Ruthless Science Fraud at the
University of Toronto
The following pages can be read continuously or by clicking on separate sections and going back. Links bring you to another place in this text or to a scanned document. Documents have links in bold; from links in bold you need to close the window to return to the text

Foreword
My research
The "academic" decision
The first two attempts
Finally, it's all stolen
The case is in court
How Prof. Larsen apologized to the Editor
Prof. Larsen's later explanation
My research, they say, was "salvaged", not stolen
The first investigation
The second investigation: I lost a race with thieves
The government upholds the fraud
My research was mine alone; it was outstanding research
The true reason behind the "salvaging"
Criminals in academia
The obstruction of justice. How far do they wish to go?
The appeal to the scientific community
References
The evidence
The stolen work: Titles, Authors and Abstracts..
_______________________________________________________
SEE ANNOTATEDLISTOFDOCUMENTS
BACKTOTHEMAINPAGE
________________________________________________________________________________________

Foreword

For many years my interest and publications were concerned with the analysis of cell division in the organism. I, then, went to a Ph.D. program at the University of Toronto and produced outstanding research based entirely on my own ideas.
After five years, and a year before the end of my program, I was removed from the laboratory by the supervisor, E. Larsen (E. Rapport), and my research was stolen and published in several articles under her name together with three other co-authors.
She, when caught with the fraud, took refuge behind a communist demagogy and declared the new "concept of intellectual property". According to it, my discoveries do not belong to me, they belong to the "community", but under her name. She also declared that I had "forfeited a publication for naught".
Still, the evidence, without exception, showed a low, sadistic fraud, the fraud of an adventuress. Yet, the administration (I. Orchard, D. Dewees) defended her without reservation: they perverted and distorted the law and the rights of authorship still further, to exclude the criterion of originality completely. They said that Larsen and others "repeated", "replicated or extended" and "salvaged" my research, and that my ideas were "picked up". They did not return the research under my name.
The Canadian Research Integrity office agreed and fully upheld the fraud. In all these reports, universally established law and rights were violated in a cynical and contemptuous manner, to cause outrage.
While maintaining this state of intolerable and unparalleled persecution (I am without my work and without a job since 1986), the clever administration, as soon as I asked members of the Department for help, discouraged their involvement by a letter from a lawyer, then, began spreading fear of possible violence. More than seventy professors of the Department remain silent.
The determination of this University to continue the crime has no limits: every governmental office that heard my complaint, the law enforcement, the agencies concerned with education and science were all swayed. The President of The Canadian Genetics Society confirmed that my research was stolen, but advised me to stop "bugging" the University. Furthermore, the press is unwilling to publish a single word about this fraud.
Forty nine law firms declined my court case (which I started in 1994), citing conflict of interest. I have no means of bringing the case to trial. The story, below, contains extensive quotations from the documents presented in the Affidavits, which give the proof of astonishing corruption in the perpetrators' own words.
Authorship is the fact accomplished. It can not be "forfeited"; no one can "salvage" it or award to another.
According to the law, authorship is not transferable, and for good reason. It is important to civilized society that the wrong people do not replace the doers as the authors of discoveries. It is intolerable, that people, foreign and inimical to both science and morality, are able to make a mockery of all intellectual meaning of research, using the high positions that they have come to occupy within the University. It is intolerable that such precedent, abolishing the law, is established with the full support of government. Principles of authorship, never assaulted before, are now the last frontier of civilization, which must be defended at any price.
A University, worshipping discoveries and destroying the doers, has no right to exist. The schemes of substitute scientists must fall.
If the criminals escape justice, in this clearest of cases, through either their corrupt influence, money or provocation, it would not only be the waste of my life and work, it would be a disaster for everyone who works in science with honesty and pride.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

My research

From 1981 to 1986 I was a Ph.D. student at the Department of Zoology. My research for the thesis was based on my paper of 1980 in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (see Ref.1), (Doc.1A) where I established a mathematical necessity for a definite pattern of cell divisions in a tissue of an adult organism.
I proposed there that cell divisions must proceed in a tissue as a WAVE, consecutively triggering the division in neighboring cells. The resulting order of divisions allowed the tissue to replace its dying cells with the new ones, but, at the same time, to preserve its original shape.
As the arrangement of cells in a tissue displays the pattern of polygonal mosaics, the order of divisions has to obey the topological rules that are known to exist in such cell "mosaics".

When I began my Ph.D. research on the developing tissues of Drosophila, this concept allowed me to consider development (where the cells are not dying and replaced, but are multiplying) in a new light and to predict certain phenomena not seen before.
Since the previous model showed how the arrangement of cells affects the shape of the tissue, I made a prediction that in the developing tissue (larvae), there must be some specific features of cell arrangements (i.e., the overall patterns of cell "mosaics") that reflect the future shape of the adult organ.
I, therefore, proposed to study cell arrangements in different tissues which give rise to different organs, and in the known mutants which give rise to the altered organs. The technique that I had developed allowed me to see the cell borders and, indeed, to distinguish the specific features of cell arrangements. I found that they are:
1)organ specific,
2)the same on the left and right sides (as mirror images),
3)the same in two species of Drosophila,
4)correspondingly changed, when homeotic mutation (altering the organ determination) occurs.

I made numerous observations of these patterns and concluded that there is only one basic structure -- a WHORL, with cells dividing in its center in a nearly standing wave, and cells growing around it in a helical pattern. The number of such whorls (with different activities) is not great in a disc (which makes the patterns distinguishable), and the total picture is a combination of the large and small whorls.
I believe that the whorl must be an absolutely universal structure (although, the appearance of the structure would depend on the rates of division and growth).
It now appears that the development of organs, the establishing of symmetry and various shapes in the organism are predetermined by the very arrangement of cells in the tissue, and not "regulated" by the hypothetical chemical substances -- "morphogenes".
While the development would be deficient without certain substances or physical conditions, they alone are unable to establish the pattern of development. There are still other factors present, for instance, the inability of certain cells to divide and cell death, that would either allow or prohibit certain pathways.
It also became clear that the transformation of larval tissue (imaginal discs) into adult shapes can be "elastic", i.e., without cell rearrangement.

My research was included by my supervisor, Prof. Ellen Larsen (Ellen Rapport), in her extensive review paper (seeRef.2) and was the sole contribution to the subject from her laboratory. The only reference in her paper, somehow related to her laboratory, was a quotation of my 1980 paper. It was also used as a foundation for the thesis of her M.Sc. student (see Ref.4).
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The "academic" decision

My research was highly esteemed by my supervisor; she wrote: "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." (See her recommendation). It was judged as progressing satisfactorily eleven times, the last time, on May 3, 1985, (Doc.5).

On October 18, 1985, I received a letter from the Department reminding me: "...You should make every effort to complete your thesis by the Fall of 1986....[schedules for Ph.D. and M.Sc. candidates follow]...extensions are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, unless there are extenuating circumstances and evidence of substantial progress. Good luck with your endeavours during the coming months." (Doc.6)

Later on the same day, I received a hastily written letter from Prof. Larsen:
"I am writing to communicate to you my urgent concern about your PhD program. As you know, you have one more year to complete your program. Since May 1985 I have seen no experimental progress made and have been given no indication as to why this is so. Since I have serious doubts about your ability to complete your experiments and thesis requirements in the time remaining, I intend to convene a committee meeting in early January to review your situation and make appropriate recommendations. In the meantime I hope that you will discuss any problems you have or make known any difficulties you forsee." (Doc.7)

This letter came as a complete surprise; I, initially, did not take it seriously. She always said that I had an excellent thesis, and, a couple of weeks earlier, I was given by the Department a space where I could write the thesis. Her explanation was that she wanted more experiments, but, that the decision would be left to the Graduate Committee.

She, then, persuaded the Graduate Committee to change my status to a lapsed student, i.e., to remove me from the laboratory. But, since doing more experiments would require my staying in the laboratory, Prof. Larsen, who, as it became clear later, wanted me out, changed her requirement to another one.

