Go to original

Purdue researcher lays out misconduct defense
By Brian Wallheimer
The [Lafayette, Indiana] Journal and Courier

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Purdue University professor Rusi Taleyarkhan is claiming crucial evidence was withheld from his research misconduct hearing and that he was threatened by an attorney working for Purdue.

Taleyarkhan, the nuclear scientist who was found guilty of two counts of research misconduct, filed the appeal Monday and discussed the main points of his argument with the Journal & Courier on Tuesday.

"There was a lot of evidence provided to them that was embarrassing to Purdue," Taleyarkhan said. "Those things, Mr. (William) Kealey blocked them from seeing."

Kealey is an attorney with Stuart & Branigin, the Lafayette firm working for Purdue. Taleyarkhan also claims that Kealey left his former attorney a message that suggested Taleyarkhan should accept the guilty findings or there would be repercussions.

"I was told if I did not go along, I would be punished," Taleyarkhan said.

On Tuesday, Kealey would not address evidence Taleyarkhan said should have been admitted because it is part of the ongoing appeal process. But he denied making any threats, overt or implied.

The case stems from Taleyarkhan's claims in 2002 that he achieved bubble fusion, a process of creating nuclear fusion by bombarding a liquid with sound waves. If true, it could lead to a cheap, limitless and environmentally safe source of energy.

But since publishing his findings, questions of research misconduct have popped up twice, once with an inquiry committee that found there wasn't enough evidence to investigate further. But last year another inquiry committee did call for an investigation, which found Taleyarkhan guilty of two charges.

The investigative committee decided Taleyarkhan included a student's name in a journal paper for research in which the student was not involved. The investigative committee also decided that Taleyarkhan claimed to another journal that other scientists independently confirmed his bubble fusion findings when he actually had been involved with their research.

Kealey said he did speak to Taleyarkhan's attorney, Larry Selander of Chicago, about Taleyarkhan's rebuttal to the report that found him guilty. Kealey said he asked that Taleyarkhan keep the comments centered on questions of facts.

"I asked him to discourage Dr. Taleyarkhan from attacking the good faith of the committee's efforts," Kealey said.

Taleyarkhan said he has a copy of the message, but he would not supply it to the Journal & Courier without speaking to his current attorney first. Selander declined comment.

Taleyarkhan called the exclusion of evidence a violation of his due process rights. If that did happen, Daniel Wueste, director of the Robert J. Rutland Institute for Ethics at Clemson University, said it would be a serious issue for Purdue.

"They have an obligation to examine all evidence," Wueste said. "If that were withheld from (the investigative committee), they would have been blocked from doing their job."

Taleyarkhan also claims that the charges he was found guilty of were not actually leveled against him.

According to Purdue procedure in these cases, an inquiry committee is formed to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to require an investigation of misconduct when allegations are made. If there is, a separate investigative committee hears evidence and makes a ruling.

Taleyarkhan's appeal claims the charges he was found guilty of weren't posed to the inquiry committee. He said he doesn't know where they came from.

"They created two new allegations," Taleyarkhan said. "Two new allegations were put in the hopper because they couldn't find anything else."

Documents produced by Taleyarkhan list 34 allegations the inquiry committee considered. None of them mention the student's name being added to a research paper or Taleyarkhan claiming independent confirmation of his experiments to the journal Physical Review Letters.

One of the allegations states Taleyarkhan falsely claimed independent confirmation at a conference, but not in a journal article as he was found guilty of.

Kealey said the investigative committee combined and restated some of the allegations, but he would not discuss whether the allegations Taleyarkhan was found guilty of were posed to the inquiry committee, because that is part of the ongoing appeal.

Joe Bennett, vice president for university relations at Purdue, said the university has denied a request from Taleyarkhan to remove Kealey and Peter Dunn, associate vice president for research, from the appeal proceedings. Taleyarkhan asked for the removal because of his claim that Kealey removed key evidence and made the threats, and that Dunn made false statements to the investigative committee.

Dunn declined comment.

Taleyarkhan's appeal also attacks Lefteri Tsoukalas, former head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue. Taleyarkhan claims Tsoukalas used racist remarks about Indian researchers, lied during inquiries and investigations, and set out on a personal vendetta against Taleyarkhan.

Tsoukalas did not return calls to his office and cell phone seeking comment.

(In accordance with Title 17, Section 107, of the U.S. Code, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. New Energy Times has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of the original text in this article; nor is New Energy Times endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on New Energy Times may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.