The latest fraud of the NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
This fraud should put an end to NSERC
The new agency, Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), with responsibilities to "consider allegations of breaches of Tri-Agency policies by reviewing institutional investigation reports", "recommend recourse", etc., is functioning since January of 2012.
The Panel, is "supported" by the Secretariat headed by the Executive Director, Susan Zimmerman. (1) The Secretariat "supports" PRCR by: "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", "preparing and presenting summaries of cases of alleged breaches of Agency policies to PRCR for discussion", etc. Panel, therefore, is left with the digest of the cases prepared by Secretariat. It now appears that Secretariat can dismiss the case without the Panel.
On April 9, 2012, I sent to the Panel my "Allegations of Extreme Breaches of Policy by the University of Toronto". (2) The 20 allegations say that University of Toronto conducted investigation of my case against my former PhD supervisor E. Larsen (plagiarism of my PhD research and fraud) in brutal violation of the university and NSERC policy. (There was one investigator, not a committee. The investigator, a lawyer, could not understand the research and papers in question, and did not wish to understand. Although he found that Larsen published my original results as her own, he perverted the definition of plagiarism, perverted the law and found Larsen not guilty. Etc., etc., etc. I allege that the investigation was a fraud.)
On May 9, 2012, Karen Wallace, Policy Analyst of the Secretariat, answered me that my allegations were already "addressed" by NSERC in 1996 and 2003 and that "Secretariat therefore considers this matter to be closed". (3, full letter) She wrote:
It is the Secretariat's understanding that your concerns of institutional non-compliance against the University of Toronto, which you made in 1994 have already been reviewed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC). In 1996, NSERC concluded that it "agrees with the conclusion of the [institution's] investigative report that there was no breach of scientific integrity by Dr. Larsen. [NSERC] considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published. NSERC now considers this matter closed". In 2003, following similar allegations submitted by you against the University of Toronto, the President of NSERC, Dr. Tom Brzustowski reiterated that he had "reviewed the file. There is no basis for any new action on this matter by NSERC". Although the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research is now responsible for matters related to the responsible conduct of research, it is not an appeal body for previous decisions rendered by the Agencies. As the concerns raised in your 2012 messages to the Secretariat relate to the same concerns that were addressed by NSERC in 1996 and 2003, NSERC's decision is final and the Secretariat therefore considers this matter to be closed.
Let's see. Below, are the full texts of 1996 and 2003 documents to which she refers, but they do not address any of the 20 allegations made by me now, or any similar allegations made by me earlier. Karen Wallace and the Secretariat are blatantly lying.
1996 document (4), January 29, 1996:
Dear Mr. Pyshnov: I am writing regarding the allegations brought by you against Dr. Larsen. This matter has been reviewed by NSERC's Committee on Professional and Scientific Integrity. The Committee agrees with the conclusions of the investigative report that there was no breach of scientific integrity by Dr. Larsen. The Committee considered that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to have the 1987 article published. NSERC now considers this matter closed. Yours sincerely, Catherine Armour Research Integrity Officer
2003 document (5), February 24, 2003:
Dear Mr. Pyshnov: This is my response to your request to me, sent by e-mail on February 17, 2003. I have read your letter carefully and reviewed the file. There is no basis for any new action on this matter by NSERC. I can assure you that NSERC officials have acted with the highest probity and integrity. NSERC has not ever, and would never, participate in any fraud and cover-up. I am satisfied that this difficult case was treated fairly and in accordance with policies in effect at the time. Thus, I see no requirement for my intervention. As for information related to your complaint, I would remind you that the inquiry was conducted by the university, not by NSERC. Accordingly, you participated in the process, you were provided with a copy of the final report by the institution, and, subsequently, you were advised by NSERC [that is 1996 letter above] that our Committee agreed with the university's conclusion. More recently, you have been invited to make a request using the Access to Information Act, which is the required approach for individuals seeking access to government documents. This is a process determined by law in which I cannot intervene. NSERC is required to provide you with information to which you are entitled, after which you will have recourse to the Information Commissioner and to the courts. Yours truly, T. A. Brzustowski
In the 1996 document, NSERC did not even mention any of my allegations against University of Toronto. NSERC accepted "the investigative report" of the university and ignored my allegations showing that the investigation was a fraud.
In the 2003 document, NSERC President Brzustowski made a number of personal assurances, taking the type of defence that most fraudsters use: "We would never do a fraud. Our client knew everything, he himself participated in the process. He can only blame himself." Brzustowski was afraid to spell out even a single allegation made in my letter to him. If he did, it would show that his defence is a lie. He referred to the 1996 document that, as we see, also did not mention any of my allegations against University of Toronto and its investigation.
Karen Wallace is playing with the word "addressed" and lying that my allegations against the university investigation were "addressed by NSERC in 1996 and 2003". She creates impression that this is proven in her quotations from the documents, but the quotations are related to the NSERC decision on the case against Larsen, not to the allegations against the university investigation. She creates impression that I am trying to appeal "previous decisions rendered by the Agencies", while, in fact, my "Allegations of Extreme Breaches of Policy by the University of Toronto" do not contain any appeal of a previous decision. Her letter becomes wholly incoherent and dumb ("...Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research is now responsible for matters related to the responsible conduct of research...").
The letter, I believe, is a deliberately confusing and deliberately illegal composition. It shows desperation and panic in the most respected criminal organisation in Canada, NSERC. The only thing they can do now is a pogrom, as the only thing they have now is the unchallenged criminal power. The name that better fits the Secretariat would be the Commissariat.
Absolutely obviously, NSERC never addressed my allegations of breaches of policy and fraud in the investigation conducted by the University of Toronto; the allegations were simply ignored, and Karen Wallace is blatantly lying. (When allegation is ignored, it does not mean that it was addressed. There should be limits to prostituting science and the law.) This is the third time that officials are illegally ignoring the most serious allegations, stopping the due process and obstructing justice. NSERC clearly has interest (I believe - bribes) in covering up fraud of the University of Toronto.
How did it happen that the bottom of society became policy analysts, executive directors and presidents?
I almost missed one absolutely crucial point.
Any allegation of non-compliance with NSERC policy, made against a university (not against an individual researcher), must be investigated in a special process under Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Schedule 8. Such allegations are not judged by NSERC alone, moreover, the complainant actively participates in this process. The NSERC letters of 1996 and 2003 were not such process and, of course, they cannot represent a judgement about my allegations against the university. Nothing that NSERC said about these allegations can make the case closed and prohibit considering my allegations now. Here, the Secretariat blatantly falsified the law; they are simply a gang of criminals.
This fraud should put an end to NSERC