She wrote this "academic" decision:
"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." (Doc.8)

The meeting of the Graduate Committee, where Prof. Larsen was the only member who had first-hand knowledge of my research, lasted for half an hour. Not a single scientific question was raised after my presentation. I proposed to write and present the thesis for their judgment, but I was told: "Michael, you have no thesis."
For a few months more I kept coming to the laboratory, trying to persuade her to change the decision, but that did not help; no new meeting was set up in April or later.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The first two attempts

Back in May of 1985, at the request of Prof. Larsen, I presented (with her co-authorship) a poster with my latest results at a conference. So, five months later, when she began removing me from the laboratory, she thought that her co-authorship of my research was secured.
But, a few weeks before I left, she became aware that it so happened that the abstract of this poster was never published by the editors.
She quickly made her own, extremely crude, compilation of the most demonstrative results of my research and offered to publish it, as a Brief Note, under both our names. (Doc.9) I, at first, agreed, then, realizing that her automatic co-authorship (as supervisor) was quite unsavory in the new situation, declined (July 11, 1986).
I left in August of 1986, in total desperation, helpless to prove the value of my work then, or in the future.

A year after I left, in the last week of July of 1987, Prof. Larsen phoned me, for the first time, and asked me to sign the Copyright Transfer (Doc.15) for publication of that same paper (Doc.11), which she had secretly sent to another journal and which was already accepted. (Doc.10), (Doc.12), (Doc.13), (Doc.14)
While I had no means to continue the research, she had the grant and she, when I came to see her, introduced me to her new student, who was, she said, repeating my experiments.
I refused to sign the Copyright Transfer and called her a thief. This had no effect, because she needed my signature. She argued that she had committed money to pay for the pages and that this publication would be an asset to me. She, incredibly, continued to pretend total friendliness.

It was clear to me that her requirement of the full maturity of my theoretical models was a pretext; that my research, which was a continuation of my lifetime effort in one area, had ended without the possibility to continue it in any capacity, and without the degree.
On the other hand, Prof. Larsen demanded the publication, which, in no way, could be a decent conclusion to my research. The paper did not even mention the number of experiments done, and it gave almost none of my explanation of the findings.
It was blatantly obvious, that the only use of this trifling paper was for her to claim the authorship of the findings.
Her authorship, however, could only be justified by the custom allowing a supervisor to sign as a co-author, since she did not ever contribute scientifically to my research. Such co-authorship would also give her a clear way to subsequently plagiarize anything that remained in her memory from the five years of my research, but withheld by her from this paper.
My research, in fact, had opened a whole new approach to the problem of morphogenesis. (See Prof. Larsen's own statements.) It was plain and obvious to me that both her "academic" decision and her paper were conceived with the intent to steal the authorship of my research. Later events proved that my perception of the situation was not an exaggeration at all.

I complained to the Chair of the Department in a letter (August 1, 1987), pointing to both of the above aspects, only not saying the word "fraud":
"...The committee meeting was staged in such a way that no scientific discussion was given time, but, instead, Dr. Rapport's [as she then was] opinion was quickly accepted. Dr. Rapport exercised her power in a swift manner of execution, since any discussion would reveal impossible contradiction with all reports from the previous years....
The paper...was horribly shortened and every bit of my concept was removed from it. No one would be able now to understand why such work was undertaken, what is the clue to the interpretation of the results and what is the significance of it. I noted to Dr. Rapport that her integrity is questionable if she wants to publish a discovery after she got rid of a discoverer...
I am asking you as a Chairman to persuade Dr. Rapport that she should not attempt publishing my paper and that her duplicity has put an end to any of her rights on this work, and to her right of using my work for the other students' research." (Doc.16)

The answer from the Chair (September 22, 1987) was delivered in one sentence:
"Further to your letter of August 1st, 1987 addressed to me, regarding publication of work you did with Dr. E. Larson, this is to inform you that Dr. Larsen has withdrawn the paper she submitted for publication to the Transactions of the American Microscopical Society." (Doc.20)

The rest of my complaint was ignored. I tried some other routes, but no one responded seriously (or at all) to my complaint. Some time after this, I angrily disposed my daily records of work into the garbage (see more on this).
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

Finally, it's all stolen

The assurance from the Chair was, however, a deception: the University intended to steal my discoveries and never intended to see me back with my thesis, as the swindling operation continued.

In 1989, Prof. Larsen published my discoveries under her name, acknowledging in a footnote:
"We thank Michael Pyshnov for sharing his silver staining technique and his ideas with us." (see Ref.5) (Doc.21)

This acknowledgment was, of course, a fraudulent and quite sadistic act, resembling a "thank you" note left by burglars in the house. My letter to the Chair confirms that not only was there no desire to "share", but, in fact, my vigorous protest. My ideas, technique, etc., were, of course, "shared" with her as the supervisor during the five years.

She cooked her "research" in about 51 days, as it follows from the UofT documents, by hiring an undergraduate student to get some of my experiments repeated to fit my results and conclusions, which were already well known to her.

The comparison with the withdrawn manuscript leaves no doubt that all the technique, ideas, experiments, results and conclusions were transferred from it into the new paper. The abstract claims my discoveries almost identically to the one in the withdrawn MS. The title is changed using the Editor's correction made in the withdrawn manuscript.
The authors, however, are different. (See the titles, authors and abstracts compared.)

My discovery (described in the withdrawn manuscript) of the changed cell arrangement in the homeotic (Ns) mutant as compared to the cell arrangement in normal tissue, is claimed as their discovery.
But, ridiculously, the normal flies, which should have been analyzed to make the comparison (this was reported in the withdrawn manuscript), are not among the strains used in her new paper.
Instead of analyzing normal flies, the authors claim results obtained on "hundreds" of the "non-Ns" (her euphemism for "normal") flies "in the course of the last six years"!

The word "normal" is removed from the abstract; but the comparison with the normal flies is, indeed, meant there as their finding. The normal flies appear in the title, otherwise, of course, the "discovery" of the mutant cell arrangements wouldn't make any sense.
Yet, in 1993, Prof. Larsen made one more turn and announced that "in the second paper, discs from two mutant strains were compared", while "in the retracted work, wild-type discs were compared to mutant discs". (Doc.25)

Indeed, her paper includes the new fly with another mutation, but...this mutation is not investigated. The stated role for the new mutant is to show that the presence of a mutation in another organ does not change cell arrangements in normal tissue, unrelated to this mutation, which would be, anyway, expected. This conclusion about the new mutant is not even mentioned in the abstract.

However, this mutant was used to show its normal tissue, to claim her "new" findings, in fact, the same as the ones made by me with, simply, the normal fly. So, the overt use of the normal flies was undesirable.
The experiments that she added to the stolen research, were not the important part of the paper. None of the experiments in this paper show any results that were not shown by me previously or were not obviously expected from my experiments. I can even doubt that the authors performed any experiments.
Some of the findings, made by me (temperature effect), but not reported by Prof. Larsen in the withdrawn manuscript, were brought to the new paper; they are not in the abstract either.

Other changes are also fraudulent, such as renaming my "whorls" into "clusters". Curiously, an article from California (see Ref.6), referring to the "findings" in this stolen paper (they don't say it is stolen, see more on this), still mentions those structures by their original name, used in the withdrawn manuscript. (How would they know? -- Prof. Rapport spent her sabbatical there.)
This paper, I believe, is the filthiest forgery ever published in a scientific journal.

Moreover, the stealing did not start with this paper.
In July of 1987, when Prof. Larsen cunningly tried to make me sign the Copyright Transfer, I did not know and she did not tell me that she had already sent two other articles for publication (published in 1987 (see Ref.3) and 1988 (see Ref.4)), in which my work and ideas were appropriated by her and her co-authors.
She began stealing my research as soon as I left and, notably, before I refused to sign that manuscript.

Furthermore, in these articles, my former supervisor pretended that the abstract of the poster of 1985 was published in the Abs. Soc. Devl. Biol., 44th Symposium, (1985); and she made a reference to this nonexistent "publication". So, she blasted off the confidentiality of my research, made it look as if the research had already been published, and, at the same time, demonstrated her co-authorship.
The implications of my research (now -- their research) are discussed in these articles in a ridiculously boasting manner, totally irreconcilable with the treatment my work received in 1986 at the Graduate Committee meeting.

These two articles (particularly, the 1987 one), if compared to 1989 paper, betray the facts that her "discoveries" in the 1989 paper were made years before, and that there was also another co-author in an abstract that was never published. But, in the 1989 paper, she does not make references to the 1987 paper, nor to the unpublished abstract of the poster, nor to my 1980 paper, to which reference was made in the withdrawn manuscript, nor does she mention this manuscript in any way.

