Go to original

Timeline of the Purdue investigation
(sidebar to: Purdue research controversy continues
By Brian Wallheimer [article reprinted from Lafayette (Ind.) Journal & Courier]
Iowa City Press-Citizen

Friday, July 25, 2008

Timeline of the Purdue investigation
Here is the timeline of events surrounding claims of research misconduct allegedly committed by Rusi Taleyarkhan, a Purdue researcher.

• 2002 -- Rusi Taleyarkhan, working at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, publishes research findings that confirm bubble fusion, a method for producing massive amounts of energy through environmentally clean and cheap methods.
• August 2003 -- Taleyarkhan becomes a faculty member at Purdue. Questions about his research practices are raised but did not reach upper administrators at the time.
• May 2005 -- A paper, "Confirmatory Experiments for Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation," is published in the journal Nuclear Engineering and Design, claiming independent verification of Taleyarkhan's findings.
A student listed as co-author on the May 2005 paper and another paper released later in the year goes to the head of Purdue's Nuclear Engineering Department and said he had nothing to do with either paper. He alleges Taleyarkhan has added his name to the papers.
• October 2005 -- A paper titled "Bubble Dynamics and Tritium Emission During Bubble Fusion Experiments" is presented at the 11th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics claiming independent verification.
• 2005 -- Lefteri Tsoukalas, head of Purdue's Nuclear Engineering Department, raises concerns to Purdue officials over Taleyarkhan's research, the papers claiming independent confirmation and his team's inability to replicate the experiment.
• 2006 -- Nature publishes articles questioning the research claims and researchers from other universities join in.
• February 2006 -- A fact-finding committee formed by the School of Engineering determined that a student listed as co-author of two papers claiming independent confirmation of Taleyarkhan's findings had not participated in the research or data analysis. The other co-author will not state who had written the final draft of the papers. The report is given to Peter Dunn, associate vice president for research.
• March 2006 -- Purdue Provost Sally Mason announces an investigation.
• April 2006 -- The university forms a preliminary examination committee to discover and examine the facts surrounding concerns in articles written on bubble fusion.
A few days before the committee releases a report, Kenneth Suslick, a researcher at the University of Illinois, submits allegations to Dunn that claim fabrication of results by Taleyarkhan. Suslick later says his allegations were ignored.
The committee eventually delivered a report recommending further interviews and a detailed examination of data notebooks, after only interviewing two professors and limited documents.
• July 2006 -- An inquiry committee is formed by Purdue and charged with determining if it is more likely than not that someone committed research misconduct.
• December 2006 -- Purdue's inquiry committee exonerates Taleyarkhan of any research misconduct, though it finds he played a significant role in writing papers that were supposed to be independent of him and abused his position as a senior scientist.
• April 2007 -- A congressional subcommittee requests all documentation on the prior inquiries from Purdue.
A new inquiry committee is formed by Purdue to look into claims made against Taleyarkhan and his research. The congressional committee chastises Purdue for using the same people on the committee as the 2006 inquiry and requests others be included.
• September 2007 -- Purdue starts a process to again investigate research misconduct allegations against Taleyarkhan.
• March 2008 -- Taleyarkhan files a civil lawsuit against Purdue professors Lefteri Tsoukalas and Tatjana Jevremovic, for defamation, civil harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• April 2008 -- Purdue submits its findings of its latest investigation to the Office of Naval Research.
• July 17 -- The Office of Naval Research accepts Purdue's findings. Purdue's investigation concludes that two allegations against Taleyarkhan constituted research misconduct. Under the university's policy on integrity in research, Taleyarkhan gets 30 days to appeal the findings.
-- Lafayette (Ind.) Journal & Courier staff

Details of what Purdue University's investigation found
This is a synopsis of the allegations and conclusions in the final report into the investigation of research misconduct against Purdue University nuclear engineering professor Rusi Taleyarkhan. The allegations and other important notes in the report are summarized.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan intentionally left his name off papers in which he was directly involved with the research to disguise his role.
• Conclusion: Though Taleyarkhan was heavily involved with the work, there are a number of reasons why a mentor might leave his name off a paper and give credit to a student or junior colleague. This is not misconduct.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan intentionally added a student's name as an author of a paper when Taleyarkhan knew the student was not involved in the research or experiments.
• Conclusion: Taleyarkhan was responsible for the student's name on the paper knowing the student did not do the work. This is research misconduct.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan intentionally manipulated a Purdue press release to make it look as though other researchers were responsible for guiding research that Taleyarkhan was actually in charge of. This was to make it look as though the work was done independently of Taleyarkhan.
• Conclusion: While Taleyarkhan did manipulate the press release, the information is true. Also, a press release is not part of the scientific record, so it cannot be found to be research misconduct.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan intentionally stated in a paper for Physical Review Letters, a scientific journal, that his research had been independently confirmed.
• Conclusion: Taleyarkhan's claims of independent confirmation are not supported based on his extensive involvement in experiments that claim independence. That is falsification of the scientific record and is research misconduct.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan intentionally used data in a paper to a scientific journal that already had been used in another journal written by other authors.
• Conclusion: While Taleyarkhan broke copyright laws, the authors agreed to share the data and have not claimed plagiarism. This is not research misconduct.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan intentionally wrote a paper for a scientific journal using the results published in another journal in an attempt to make it seem as though separate experiments yielded the same results.
• Conclusion: Again, all authors agreed to the sharing of data, and repetition is in keeping with the review nature of papers. No allegations of plagiarism have come from the authors, so research misconduct did not occur.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan used federal funds for a paper in a scientific journal and failed to acknowledge the support of the agency in the publication.
• Conclusion: Taleyarkhan was paid by public funds during the time the manuscript was written and the federal funding should have been acknowledged. However, there is not evidence this was intentional. This is not research misconduct.
• Allegation: In a response to criticism of his work in a scientific journal, Taleyarkhan deleted some of his original data to make his case.
• Conclusion: The omission of one data point was scientifically defensible and not an instance of research misconduct.
• Allegation: Taleyarkhan intentionally falsified a fusion demonstration in his lab.
• Conclusion: The evidence in this matter does not support a conclusion of research misconduct.

Other highlights
• The report states the committee could not find any other instances of scientists being able to replicate Taleyarkhan's results without Taleyarkhan having direct involvement with the experiments. This comes just short of questioning whether Taleyarkhan's results were fraudulent.
• While Taleyarkhan's enthusiasm for his work is admirable, it led him to claim his students independently confirmed his results when they had not, as well as inappropriately adding a student's name to a research paper.
• Purdue News Service, which wrote the press release claiming other scientists had replicated Taleyarkhan's research, did not follow its own rules of checking information with outside sources. It relied too heavily on the work of Taleyarkhan and his employee and yielded to pressure to speed the release. The report did credit the News Service for removing the word "independent" as a description in the final draft of the press release.
• The findings where Taleyarkhan was found guilty were less egregious than had he been found guilty of reporting fraudulent research findings.
-- Brian Wallheimer/Lafayette (Ind.) Journal & Courier staff

About bubble fusion
Bubble fusion is a process of bombarding a liquid solution with sound waves that cause bubbles to implode, giving off massive amounts of heat and nuclear fusion, which could be used for energy production. Purdue University researcher Rusi Taleyarkhan claims to have done this and said different researchers have reproduced his experiments, a necessary step in establishing credibility of claimed scientific discovery.
Some researchers think they have seen bubble fusion, while others who could not recreate the experiment are claiming Taleyarkhan is a fraud. They say Taleyarkhan was present when supposed independent tests were done to confirm Taleyarkhan's work.
-- Lafayette (Ind.) Journal & Courier staff

(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.