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 35 years of my life. My research of five years in the University of Toronto was characterised by my PhD 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 requirements. 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 this prostitute of science 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.
(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.)
I left in August of 1986. A year after I left, Larsen called me and asked 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 with my discoveries in 1987, giving a fabricated reference to a non-existent paper that she pretended was published under my and her names.
I made a complaint 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 of fraud and plagiarism and concluded that Larsen had “salvaged” my research. 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.
To this day, no scientist has been allowed to investigate my allegations of plagiarism and fraud. There are 50 documents, written by the perpetrators themselves, proving my allegations beyond any doubt.
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.
Nine months 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.
M. Pinto answered to me with the letter of January 11, 2017.
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.” (http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governance-gouvernance/process-processus_eng.asp)
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”. (http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/srcr-scrr/tor-cdr/)
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, (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.
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
Do I complain only about formalities of the procedure? No, I do not.
It is quite clear why the university did not allow scientists to conduct the investigation. The task of D. Dewees was to pretend no knowledge of the issues. If 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.
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
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.
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.
Now, I will go to some important details.
1. Pinto lied about using the “spirit” of the policy.
Below, is the first paragraph of the Dewees report. It again proves that when Pinto said that Dewees used the “spirit” of the U of T policy, but not the policy itself, he lied. Dewees had used this policy and quoted it.
2. Why Larsen wanted to publish 1987 manuscript?
Dewees is asking the question “whether the submission of the 1987 manuscript by Larsen and Pyshnov [and 1989 paper] violate the University of Toronto policy on research integrity”.
In the 4 1/2 years when I worked in the laboratory, Larsen never made any claims whatsoever to the authorship of any part of my research. She once asked me for a permission to publish some part of my research in her review paper, to which I agreed. She published this as “personal communications” from me.
At the time, most of the PhD candidates’ research was not published in the journal articles. Why did Larsen want to publish the 1987 paper? A legitimate reason for publication could only be one: that my research was an outstanding research. But to say this in 1987, Larsen could not because the next question will naturally follow: why then did she terminate my PhD program? So, when I refused to sign the 1987 paper, she simply retracted it because she could not make any claims of her contribution to my research.
She sent a letter to the editor (see above) saying that she is withdrawing the 1987 manuscript which, she said, was all my research and my discoveries, but that she had done her own research with her student and will send it soon including the editor’s corrections made in 1987 manuscript (!).
At the time, I was thinking that I prevented her from stealing my research but that the Department does not want to talk about this incident or to go into the question of my removal. In fact, the Department had this letter, knew that Larsen is sending to the journal something very strange, but told me nothing.
3. The 1989 paper. “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:
As a matter of fact, the “results” that I found “in Professor Larsen’s laboratory” were my discoveries that Larsen published as her own in the 1989 paper, moreover, they were the ONLY results that she reported in the abstract of this paper. If you see again the abstract of her paper and her letter to the editor above, it is clear that Larsen plagiarised my two discoveries, not just “some of these results”.
4. The Dewees’s fraud with the “poster paper”.
Dewees says that Larsen “perhaps” had “to mention the 1985 abstract”. Here, he is perpetrating an elaborate fraud: the reference to the “1985 abstract” would be a fabricated reference and a fraud. The fact is that in 1985 I made a poster, with my name and Larsen’s name (as my PhD supervisor), that 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, is a fabricated 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), Larsen had no right to publish the research that was shown on this unpublished poster. The unpublished poster clearly falls under the rules of confidentiality. For anyone who had seen the poster, and above all – for Larsen, it remained as a confidential information, in the same manner as, for instance, will be the data reported on a scientific seminar but not published. To publish such data, anyone would need a permission from the author. Certainly, I had to be asked for the permission to publish my discoveries as “personal communication”. But, moreover, 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?
Continuing his fraud, Dewees says that he believes that Larsen’s omission of the statement that in 1989 she published “results first found by Mr. Pyshnov” as her own, does not constitute misconduct. He puts forward a completely fraudulent argument asserting that since Larsen did not plagiarise my research in her “survey” in 1986, she had no intent to plagiarise my research. And he says that since she had no such intent, she did not plagiarise my research in the 1989 paper. This is a completely fraudulent conclusion. Plagiarism is always a question related to one particular paper. And obviously, the fact of plagiarism in one paper cannot be denied by the absence of plagiarism in other papers.