My role now appears as that of a somewhat helpful outsider, not as the sole initiator and the sole author of the research. The source of the numerous far-reaching ideas, the author of the discoveries, the author of four publications (plus one, nonexistent, but quoted) on the subject, is known as Prof. E.Larsen (and her three, varying from paper to paper, co-authors).
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The case is in court

Until 1993 I had no knowledge of all the "scientific" activity that followed the assurance from the Chair that the article had been withdrawn. I was unemployed and in a terrible situation. Upon finding these publications and realizing what an elaborate fraud has been perpetrated on me with devilish persistence, I wrote a letter (November 23, 1993) to the President of the UofT, Prof. Robert Prichard, enclosing the "academic" decision, the 1987 manuscript, the statement from the Chair that this MS was withdrawn and Prof. Larsen's subsequent articles. (Doc.22)
He answered me that he asked the (at this time, new) Chair of the Department to review my complaint and to reply directly to me. (Doc.23)

The reply from the Chair (December 17, 1993) was:
"In response to President Prichard's letter (November 25, 1993), I initiated an objective investigation into your allegation of plagiarism and corruption against Dr. E.Larsen.
I wish to inform you that there is no evidence of plagiarism and that Dr. Larsen behaved in a reasonable and responsible manner in what was clearly a difficult situation.
I understand that you abandoned your Ph.D. program amicably when your funding ran out and that you were informed that you could return and submit a completed thesis. I believe that this option is still open to you."
(Doc.26)

I did not answer; I went to the law library, then, to court. At first, the University succeeded in striking out half of my Statement of Claim (Doc.35), saying that the court has no jurisdiction over "academic matters". I, then, took the case to the Court of Appeal, and the important parts of the Statement of Claim (in 12 paragraphs) were restored. Finally, after a year and a half, the Statement of Defense (Doc.36), written by the UofT together with Prof. Larsen, was delivered, and the Affidavits with the documents were exchanged (November 1995).
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

How Prof. Larsen apologized to the Editor

One of the documents that I found in the Affidavits, was Prof. Larsen's letter of September 16, 1987, to the Editor (bearing the stamp of the Chair of the Department with this date, i.e., preceding the Chair's letter to me, which said that Prof. Larsen had withdrawn the manuscript). Here it is:
"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 [sic] (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 [sic] and their modification in a homeotic mutant [sic] 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 [sic] 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."
(Doc.19), also (Doc.18)

Here, the research is all "his", four times. She had specified two particular discoveries, made by me. There are not any claims to her authorship of the research reported in the manuscript. She invented my inability to do more research and feigned her desire to enable me, and made this the main point of the letter.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prof. Larsen's later explanation

Another document that I received, was Prof. Larsen's explanation, (Doc.25), to the Chair of the Department (December 9, 1993), in response to my letter to President Prichard. First, she considered "the alleged plagiarism". She says:
"The papers in question deal with the significance of cell arrangement patterns which Michael discovered in fly imaginal discs. I suggested that one could look at mutations which change the type of appendage produced and see if the mutant also changed the cell arrangement patterns. In the retracted work, wild-type discs were compared to mutant discs, in the second paper, discs from two mutant strains were compared and the effects of temperature on cell patterns were also examined. 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."

In the first sentence she omits the second discovery, which she attributed to me in her letter to the Editor ("...and their modification in a homeotic mutant").
Had she not omitted it, she would have had to explain how in the next sentence she is now claiming to have "suggested" something that I "discovered".
Although this is not an impossible situation, in this case it is a lie. In fact, I had suggested the hypothesis in my first thesis proposal in 1981 (Doc.1), before proving it in 1984. The hypothesis in my proposal reads: "...Furthermore, homeotic mutants which alter disc determination will be observed to see if cell packing is also altered."
Moreover, she had, probably, forgotten that in one of her recommendations, written ten years before, she clearly attributed to me "conceiving" this approach and the hypothesis; or she thought that the old recommendation would be unavailable to me now. (See this already mentioned quotation.)

In the third sentence she is trying to disown the title of her paper, the abstract, the conclusions, the discussion and the photographs, in which she presented the stolen discovery of Ns mutant cell arrangements as compared with normal flies.
Now she says she did a comparison between two mutants only.
(On the other hand, what she now says means that her paper does not contain the subject of her "suggestion" to compare a mutant with the normal fly, thereby, she is dropping the noble argument that her paper was published to assert her own scientific contribution.)
Her fourth sentence is also puzzling, because her paper could hardly "corroborate the first", if avowedly different objects were dealt with in the two papers.
Still, the experiments and the conclusions are identical. Where is the truth?
Of course, her paper "corroborates the first", the unpublished one. But, nowhere does it say that her "findings" are "corroborating" something that was done before and by a different researcher. Her paper is published as an original work.
Her desperate attempt to disown the subject of her paper points, obviously, to plagiarism.

She, then, designs "the concept of intellectual property" and tenders it as an accepted norm which is supposed to give her a justification based on high social and ideological grounds. It, actually, being a poorly concealed communist fraud transferred on science, only proves that she published my research:
"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."

She means to say that she had the right to publish the paper containing my work, in spite of my protest.
Why, then, did she withdraw the manuscript without objections, and why did she not write to the Editor that, since "...Michael Pyshnov believes that he "owns" the finding...and can suppress the use of ideas or subsequent experiments...", she will publish my discoveries anyway, in the interest of the community and with the acknowledgment to me?
Then, she only wrote: "...owing to circumstances I shall outline below, I must withdraw this manuscript..." And these circumstances were that the work was mine and that I did not want to publish it with her. She always knew that she did not have any right to publish my work.
She, subsequently, made a forgery, a "similar study", and she knew that she had committed fraud, once more; it was her third paper stealing my research.
It was, clearly, the obligation of the Chair of the Department to let me know what her "similar study" was about.

Prof. Larsen's acknowledgment of my "sharing" with her of the technique and ideas is proven false by all the documents (including her above statement), which show that I refused to publish them with her. The publication was not only unauthorized, it was protested.
Therefore, her publication of my technique and ideas is a malicious breach of confidentiality, a sadistic violation of the basic rules of academia.
Furthermore, she not only published my ideas, she published them as her own ideas. They stand there as her own ideas, since the reader is unable to attribute a single of these unspecified "shared" ideas to me, let alone, to realize that they were stolen, after she, together with the Department, deceitfully foiled my protest. The acknowledgment she made is false, moreover, it is meaningless to the reader. A more calculated fraud is difficult to imagine.

She did not want to acknowledge my "particular help" (as she put it), because all the ideas in her paper were mine as it is clearly evidenced from the comparison with the withdrawn manuscript and with other documents.
It would be abhorrent to see this acknowledgment as a "scientific courtesy" or "reward". Therefore, what remains of her acknowledgment, is an admission (although, not made to the other readers) that her paper is, indeed, my work. Her remorseless and sadistic remark, that I, actually, received "naught" for my work (not a "reward"!) and her words that she "gratefully and graciously acknowledged Michael's technical and intellectual contributions", together with her acknowledgment in the paper, are obviously products of a deviant, criminal mind.

In the last part of her explanation she lies about the cause of my departure. She does not say, as in her letter to the Editor, that my status was changed to a "lapsed student", "no longer officially registered" (which confirms the text of the "academic" decision), but gives a concocted cause; she now says that I was only "warned", but that my money "ran out":
"Contrary to the impression given in Pyshnov's letter - he was not forced out of the Ph.D. He was warned that time was closing in and he was not making progress. (I would have been derelict in my duties as supervisor had I not done so.) He left the program amicably [sic] when his money ran out [sic], with the understanding that he could return with a thesis to submit. Nowhere in his submission does he explain how he was deprived of a Ph.D. if he never submitted a thesis [sic]."

Money played no role in my departure. Moreover, I told the Committee, when they, strangely, raised this issue, that I would be able to finish the program after my scholarship ends in April, and that I could, if needed, get the student loan, which I had not used before. Nevertheless, Prof. Larsen included this bogus issue in the text of the "academic" decision.
It is an outrage that while the "academic" decision referred to the lack of funding, she, after my departure, found money to hire someone else to repeat the work already done by me, obviously, with the purpose to fraudulently represent it as her own.

