions of the American
Microscopical Society
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.

Ellen Larsen

In this letter, Larsen tells the editor that she will send a “new” paper, with the research that she performed with her student. She deceived the editor: she published the same my discoveries under her and her student’s names (that is the 1989 paper).

In this letter she also lied that I became “unable to do more research”. In other documents which I will consider later, she gave two more, equally fraudulent, versions of the reasons for my removal from university. And she also lied about 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, which, by the way, is admitted in the Dewees report.