6. The “salvaging” operation.
He says that I did almost nothing in five years and “Professor Larsen had a responsibility” to “salvage as much as possible” from the financial “investment” in my research. He says that when I was “unwilling even to publish the results”, Larsen “put others on to the task”.
Dewees is making up a completely fraudulent story. First of all, Larsen would not “put others on to the task” and start “salvaging” the financial “investment”, if her 1986 “academic decision”, allowing me to return to the university and submit my thesis, were not a fraud. Of course, it was a fraud.
Dewees completely ignored this fraud and the fact that for a year I was on the street due to the Larsen’s fraudulent “academic decision”, at which time Larsen was SECRETLY sending 1987 manuscript with her name as the co-author of my research to the journal (manuscript was received by the journal on April 14, 1987). She, in fact, denied me any funding in 1986, but then hired a student to “replicate” my experiments.
Dewees says that Larsen “put others on to the task” when I refused to publish 1987 manuscript. This is a lie. Larsen signed the journal Copyright on July 27, 1987, but I refused to sign it and, on August 1, I gave my letter of protest to the Department. On September 16, Larsen sent letter to the Editor saying that she is withdrawing the manuscript and telling the editor that she will “submit the results of a similar study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in the very near future”.
So, it looks like in the 7 weeks after my refusal to publish 1987 manuscript, she made a “similar study”.
However, Dewees is lying because, in fact, Larsen started the “salvaging” operation, secretly sent 1987 manuscript to the journal and “put others on to the task” BEFORE I refused to publish 1987 manuscript, not as a consequence of my refusal to publish it.
Larsen removed me from the university to steal my research. There was no “salvaging”. Her 1989 paper is a fraud. She stole my ideas, she did not “salvage” them. She knew the results of my experiments and stole my discoveries.
7. Larsen first plagiarised my discoveries in 1987.
Among his “justifications”, Dewees says that Larsen “acknowledged” my work in her 1987 paper with McLaughlin. But, actually, this acknowledgment consisted in giving the reference to the non-existing “1985 poster paper”. By giving this 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.
This is the Larsen and McLaughlin paper:
The Morphogenetic Alphabet: Lessons for Simple-Minded Genes
E. Larsen and H. M. G. McLaughlin, BioEssays Vol. 7, No. 3, September 1987, p. 130-132.
This paper is in the Dewees’s list of documents. I told him that Larsen plagiarised my research in this paper. In fact, it was the FIRST Larsen’s plagiarised paper: it was published in September of 1987. (Larsen’s paper of 1989 with Zorn, was her SECOND plagiarised paper.) Dewees ignored plagiarism in this paper because the fact absolutely contradicted his “salvaging” theory. It was published only one month after I refused to publish 1987 manuscript. It takes time to write and publish a paper. It is absolutely clear that Larsen began stealing my research soon after I left the university. When Larsen asked me to sign the 1987 manuscript I had no idea that she was stealing my research in her paper with McLaughlin. This paper says:
The reference # 10 is the fabricated reference to the “poster paper” which fraudulently makes Larsen a co-author of my discoveries:
They go further:
The above pieces are my stolen research.
What was my PhD research, the two thieves claimed as their “preliminary data”. They posed as the discoverers and gave “general conclusions about research strategies”. They said: “we marshal evidence”, “we concluded”, etc., see above. Interestingly, Larsen believed that I somehow conceived my experiments and made my discoveries by considering “cell shape”. And cell shape was present in her papers for decades, sometimes as cell-shape, without any clue as to how it was used by me or what the words actually mean. She said she believes that cell shape is one of the “cell-parameters”.
The motivation for the massive, in fact – unprecedented fraud perpetrated by the Canadian science administration remains unproven. It could hardly be bribes alone. It could be an ethnic crime since almost all perpetrators are jews. And in that case they actually are saving from jail “one of their own”, which is not uncommon. Larsen is now Professor Emeritus at the U of T.
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.