In this explanation to the Chair of the Department, Prof. Larsen carelessly celebrates the success of roguery and the demise of the victim. This could only be written by an adventuress feeling total impunity in a circle of friends.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

My research, they say, was "salvaged", not stolen

Two UofT investigations of the matter were conducted. (Although, apparently, there was also one earlier "investigation" (Doc.17).) Together with the Statement of Defense, they do not offer much of a denial that Prof. Larsen's 1989 paper presents my research under her name, but offer a theory that my research was "salvaged" by her.
The Statement of Defense says:
"Indeed, due to the fact that Pyshnov spent five years in Dr. Larsen's laboratory, received considerable academic and financial support, Dr. Larsen had a responsibility to the sources of the research funding to salvage [sic] as much as possible from the paucity [sic] of work that Pyshnov had completed before his departure. Accordingly, when Pyshnov was unable or unwilling to advance his work at a satisfactory pace and unwilling even to publish results, Dr. Larsen was entitled [sic] to have others conduct additional work in respect of this area."

Again, as in Prof. Larsen's explanation, one reason for "salvaging" appears to be the investment. The bill was not presented to me, but, the cost of my five years of research to the University, calculated with the help of the chemical catalogue, was $190. Added to the cost should be the photographic paper, the flies and the use of the microscope.
The scholarship, which I received, was, mainly, the NSERC two-year award, the best in Canada, $21,600. (I also won the best UofT scholarship, but could not use it along with the NSERC.) Each of the six installments of this award was approved, as being requested in accordance with the progress of my research, by Prof. Larsen.
Can this money take away the authorship of my Ph.D. research and transfer this authorship to Prof. Larsen and her three co-authors?

Together with this reason, the Statement of Defense and the second UofT investigator maintain that my research (i.e., Ph.D. research) was a joint research with Prof. Larsen, and not mine alone. They say that my refusal to publish the 1987 MS was her reason for "salvaging" it.
However, the fact that she sent two other papers, stealing my work, before I refused to publish the manuscript (that is, before she was "entitled" to "salvage") was completely ignored in both investigations.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The first investigation

The first investigation (December 1, 1993) followed my letter to the President of the UofT and was conducted without my knowledge by Prof. I.Orchard (Dept. of Zoology, now -- Vice-Provost of the University!). (Doc.24)

He determined Prof. Larsen's rights in the withdrawn MS thus:
"In my experience, it is routine for a supervisor, who has funded and overseen a project, to be co-author. Indeed, in this situation, since Dr. Larsen clearly wrote the MS, it could be argued she should have been first author. In any case, in attempting to salvage [sic] something from the 5 years of research, Dr. Larsen is prevented from publishing due to Mr. Pyshnov's refusal to sign the Copyright Transfer."

Knowing that this, his own, Department requires Ph.D. students to submit and defend their own project (which I did) and avoiding the question of whose ideas were behind my project, he further determined that this supervisor could become the author of the research even without me:
"I believe in all good conscience, and with common sense, Dr. Larsen did the only thing open to her. She hired another student, repeated the experiments and performed some others. Then, a more substantial paper was produced and published in 1989 by Larsen and Zorn."

He pretends that the criterion of originality in authorship is not known to him. What about the experiments of Isaac Newton, which are repeated every day in schools?

He, then, with gross contempt, continued to negate any right of a researcher:
"His problems were probably his own making. It would have been reasonable to have taken the senior authorship on the 1987 MS. In addition, Dr. Larsen is now, quite correctly, referencing her own papers in reviews. This is a normal scientific practice, where it is easier and more up-to-date to cite the most recent articles. I am not persuaded by the rather nave 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."

A redneck-professor in a fit of antiintellectualism? Or is this most "gentler and kindlier" University preparing The New Science Order?
However, even this argument about her citing "the most recent articles" is fabricated. What is he talking about, when there is no single paper published on the subject of my Ph.D. research, bearing my name on it?
When describing this research, she always was referencing only her own papers, with the notable exception of the reference to the nonexistent "publication" of the abstract from the poster (who knows, what was in it?). On the poster, my name was followed by her name, as the supervisor. At the time it looked quite innocent, but subsequently, there was no "normal scientific practice"; her papers were stealing my research.

All he said about my removal from the Ph.D. program, was:
"Mr. Pyshnov left the Ph.D. programme in 1986. I do not know the circumstances leading to this but it may be worth finding out if he was asked to leave, or whether, as indicated by the committee meeting report of January 24, 1986, his 5 year term was up and the expectation was for him to lapse then become reinstated on completion of further work."

Again, he fabricated a probable argument: it was not indicated in this report that my term was up, on the contrary, other documents clearly show that I had at least one more year. There could not have been "the expectation for him to lapse" for this reason.
There is no word here about Prof. Larsen's (second) version of events -- that my money "ran out", which made me leave the program.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The second investigation: I lost a race with thieves

The second investigation was initiated through my complaint to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). The UofT Provost asked D.N.Dewees, a Professor of Law, the Vice-Dean responsible for investigations of plagiarism, a member of Economic Council of Canada, Institute for Policy Analysis, etc., (who was unable to understand the scientific articles in question) to investigate my allegations of plagiarism.
When I asked him whether a biologist would participate, he said: "We'll see." No biologist showed up. But, he said in his report (April 25, 1995), (Doc.27), that Prof. D.Van der Kooy (Dept. of Anatomy) helped him, that is -- behind the scene. Later, the Vice-Provost of the University, responding to my outrage, (Doc.28), over Prof. Dewees's report and his faking of naivety in matters related to plagiarism, said: "Dean Dewees did consult on scientific matters where necessary." (Doc.29)
He questioned me two times, for one hour each; I recorded it on tape, secretly. He said he "spent 12 hours on this investigation."

A "genuinely joint research"?

Considering the 1987 withdrawn manuscript, Prof. Dewees concluded: "There is no plagiarism, nor any allegation of plagiarism regarding this paper."
But, two paragraphs earlier, speaking of my refusal to publish it, he said: "...he thought Professor Larsen was trying to steal his ideas."
Obviously, he knew that I made the allegation of an attempted plagiarism when she wanted to put her name on the paper. But, my allegation was not agreeable with his own approach to this investigation.

He rejected my denial of Prof. Larsen's scientific contribution to my research. He stated: "Professor Larsen had contributed the mutation idea, she had provided guidance and advice throughout the project, she had grown the flies, and she had provided funding. Both parties agree that Professor Larsen wrote the text; Mr. Pyshnov did not write it. This manuscript was therefore a report on genuinely joint research based on shared [sic] ideas. Professor Larsen's contribution was such that she was properly listed as an author."

Prof. Larsen's guidance and advice had a purely administrative nature. Her own recommendations given to me at an earlier time and other documents quoted here, exclude the possibility of now attributing any scientific contribution to her, particularly, the "suggestion", which was, probably, the one turned by Prof. Dewees into "the mutation idea".

This "mutation idea" was clearly stated in my thesis proposal. Prof. Larsen attributed to me the conception of the new approach, including this idea. Then, she attributed to me the discovery of mutant cell arrangements without making any claim to the idea itself. When she, in 1993, advanced her claim to the "suggestion", she surrounded the claim with what judges usually call "a pack of lies". All this evidence was "missed" by Prof. Dewees.

The flies were grown in large stocks for the undergraduate course by a technician and used for research also. Prof. Larsen, indeed, from time to time, would give me one or two bottles with the flies that she freshly transplanted herself; sometimes, they constituted all that I needed for a couple of days, though, the main work of maintaining the flies I did.
She, indeed, was taking care of the funding, but, how can this help her to turn my Ph.D. research into a "genuinely joint research"?
Her contribution was not a scientific contribution that can put her name on the authors' line.
It is amazing that, in five years, Prof. Larsen did not try, a single time, to repeat my experiments, despite my invitations to do so.

Here, it is impossible for me to discuss every distortion and evasion that Prof. Orchard and Prof. Dewees used in their reports. I do quote here their main arguments. To expose the crime, it is quite sufficient to point out, what they do admit and what can be proven using their own words.

She wrote up my research, and she became the author of it

While Prof. Larsen admitted in her letter to the Editor that the research she reported in the withdrawn MS was mine, she said she is sending a "similar study". In her explanation to the Chair she said that the 1989 paper is her new work and it only "corroborates" the withdrawn MS. Prof. Dewees had to investigate my allegation that in her 1989 paper she stole my ideas, results, etc., previously described in the withdrawn manuscript.
Does the comparison of the abstracts of the 1989 paper and the 1987 MS (see, again, the comparison) not show the plagiarism? Of course it does, but not to Prof. Dewees who joined Prof. Orchard in the task of perverting all intellectual meaning of research.
He said: "The abstract is very similar to that of the 1987 paper, but this text was written by Prof. Larsen in any event."
Prof. Orchard said: "However, since Dr. Larsen wrote the 1987 version [sic] it cannot be considered plagiarism."
Both investigators, a biologist and a lawyer, disposed of the irrefutable evidence of plagiarism, pretending that at issue is only a literary plagiarism. They pretended that merely writing this abstract in 1987 should give Prof. Larsen ("in any event") the authorship of the scientific ideas and discoveries.

