DEBARMENT OF RUSI T - Institute for Physical Science and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFiCE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
720 KENNON STREET SE RM 2 4
WASH~NGTONNAVY YARD DC 20374-5012
CERTIFIED MAIL
-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan
612 Shady Creek Drive
Lafayette, IN 47905
RE: DEBARMENT OF RUSI TALEYARKHAN
Dear Dr. Taleyarkhan:
On 3 February 2009, you were proposed for debarment from contracting with any agency
in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. In the letter notifying you of that fact, you
were also notified of yourright to present information and argument in opposition to the
proposed debarment within thirty days of receipt ofthat notice.
On or about 13 April 2009, following an oral presentation, you provided matters
opposing the proposed debarment. In that letter, you indicated several inaccuracies in the Purdue
and ONR investigations, as well as errors in Navy’s memorandum of 3 February 2009. Where
appropriate, errors in the Navy’s 3 February 2009, memorandum have been corrected. However,
we find your other assertions to be unfounded and inconsistent with the results of a thorough
independent investigation by Purdue University and U.S. Government.
Therefore, on behalf of the Department ofthe Navy, I am debarring you effective as of
the date ofthis letter. Based upon my review of the Administrative Record, which includes you
letter opposing the debarment and the enclosed “Memorandum for the Department ofthe Navy
Suspending and Debarring Official,” I find the facts to be as stated in the enclosed
Memorandum, and I further find that the facts support causes to debar you. The causes and
reasons for proposing debarment are also stated in the Memorandum, which I adopt and
incorporate herein by reference.
I have decided that a 28 month period of debarment is necessary to protect the
Government’s interests. Your debarment is effective immediately and continues through 3
September 2011.
As adebarred contractor, you are excluded from participating in Federal Nonprocurement
transactions such as programs and activities involving Federal financial and nonfinancial
assistance and benefits (see 2 C.F.R. Part 180.970 for a list ofprohibited Nonprocurement
transactions). You are also prohibited from participating in Federal Procurement activities, such
as receiving new contracts, and contracting officers are precluded from giving their consent if
you are proposed as a subcontractor for any subcontract subject to Government consent, unless
the head of the agency taking the contracting action, or a designee, determines that there is a
compelling reason for such action. Further, you are excluded from conducting business with the
Government as agent or representative of other contractors, as well as acting as an individual
surety. Please refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, found at Chapter 1, 48 C.F.R. The
foregoing notwithstanding, agencies may continue grants, contracts or subcontracts in existence
as of the effective date of the debarment.
Sincerely,
MARK 0. WILKOFF
/
Suspending and Debarring Offiéial
Department of the Navy
Date:
Enclosure
.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFiCE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
720 ~ENNON STREETSERM 214
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20374-5012
4 May 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SUSPENDING AND DEBARRING OFFICIAL
Subj: DEBARMENT OF RUSI TALEYARKHAN
BACKGROUND
On 1 March 2005, the Office ofNaval Research (ONR) awarded a grant to the
University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles (UCLA) to attempt to duplicate Dr. Taleyarkhan’s
finding ofsonofusion, a so called “mirror” experiment. Success of this project required
Dr. Taleyarkhan’s participation; therefore, UCLA executed a sub-grant to Purdue to
support this cooperation. The “mirror” experiment that was conducted by UCLA could
not duplicate or confirm Dr. Taleyarkhan’s initial sonofusion findings.
The results of the “mirror” experiment, and other allegations of research fraud, led
to an internal investigation by Purdue. Results of that investigation substantiated two
instances ofscientific research misconduct by Dr. Taleyarkhan. ONR’ Science and
Technology Integrity Board (STIB) evaluated Purdue’s investigative findings and
concluded that while Purdue’s investigative process was transparent, it appeared to have
no affect on Dr. Taleyarkhan’s professorship. The STIB further recommended that Dr.
Taleyarkan misconduct was so severe as to merit debarment.
By letter dated 3 February 2009, you notified Dr. Taleyarkhan of his proposed
debarment and offered him an opportunity to submit matters in opposition within thirty
calendar days ofreceipt of that letter. Subsequently, Dr. Taleyarkhan made an oral
presentation and was granted an extension until 13 April 2009 to submit supplemental
information.
INFORMATION IN THE RECORD
In March 2002, a group of scientists led by Dr. Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, then a senior
scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), published a paper in a scientific
journal about a table-top experiment that created nuclear fusion. The process, called
bubble fusion or sonofusion, bombards a solvent with powerful sound waves causing
bubbles to collapse and generate temperatures high enough to fuse together hydrogen.
