The corrupt Canadian academia

Michael Pyshnov uoftfraud at yahoo.ca
Mon Apr 11 12:55:07 EST 2005


In 1985 I was a mature PhD student at the University of Toronto. Two
of my papers were published earlier in The Journal of Theoretical
Biology. I postulated and described a "division wave" of cells in a
tissue and showed that the division wave is the only way in which
cells can divide and multiply without destroying the structure of the
tissue. In my PhD research I made the discovery (predicted by me) of
embryonic cell patterns responsible for the structure of adult organs
in Drosophila.

The opinion of the Department about me was this: "We estimate he is of
first-class calibre.., our Departmental Graduate Committee ranked him
1st of 7 applicants for PGS-3 awards [the highest scholarship in
Canada, NSERC]. He has already proven himself as an independent
researcher". My supervisor's opinion was: "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." She said that I am "a man of proven
scholarly attainments" and "a very creative scientist".

However, in 1986 my status was fraudulently changed to "lapsed
candidate". When I left, my former supervisor published, in American
journals, three papers claiming credit for my discoveries. I did not
know about these papers till several years later. But, at one point,
she attempted to publish my research as a co-author and she, without
my knowledge, sent an inferior and clumsy article written by her to a
journal. The manuscript (1987) was accepted since the ideas and the
results were new, but the journal required my signature. However, this
research as well as the ideas behind it did not belong to her and I
complained to the Department. She had to withdraw the manuscript. She
was warned, but, incredibly, she published it (1989), slightly
changed, removing not only my name but also the reference to my
earlier paper containing my original ideas. In a footnote, among
thanks to other people, last thanks were given for my "sharing" with
her unspecified "ideas" and my technique. Two other articles stealing
my research were sent for publication before I refused to sign the
above manuscript.

We know well that not a single university rule, anywhere in the world,
allows any justifications for plagiarism, because there are no such
circumstances when the fact of original authorship should be falsified
or altered and because no one can be allowed to claim academic credit
by fraud. But, the University of Toronto justified the plagiarism of
my former supervisor.

The answer to my complaint said: "there is no evidence of plagiarism".
When I went to court, the Affidavits revealed documents written by the
supervisor herself and by the university officials admitting that in
her paper she published my PhD research. This fact was undeniable. In
her letter to the Editor, withdrawing the manuscript, she admitted
that I made two discoveries that were the subject of the manuscript.
And, she said: "I intend, however, to submit the results of a similar
study (performed by myself and an undergraduate)..." In the "similar
study", the two discoveries appeared as her own. In the Statement of
Defense filed in court jointly by her and the University of Toronto,
they admit: "the theoretical foundation of Pyshnov's studies was
published in 1980". This refers to my paper published in 1980 (a year
before I came to the U of T) that was quoted in the withdrawn
manuscript, but is absent in the "similar study". The university
investigations admitted that she "repeated" my experiments and that
her paper contained "replications or extensions" of my results without
acknowledging my original authorship. In fact, she claimed "hundreds"
of experiments done "in the course of the last six years". But, this
was my PhD research. How can this plagiarism be justified?

Below are quotations from the explanation she gave to the Department:
"The results of the second paper corroborate the first hence the
similarity in conclusions presented in the two abstracts. I can see no
justification for calling this plagiarism." Next, she gave "the
concept of intellectual property": "I gather that Michael Pyshnov
believes that he "owns" the finding of cell patterns in discs and can
suppress the use of ideas or subsequent experiments flowing from that
discovery. I believe this point of view has no validity in the culture
of science or in the law. What is required by standards of common
decency as well as in the tradition of scientific courtesy is to cite
works by or thank individuals for their particular help. The
Larsen/Zorn paper gratefully and graciously acknowledged Michael's
technical and intellectual contributions. Perhaps Michael feels
betrayed because he forfeited a publication for naught. He has failed
to recognize that science is a community endeavor, paid for by the
public with the obligation to present the results, and with the reward
of being acknowledged by those who use them."

These explanations were openly making a mockery of the laws
established in academia for centuries. Her papers were clearly a
forgery made to fit the results of my PhD research. Yet, she was never
prosecuted for this fraud and no one said to her: "How dare you? The
community needs scientists, not thieves!" She had each and every
official in her pocket. The university administration formulated
another justification: she "salvaged" my research! They transferred
the authorship of my research to her and, so, falsified my academic
record. The university investigator denied me the very right of
authorship and, again, falsified the law: "I am not persuaded by the
rather naïve meanderings of Mr. Pyshnov in the latter part of his
letter regarding Dr. Larsen securing authorship for all future works
on the subject, and the part that others are referring to Dr. Larsen's
work", and: "since Dr. Larsen wrote the 1987 version it cannot be
considered plagiarism."

The Canadian Government then legitimized the fraud. The Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) gave me a
single sentence in response to my complaint: "The Committee considered
that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable manner given your refusal to
have the 1987 article published." I pointed to the NSERC President
that she published two other articles before my refusal, but he did
not answer. University investigations avoided these two articles.

The quoted documents are available on my web site 
http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/

The documents show the pathological dishonesty of this former
supervisor and the criminal cover-up perpetrated by the university
administration and NSERC. It is clear that "salvaging" of research
(that involves falsification of the fact of authorship) and the
assertion that I "forfeited a publication" were only formulas invented
as a cover for fraud. Why did my research have to be "salvaged",
secretly from me, in three publications, while I was fired? Why did my
supervisor publish still another paper, a review, boasting of the
ideas and the results obtained in her laboratory (given as "personal
communications" from me as I was still in the laboratory), while her
contribution to the field was zero and she was unable to give any
references to her own research? After all, what were the real academic
and scientific merits of my research?

This can now happen to anyone. The process of obtaining a degree in
science has been turned into a fraud. The fraud of my former
supervisor was turned into the university policy that makes the fact
of authorship open to fraudulent machinations (it forms a part of the
Statement of Defense).

I have been fighting this war for 18 years now, but I cannot get back
the authorship of my research. I need justice. Others should become
aware of the justifications of plagiarism practiced by the corrupt
academia. The documents scanned on my web site must be made known in
universities, as Canadian media and University of Toronto campus press
have categorically refused to report this fraud.

Michael Pyshnov.

Phone: (416) 733 8936 (My phone line is not safe. Some calls can be
redirected to another number. Email is not safe either.)
If my web site does not show - print "university of toronto fraud" in
Google and click on Cached.



More information about the Cellbiol mailing list