Who did the hundreds of experiments?

The following chain of statements proves not only Prof. Larsen's fraud, but, also, the complete dishonesty of Prof. Dewees:
1) On July 27, 1987, Prof. Larsen signed the Copyright Transfer for the withdrawn MS, which she (on September 16) admitted as my research. Prof. Dewees also admitted that the experiments described in it were mine: "Mr. Pyshnov had adapted the silver staining technique, he had the idea of studying cell patterns, he had performed the experiments and taken the photographs."
2) On September 16, 1987, Prof. Larsen wrote to the Editor: "I intend, however, to submit the results of a similar study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in the very near future..." In this "similar study" (the 1989 paper), the "Discussion" on page 54 opens with the words: "In the course of the last six years, hundreds of discs from non-Ns [i.e., normal] larvae have been silver stained." (She and her co-author continued, throughout the paper, to claim the results of these hundreds of experiments as part of their research.)
3) Prof. Dewees's conclusion was: "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."

So, who did the hundreds of experiments "in the course of the last six years" (she had only 51 days for "a similar study")?
Prof. Dewees fraudulently overlooked the connection between this "paragraph on page 54" in her paper and the experiments in the withdrawn MS, which he attributed to me (and he never said that she had done any experiments before 1987). That is, despite the fact that I showed this paragraph to him and said that these hundreds of experiments were my research. (He, probably, did not realize that I was recording the conversation.)
Moreover, he stated: "The experimental research on which the 1987 paper was based was quite meagre, as noted by the referees for an earlier submission [he means the withdrawn manuscript!]. The experimental data consisted of only four photographs. Professor Larsen had tried to get Mr. Pyshnov to do more experimental work but he would not."
In fact, in the 1987 MS, Prof. Larsen did not indicate at all, the number of experiments. She, also, did not indicate that it contained materials of my Ph.D. research. As a result, the MS looked as if it contained a very small amount of data (though, no referee said that the research was meager).
She chose to claim hundreds of experiments later, in her own paper in 1989. Her acknowledgment did not include any thanks for my experiments and my name was not mentioned anywhere else in this paper, but, Prof. Dewees covered up this horrific fraud. Ridiculous as it is, he did not accept my explanation that the four photographs are only the illustrations for a much larger work.

Both, Prof. Dewees and Prof. Orchard, maintain that Prof. Larsen began her own work when I refused to publish the manuscript. Was it possible to overlook her fraudulent claim to hundreds of experiments done in the last six years?

In the 1989 paper, the number of experiments which the authors performed with the mutant flies, is given as dozens ("In the dozens of discs we observed...").
It becomes clear that:
1) the "hundreds" are the bulk of the research claimed by Prof. Larsen and her co-author,
2) remembering that the "hundreds" are described as only the "non-Ns" (i.e., normal) flies, Prof. Larsen, in addition to making the fraudulent claim to the work of the "last six years", gives the impression that no Ns mutants were analyzed ever before.
Nowhere in this paper she says that the withdrawn MS presented the experiments with Ns mutants as the main achievement and that they were also reported on the poster in 1985. She includes the reference to her 1988 article (as "In press", not yet published) where the Ns mutants are dealt with, but she does not say that Ns mutants will appear there. And the reader, of course, doesn't know that in her letter to the Editor she attributed the discovery of the Ns mutant cell arrangements to me.
Prof. Dewees, of course, knew all of this.

She replicated my experiments, and she became the author of the discoveries

While absolutely denying Prof. Larsen's plagiarism, Prof. Dewees made this casual remark:
"I believe that it would have been good practice to include in the 1989 article a statement that some of these results are replications or extensions of results first found by Mr. Pyshnov in Professor Larsen's laboratory and perhaps to mention the 1985 abstract."
He, then, said:
"However I do not believe that the omission of this statement and citation constitutes misconduct."

He did not dare to spell out which of her results were "replications or extensions" of my results, but he insisted that "the research for the 1989 article was done by Professor Larsen and the co-author" and that I "did not do the experimental research reported there."
To me, it would make no difference whether Prof. Larsen and her co-author actually did the experiments with Ns mutants (i.e., replicated my experiments) or just claimed my results as their own, as they did with those "hundreds of discs" from the normal flies.
(In a like manner, it is not a justification for a counterfeiter to say that he used his own paper for the bills.)
Had Prof. Dewees had no intention to conceal the fraud, he would state, which results (and/or experiments) were replicated, and would call this plagiarism. The same is true for Prof. Orchard, who determined that Prof. Larsen "repeated the experiments".

Can others publish my research?

Prof. Dewees declared (and the Statement of Defense says the same) that all my research was not confidential. In particular, he says that my technique was not confidential, because it came to Prof. Larsen's co-author (not to her) in this way: "Zorn, the co-author of the 1989 article apparently learned the technique from another student who learned it from Mr. Pyshnov."
I, indeed, had shown the technique once to a student at the request of Prof. Larsen (who new it and had a full description of it). I also delivered a presentation of my work at a seminar in the Physics Department, and I explained my ideas and experiments to several professors at the request of Prof. Larsen and, of course, to her.
Does it mean that anybody who heard me was free to publish all this? Was Prof. Larsen free to publish my research? Of course not.
While the communications between researchers can be (and should be) open, they are still confidential, particularly, in the sense that no one can publish the research of another, learned from such communications.
Only the author, himself, can give permission (and specify it, as he wishes) to publish his accomplishment to another as a "personal communication", and it must be indicated as such in the article.
Scientific journals require each author's signature confirming that the research submitted for publication is original research done by the author(s) of an article.
When Prof. Larsen and her three co-authors published my research without my permission, they deceived the journal and its readers, in addition to defrauding me.
Even if all the acknowledgments and thanks were made, they could not present a justification for publishing a paper with 99% of its content and 100% of its ideas being the unpublished work of someone else, let alone, publishing it despite the vigorous protest of the author and despite the assurance made to the author that it won't be published. This is more than a breach of confidentiality, this is a sadistic burglary.

I made a poster, and I lost the authorship of my research

While faking naivety in scientific matters, Prof. Dewees acted as a cunning lawyer. When he said that my research was not confidential, it was done with the purpose to justify a more serious crime than breach of confidentiality -- the crime of stealing the authorship of my Ph.D. research. This is how he did it:

He determined that Prof. Larsen rightfully derived her 1989 paper from my 1980 paper and from the never published (he admitted this) abstract of the poster of 1985.
He said:
"But if 1989 article pursues [sic] the ideas published in Mr. Pyshnov's 1980 article and the results presented in 1985 poster paper [as he calls the nonexistent "paper"] then those ideas cannot have been confidential. Once an idea is published or presented [sic] the scientific community is entitled to explore it further. I conclude that there was no impropriety in publishing the 1989 article without Mr. Pyshnov's name on it."

But, the poster was not published and no record of it exists. Nobody is able to see what was on it -- but this is one of the essential purposes of publishing and the reason why only a published work can be used by others without permission. The poster was only presented, and none of the two or three people who had looked at it (I was present there during the poster session that lasted approximately two hours), stole it or "explored it further".
Moreover, the poster presented only five photographs with short comments, and to become familiar with my research of five years by looking at it, was impossible.
Yet, Prof. Dewees determined that she "pursued" the results shown on the poster. And, he found that there is no need to say that she copied the withdrawn MS, because, as he says, "...Mr. Pyshnov claims that the 1985 poster paper presented essentially the same results [as the withdrawn MS]."
He needed the poster, because it was, at least, shown to somebody!

Also, Prof. Larsen was the co-author of the poster. Why did Prof. Dewees see more potential for her rights in saying that the "poster paper" was not confidential, rather than, directly, in the fact that she was a co-author of it?
The fact that the poster was presented to others gives Prof. Larsen the entitlement to use her own work? That is, if it really was her own work and ideas, and not just her name entered as the name of the supervisor.
Indeed, the Statement of Defense admits that the experiments presented on the poster were based on my ideas. (See the quotation.)
What a criminal farce he substituted for an investigation!

But, what does "pursues" mean? He said that she "pursued" my ideas published in the 1980 article, but this article said absolutely nothing about Drosophila or morphogenesis; the article was only a first step.
Only after that, as Prof. Larsen's recommendation for my scholarship in 1981 (see the full quotation) admits, I "...reviewed an extensive Drosophila literature, outlined an entirely novel approach to looking at morphogenesis..." I did this at the beginning of my Ph.D. research on Drosophila, and the results presented on the poster and in the withdrawn MS would not be possible without this entirely novel approach.
Did Prof. Larsen come independently to this entirely novel approach in her 1989 paper? Of course not. Not independently, not by honest "pursuing" and not just by reading my 1980 article or the poster. She learned it from me during the five years of being my supervisor, and she stole it.

She did not make references and she made a fraudulent acknowledgment, but she "had no intent" and she "had not done so"

If Prof. Dewees, indeed, believed that she "pursued" or "explored further" my 1980 paper and the poster, then he should have condemned this as plagiarism, since she made no reference to either of these sources.
He did not call this a plagiarism. He "overlooked" the absence of reference to my 1980 paper. He noted, though, the absence of reference to the "poster paper", but he excused her (see the quotation above), because, as he added: "the abstract of the 1985 poster paper was not published in a way to be accessible to the general research community; many would not cite it."
Does it mean that the poster was just the right thing to be stolen, but not referred to?

But then, Prof. Dewees, in the same paragraph, turned to the paper that she published in 1987 (which he did not investigate), and recalled with satisfaction that in it she did make references to the nonexistent "poster paper" and to my 1980 paper.
(So, his excuse for the absence of reference in 1989 to the same "poster paper" becomes nonsense.)
However, making reference to a nonexistent "publication" is a fraud and it can not have any other purpose besides fraud.
Curiously, in every subsequent attempt to publish the work, Prof. Larsen wrote to the editor that the research was new, never published before, which shows that she, herself, did not consider the poster a publication.

Isn't it obvious, that in 1989 she published my research shown on the poster as her own (i.e., she plagiarized it), when the poster was not mentioned by her as a source and it was not published and was only seen by two or three people?

When her 1989 paper did not contain reference to any paper published by me, or any reference to a "personal communication", how was it possible to justify her publishing of my research under her name?

Prof. Dewees and Prof. Orchard covered up this aspect of her fraud as they did with all the others. They accepted Prof. Larsen's "acknowledgment" as genuine. Prof. Dewees ignored my complaint that it fraudulently implied my permission and that it did not, in fact, disclose to the readers the true authorship of the research that she published.
Prof. Dewees and Prof. Orchard never even mentioned my complaint.
Prof. Orchard: "I also not[e] that Mr. Pyshnov was acknowledged in the 1989 paper."
Prof. Dewees: "Professor Larsen does acknowledge Mr. Pyshnov's technique and ideas in the 1989 paper."
They were playing fools in the investigations which should have inevitably resulted in the immediate expulsion of Prof. Larsen from the University and in the restoration of my Ph.D. research under my name.

Next, Prof. Dewees said: "She acknowledges his experimental work in her 1986 survey (pp. 164, 165, 169) where she also cites his 1980 paper."
And, he said: "I conclude that Professor Larsen had no intent to represent his work as her own and that she had not done so."

However, my work that she stole in the 1989 paper was much larger (and contained different research) than the one that she acknowledged in her 1986 survey. Ridiculously, Prof. Dewees did not deliver his conclusions on each individual publication of Prof. Larsen.
Furthermore, an investigation of plagiarism is never concerned with the question of intent, since repeating the work of another cannot be done unintentionally (when the work is well known to the plagiarist).
But, what an opportunity for delivering fraudulent judgment Prof. Dewees had, when he brought in the question of intent and when he found the proof of "no intent" not in the paper which he investigated, but in other papers, which he did not wish to investigate, though, they, in fact, contained more stolen work.
(He said that I did not allege plagiarism in the withdrawn MS; he did not investigate the 1986 and 1987 papers for plagiarism; he did not ever mention the 1988 paper.)

In addition, her acknowledgment of my "experimental work", that he brought in to vindicate her, was in her 1986 review paper (seeRef.2) where she describes some of my experiments, presents my photographs and my ideas, but, in most instances, does not make it clear that it was my research and ideas and not her own. This review paper contained none of her research whatsoever (and no references to her previous work, since there was none), but it prepared her takeover of mine.

I lost a race with the thieves who "picked up" my ideas

Finally, Prof. Dewees (who did not mention in his four-page report that what I was doing was a Ph.D. research) gave more strength to Prof. Larsen's position by presenting this research as a kind of a competition or a race which I lost:
"...had he continued on this work, others in the lab might have avoided replicating or extending this Larsen /Pyshnov [sic] work immediately [sic], so that he could continue it to finish his thesis. But when he refused to publish this joint research and failed to carry on the work, he lost the right, if any existed, to complain if other researchers picked up these ideas and carried them forward."

But, wasn't my Ph.D. research terminated a year and a half before I refused to publish?
I would call this a fraudulent competition, even if plagiarism were a thing justifiable in some circumstances, which it is not.
And, who were those "others in the lab", unable to wait, "so that he could continue it to finish his thesis"?
It was Prof. Larsen, who terminated my research in 1986; then, she stole it in 1987-1989; then, in 1993 she said that she did not publish my research, but only her own, "corroborating" mine; then, in 1995 she declared in the Statement of Defense that she "salvaged" my research.

This is not a university; this is the intellectual property racket.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The government upholds the fraud

The answer that I received from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (January 29, 1996) was:

CONFIDENTIAL

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,
[signature]
Catherine Armour
Research Integrity Officer
(Doc.31)

I immediately sent the request for details (Doc.32), but there was no answer. And what answer could they give? "The Committee considered to uphold the fraud."?
I waited for the answer from NSERC for more than a year. It seemed to me impossible, that after comparing the two papers: one with my name as the first author, and the other -- without my name, NSERC would not find plagiarism.
The pretext that NSERC supplied is fraudulent: Prof. Larsen admitted in her letter to the Editor that the 1987 article was entirely my research. Was there any reason why I could not refuse to sign it? Was this reason such that it allowed stealing of my research?
I could not imagine that their "policy and procedure" is set up as a mere calculated farce. It turned out to be so: the scum in the UofT has their kin represented as the Integrity Office. And there was nothing I could do about this.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

My research was mine alone; it was outstanding research

The quotations below show that the ideas for my Ph.D. research were my, original ideas, and that I was perfectly on my own in this research.

Statement of Defense (Doc.36),admits:
"The theoretical foundation of Pyshnov's studies was published in 1980 and experimental results bearing on the theory were presented in 1985 on the poster."

Prof. Larsen's recommendation of 1981 for my NSERC scholarship (Doc.2), says:
"...The theoretical published work shows extreme originality in looking at old problems (cell lineages and maintenance of crypt morphology) in novel ways. Although lacking a higher degree, he has been invited to international conferences to discuss this work...
Pyshnov has reviewed an extensive Drosophila literature, outlined an entirely novel approach to looking at morphogenesis in imaginal discs...
Mr. Pyshnov is a tireless worker in solving technical problems and has also demonstrated the 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 makes his contributions original....
Mr. Pyshnov's inquisitive mind coupled with a talent for conceptualizing structures in three dimensions, combined with great technical skill and perseverance, virtually assure that his contributions to morphogenesis will continue to be above ordinary."

The recommendation for this scholarship (the best available in Canada) given to me by the Department (Doc.3), shows the same:
"...Departmental Graduate Committee ranked him 1st of 7 applicants for PGS-3 awards. He has already proven himself as an independent researcher on both the practical and theoretical levels. We feel that he has the ability to make outstanding contributions to his research field."

Prof. Larsen's next recommendation (1983), (Doc.4), confirms the originality of my work and, also (compare it, again, with the abstract of her 1989 paper) -- her stealing of my work, in particular, mmy idea to study the mutant cell arrangements:
"Mr. Pyshnov has shown great creativity in his published analysis of the vertebrate intestinal crypt in which he was able to derive a theoretical model in which cell division rules depended on cell arrangements within the crypt....
In his current work he is attempting to develop similar rules which might account for cell arrangements which give rise to the shape of developing organs....
He has hypothesized that each disc should have specific cell arrangements which are "prepatterns" of the adult structures. [sic] Thus far he has demonstrated disc and age specific cell arrangements...
The work which remains...and how the rules are modified when genes are introduced which convert a disc for, say, an antenna to a disc producing a leg [sic]. Similarly the transformation of disc cell arrangements into adult cell arrangements must be modelled. Mr. Pyshnov's demonstrated creativity in conceiving [sic] of this novel approach plus his superb technical skills uniquely qualify him to carry out these studies of far reaching significance....
Mr. Pyshnov is a man of proven scholarly attainments..."

In the 1987 MS, Prof. Larsen described the significance of my research thus:
"We have reason to believe that the cell arrays described, however enigmatic, open a new level for considering the general problems of growth in epithelial sheets as well as insight into the material basis of morphogenesis and embryonic determination."
[these cell arrays] "possess the characteristics of long sought after "pre-patterns" for morphogenesis."
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The true reason behind the "salvaging"

Whatever were the expressions she used, and whatever was the depth of her understanding of my work, she knew the high scientific value of it.
Before I left, she wrote a review establishing her name in the area where she had done nothing, but, using my research and giving the impression that she is actively involved in it and, preparing the takeover. After I left, she published three articles with three other co-authors, stealing my work. (Only one of them, the 1988 one, presented experiments of her student, following from my ideas, but with the discussion stolen from my earlier work.)
To the readers of these articles she presented many claims of her discoveries and ideas, attribution of which appears false in the light of the documents quoted here (and even without studying the withdrawn manuscript).
On the other hand, she, herself, when asked to answer my allegations of plagiarism, only dared to consider one article and made claim of authorship to one only, her own, "suggestion", and, according to the Statement of Defense, was publishing something that was "salvaged" by her.

The Statement of Defense, the UofT investigations and Prof. Larsen's statements say that the reasons for "salvaging" were:
1)my failure to continue the work,
2)my refusal to publish,
3)her responsibility to the sources of funding for the investment of money into my Ph.D. program and
4)her scientific contribution to my research.
Together with this, their post-"salvaging" statements say that I had accomplished almost nothing; and they say this with utmost insult.
But, if my research was worthless, then,
1)why would my supposed failure make a "salvaging" necessary?
2)why would my refusal to publish matter?
3)why did Prof. Larsen spend even more money on repeating my work and its publication?
As to Prof. Larsen's own scientific contribution, this argument can hardly be taken seriously by anyone, because the only scientific contribution that she claimed in her explanation to the Chair of the Department, -- her "suggestion", was left by her without any role in the "salvaging", while she was trying to disown and deny her main fraud.
And, why didn't the UofT, simply, demand money from me, instead of repeating and "salvaging" supposedly insignificant work?
Obviously, in their explanation of "salvaging", the main point, i.e., that my work had high scientific value, is, fraudulently, missing. But, if the UofT had admitted this, it would become clear that Prof. Larsen terminated my Ph.D. program fraudulently.

Even if we suppose that she only intended to publish my research, her "salvaging" effort involved, at least, the following: violating the law, violating the custom of science, deceiving the journal, breaching the assurance made by the Department, injury to my rights as an author, injury to my dissertation, making a mockery of her own academic decision, and, as she was already warned by me -- injury to the quality of the publication.
If the purpose of this costly effort were to publish my research, would she, in her right mind, declare, subsequently, that this research was worth nothing, which means that there could not be any possible benefits from her "salvaging"?
And, wouldn't she, at every point of her "salvaging" effort, make sure that the authorship was not stolen by her? Looking at the truly shocking number of forgeries and omissions made in her publications (before and after I refused to publish the MS), resulting in the assertion of her own, and not my, authorship of the research, there can be no doubt that Prof. Larsen's "salvaging" was a fraud.

Prof. Larsen's prerogative to judge my work had certain limits. This prerogative of an honest professor lasted only until her personal interest in failing me became obvious.
Her "academic" decision promised that I could return to finish the thesis, but she started plundering my research as soon as I left.
Clearly, Prof. Larsen's academic decision was fraudulent; she intended to steal my research, knowing its high scientific value. The excuse of "salvaging" appeared later; the excuse is not only unlawful, it is false. Her own "academic" decision, if it were not made as a sham, would absolutely prohibit plundering my research.
Prof. Dewees knew that it was a sham, so, he (as quoted above) defended her immediate "salvaging" and he (and Prof. Orchard) did not wish to investigate the two papers that she sent before I refused to publish the third one, i.e., before she, according to these investigators, became "entitled" to "salvage" my research.
My allegation that Prof. Larsen made the "academic" decision with the intent to steal my research, was struck out by the first court from my Statement of Claim on the demand of the UofT. It was later restored by the Court of Appeal.

Prof. Larsen's argument (1993) that I "failed to recognize" the interests of science and the community and that I do not "own" my discoveries, is an outrage. These were my rights, which were consonant with the interests of science and community, not hers, because I was the doer, while her activity, for years, has been an obstinate profanation of science.
Her argument is only a recurrent communist fraud, by which property of the legal owners is confiscated "on behalf of the community", but then, the communist demagogue is found living in the palace. The "community" did not become the author of my research, she did.
I, of course, never wanted to "suppress the use of ideas", provided that "the use" is not just a pretext for swindling. What I wanted to own was the authorship, this connection between the brain and the brainchild, which should not be stolen by an impostor.

Prof. Larsen never had any (decent) use for my ideas and never added a single new idea to the ones she stole. Her goal and/or ability was never greater than destroying the author and stealing the authorship. She badly envied the substance in my work, but she had counterfeited it with the exalted "scientific" jargon (see, as an example, the title of the Ref.3).
Did she salvage my research? She only killed it. First -- when she removed me, then -- when she made her fabrications, in which the discoveries are claimed, but their logical origins are absent. The grant she procured for my work, was taken away from her for failure to accomplish anything, as I was told by Prof. Dewees. Her science ended with theft.
She is now an evolutionist. She has also become a Councilor of the Royal Canadian Institute (which has a goal of "creating environment in which science can flourish").
Why is Prof. Larsen so much preferred by the University to be the author of discoveries? This is the one question which I would like the administration to answer.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

Criminals in academia

Since the articles and the documents of the case are there, the investigators could not deny the main (and the most damning) facts. They ignored all Prof. Larsen's lies and only added more lies and fabricated their own fraudulent arguments.
Then, the academic judges took the route of a superfraud: they distorted and perverted the law and custom of university to justify the theft and fraud and to make them look legal. They pretended that the criterion of originality in authorship, universally understood, is unknown to them.
What else does publication of repeated or replicated work of another mean, when this is the very definition of plagiarism? Can one publish my research with a fraudulent acknowledgment of my sharing some unspecified ideas? Or, maybe, my ideas were also replicated and repeated?

What is this monstrous perversion of law primarily aimed at: concealment of fraud or deliberate mockery? Aren't their judgments calculated to cause outrage?

Prof. Larsen's and her colleagues' interpretation of originality and authorship is deficient in a criminal way. Falsifying the authorship of my Ph.D. research, as Prof. Larsen, her co-authors and the academic judges at the UofT and the NSERC are doing, is a criminal fraud, followed by a concealment of the fraud.
Moreover, she did not just plagiarize an already published work; she completely appropriated the authorship and took it away from me.
The evidence shows unequivocally, that salvaging of research was never on her mind. Doing justice was never on the mind of these academic judges. What this evidence proves, above all, is the criminal intent to commit fraud.

Perpetrating fraud in science is the same crime as fraud in any other area where the man is dishonestly deprived of the product of his labor. But, the results were far more devastating here. The impostors who stole my research have the prestige of scientists, the force of organized crime and the protection of the government; they, next, destroyed me completely. They must be put in prison for life for their crimes and for the obstruction of justice.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

The obstruction of justice. How far do they wish to go?

In my five years at the UofT, when I was led to believe that I worked for my degree, there was not a single instance of displeasure with me.
As soon as the fraud became evident, I tried to stop it from going further, at every stage of it, as the documents clearly show. Three times I have demanded a declaration returning my research under my name, but the University is still silent. The fraud and the atrocious playing on time, both, continue.

The administration of the University now does everything to prevent me from even approaching justice. The connections, which this big University (with a budget of over one billion dollars) has, became the tools of a conspiracy.
The UofT has attributes of organized crime, but with license to operate in science and education.
They were able to surround me and this case with a wall of silence. The Ministry of Education flatly refused to deal with the case. The police (at all levels) have refused to investigate fraud. They refused to even write a report. The Attorney General of Ontario refused to do anything. (Doc.37), (Doc.38), (Doc.39), (Doc.40)

My attempt to obtain expert opinion from 78 professors of the Department of Zoology and to get them involved was, apparently, frustrated by a letter, each of them immediately received from the UofT lawyer. The second appeal to speak out, sent by the Graduate Students' Union, also fell on deaf ears. (Doc.34)

I am quite concerned about my personal safety. The press, which, in free society, guarantees that the crimes of the powerful will not remain concealed, does not work for me. No newspaper (including UofT press) or a television station in Toronto would publish a single word. The story always strikes a stone on the higher level. Journalists disappear without explanation or mumble incoherent apologies for months. Some of these encounters with CBC, the UofT paper and others are recorded.
When people are chasing reluctant journalists who can only print stories dictated by their executives, as it is in Canada, these people may cease to exist at all. Very similar things happened to many people under Stalin and under Mao. Many were given the "silence treatment", some were provoked to violent acts. The Chinese cut off the fingers on the hands of their best pianist; their press would not report this.
The Canadian cultural revolution began with the "responsible" press, which refuses to be "manipulated" by the people.

This case is not the first of its kind in Canada. Professor V.Fabrikant, who was a leading scientist and the best lecturer in his department at Concordia University, was robbed of his work mercilessly for years. For years he complained, but the only result was that his reputation was destroyed completely and he was losing his job.
The corruption in Concordia was admitted in two newspaper articles, but only after he killed four of his colleagues. The press let the provocation to succeed and only published the story when the crimes of scientific establishment were overshadowed by his own.
After his trial, he was prohibited by the court to talk to the press when some American journalists showed interest. But, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) showed a disgusting movie, absolving the officials from any responsibility for what happened, moreover, condemning Prof. Fabricant's repeated, truly desperate complaints of corruption and persecution as unacceptable in academia.
Since the moment I first asked the members of the Department of Zoology for help, his case (the bloody part of it) has been cunningly used by the administration to scare people from involvement. Where is the end to the filth?

I am having enormous difficulties in finding a lawyer for the trial. I do not have any money, and contingency fees are prohibited to Ontario lawyers (apparently, the only such place on the continent). Forty nine law firms have declared conflict of interest. Any governmental help was repeatedly refused to me.
I have no means of bringing this matter to trial.
While I can prove the facts (if I could overcome the emotional stress once more), I would still have no chance in court, because the major part of the Statement of Defense contains the distorted and perverted statement "Custom in the Scientific Research Community" that will, as one can expect from the crushing course taken by the administration and the complete absence of honor of the ones involved, be supported by perjured testimony of their academic "experts". I need people who will give to the court a true account of the rules and customs of honest science.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE APPEAL TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

I am appealing to the community of honest scientists for immediate and manifest protection. I ask that the following proposed measures be taken:

I ask that my Appeal be published and the case given publicity, since this is the first remedy in the situation and, also, important means of protection against retaliation by this University.
I ask the Editors of scientific journals to deny all publications from the Department of Zoology of the University of Toronto.
Wherever a joint project with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) exists, such would be canceled, because this agency has shown savage contempt for the honest science and savage contempt for my desire to restore justice.
I ask scientists with expertise in the field to give some of their time, when possible, to form an expert opinion on the articles in question for the court.
I ask that a trust fund for donations to cover legal expenses of the case and of the work of experts be established and announced publicly.
I ask scientists to condemn the fraudulent scheme of "salvaging" and to make public statements in my defense.

Together with this Appeal for immediate and manifest protection, I welcome an inquiry into the matter.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

REFERENCES

1. Pyshnov, M.B. 1980 Topological Solution for Cell Proliferation in Intestinal Crypt. 1.Elastic Growth without Cell Loss., J. Theoret. Biol., 87: 189-200.
2. Larsen-Rapport, E.W. 1986 Imaginal Disc Determination: Molecular and Cellular Correlates., Ann. Rev. Entomol., 31: 145-175.
3. Larsen, E. and McLaughlin, H.M.G. 1987 The Morphogenetic Alphabet: Lessons for Simple-Minded Genes., BioEssays, 7(3): 130-132.
4. Mathi, S.K. and Larsen, E. 1988 Patterns of Cell Division in Imaginal Discs of Drosophila., Tissue & Cell, 20(3): 461-472.
5. Larsen, E. and Zorn, A. 1989 Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila., Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57.
6. Condic, M.L., Fristrom, D. and Fristrom, J.W. 1991 Apical Cell Shape Changes during Drosophila Imaginal Leg Disc Elongation: A Novel Morphogenetic Mechanism., Development, 111: 23-33.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE EVIDENCE

1. The Affidavits with the documents.
2. The documents which I consider to be the main evidence, now scanned and available here (see the list of documents).
Included in the documents are two letters of expertise from Prof. A.J.Hilliker (who is the President of Canadian Genetics Society) and Prof. S.R.Blecher (University of Guelph). (Doc.30), (Doc.33) These letters say that the articles and the documents show that my "primary intellectual" and "crucial experimental" "contributions" entered Prof. Larsen's paper without being adequately acknowledged. (Surely, not a voluntary contribution.)
However, they protested my previous using of their names in a letter that I distributed.
Naturally, upon receiving their letters, I asked, where I could use them, and I was told -- everywhere. Yet, since their letters do not contain the words that they, indeed, found plagiarism, I had to say, vaguely, that they support my allegations against Prof. Larsen and the UofT investigation. But the allegations in my letter, several paragraphs above, stated fraud and malicious breach of trust and fiduciary duty; that appeared to be more than Prof. Hilliker and Prof. Blecher wanted to say.
In a telephone conversation with me, Prof. Hilliker said that they both, "of course", support my allegations of plagiarism and believe that Prof. Larsen plagiarized my work intentionally, but they do not support my allegations of fraud and breach of trust. Although, he said that this should be left to the judge. He did not answer when I noted to him that plagiarism is always condemned as fraud and a theft, by every University.
He consistently refused to do anything against the UofT publicly; and he even warned me to stop "bugging" the UofT. He predicted my complete frustration. He proposed that I should keep quiet because... Jews were persecuted in Second World War.
He, also, declined my offer to send him the full Affidavits with documents.
I must say that I, probably, do not understand some important points of his position. I, however, decided that the 1-hour tape of this conversation should be available, as, added to their two letters, it formally proves that the fact of plagiarism is confirmed by the two experts.
__________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS

Below, are the titles, authors and abstracts:
(Top) - from the unpublished manuscript #483-87, Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., (MS received April 14,1987), (Doc.11).
(Bottom) - from the article published in January of 1989, in the same journal, [Ref.5], (Doc.21).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis
in Silver Stained Drosophila Imaginal Discs1

MICHAEL PYSHNOV and ELLEN LARSEN
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Cananda

Abstract. Outlines of cell borders on the basal side of cells in the imaginal discs of Drosophila larvae were studied after impregnation with silver. Disc-specific cell arrays were found in each type of disc studied. To determine if these patterns have morphogenetic significance, we compared normal antennal disc patterns with those of the Nasobemia mutant in which antennae are transformed into leg-like structures. The cell arrangement of mutant antenna discs resembles the one specific for leg discs but not antenna discs. We suggest that these cell arrays are under genetic influence, and are generated by specific patterns of cell division. Thus, they possess the characteristics of long sought after "pre-patterns" for morphogenesis.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis
in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila1

ELLEN LARSEN AND AARON ZORN
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada

Abstract. Cell borders on the basal side of imaginal discs of Drosophila melanogaster were delineated after impregnation with silver. Leg discs differ from antennal discs in the kind of cell arrangement found. The arrangements in the antennal disc of the Nasobemia mutant (in which antennae are converted to leg-like structures) resemble those of leg discs rather than antenna discs. This finding suggests that the disc-specific cell arrays have morphogenetic significance, and may in fact create a "pre-pattern" for the development of appendages.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Below, is the quotation from the article by Larsen and McLaughlin,
1987, page 131, [Ref.3]:
"We have presented a scenario of Nasobemia cell effects suggesting that cell-division patterns are altered in mutant antenna discs leading to altered cell arrangements which, following metamorphosis, result in leg rather than antenna morphology."
_________________________________TABLE OF CONTENTS