On 7 November 2003, Purdue University announced the hiring ofDr. Taleyarkhan as a
nuclear engineering school professor. On 24 March 2004, an extensive follow-up paper
by Dr. Taleyarkhan’s sonofusion team appeared in prestigious Physical Review Ejournal,
On 1 March 2005, ONR awarded grant N00014-05-1-0459 to UCLA to attempt to
duplicate Dr. Taleyarkhan’s finding of sonofusion when he was at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. The grant proposal required the active participation ofDr. Taleyarkhan in
creating a “mirror” sonofusion. Specifically, the subcontract to Purdue required Dr.
Taleyarkhan to assist in the “reproduction of the essential results of the ORNL
experiments and to enable independent group(s) to view the data and repeat them as
appropriate in a different laboratory.” Therefore, UCLA executed a sub-grant to Purdue
to support this cooperation. The “mirror” experience, conducted by UCLA, was unable
to duplicate or confirm the results of Dr. Taleyarkhan’ s initial findings.
Dr. Taleyarkhan continued to work on the sub-grant and apparently conducted
further experiments in an attempt to confirm the initial sonofusion findings.
Concurrently, on 12 July 2005, Purdue issued a news release clalming independent
confirmation of the fusion findings by a second two-member team of Purdue scientists
identified as Yiban Xu and Adam Butt. Later, in or around January 2006, in an article
published in the journal of Nuclear Engineering and Design, Dr. Taleyarkhan influenced
the publication of information that gave the appearance that his observations had been
independently confirmed.
On 13 January 2006, Dr. de Bertodana, Professor at Purdue, wrote officials at the
University, questioning Dr. Taleyarkhan’s bubble fusion experiment and its unusual
results. As a result, Dr. Lefteri Tsoukalas, Head ofPurdue’s School of Nuclear
Engineering, formed a fact-finding committee to investigate Dr. de Bertodana’ s concerns;
specifically, the data reported, the method of reporting, the actual authorship, and the
conclusions reached in Xu and Butt’s independent confirmation of Dr. Taleyarkhan’s
sonofusion experiment.
The committee completed it’s report on 23 February 2006, and concluded that Mr.
Butt did not make any scientific contributions to the confirmation research even though
he was identified as a contributor. The committee also noted similarity between the
wording reporting Xu and Butt’s research and that of earlier articles by Dr. Taleyarkhan.
On 29 January 2007, ONR Inspector General (IG) received a hotline complaint
from Dr. Tsoukalas alleging Purdue had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations while
handling allegations ofresearch misconduct on its ONR-funded projects. The IG later
officially notified Purdue of allegations of scientific research misconduct and requested
handling of the issue is accordance with the Purdue’s published procedures for
investigating such matters.
On 18 April 2008, following Purdue’s full investigation, the University reported
two substantiated instances of scientific research misconduct by Dr. Taleyarkhan who
conducted experiments at the expense ofthe ONR grant N00014-05-1-0459:
1. Dr. Taleyarkhan, with falsifying intent, caused Mr. Adam Butt’s name to
be added to the author bylines ofcertain research papers even though Mr.
Butt was not a significant contributor to the experiments, the data
analyses, or the writing of the manuscripts. The Purdue Investigative
Committee concluded that the weight ofthe evidence showed that Dr.
Taleyarkhan compelled the addition of Mr. Butt’s name as an author on
the publications knowing that Mr. Butt had not substantively contributed
to those publications in order to create an appearance of collaboration
between Dr. Xu and Mr. Butt on the work.
2. Dr. Taleyarkhan, with falsifying intent, stated in the opening paragraph of
his paper in Physical Review Letters that “these observations have now
been independently confirmed.” The Investigative Committee found that
Dr. Taleyarkhan’s claims of independent confirmation ofhis sonofusion
results are simply not supported by the weight of evidence ofhis
involvement in Dr. Xu and Mr. Butt’s research and publication. The
direct assertion of independent confirmation in the Physical Review
Letters paper is falsification of the research record.
Subsequently, the IG convened STIB to evaluate Purdue’s investigative findings
and supporting documentation, and to recommend ONR action or sanctions if
appropriate. STIB concluded that Purdue’s investigation followed the University’s usual
and reasonable procedures, and was prompt, thorough, and objective; ONR’s Executive
Director (ED) concurred with the STIB s findings. Ultimately, the IG notified Purdue of
the STIB’s findings and the ED’s concurrence, and advised that the case would remain
open until appropriate corrective action had been taken to prevent further occurrences of
research misconduct.
‘
On 27 August 2008, Purdue notified Dr. Taleyarkhan that he was being
sanctioned for a period of three years. Specifically, Provost William Woodson wrote:
“In my judgement as Purdue’s chief academic officer, it is inappropriate for a
faculty member who has been found guilty of research misconduct to hold the
title of Named University Professor. Therefore, I am removing the designation of
Ardent L. Bement, Jr., Professor of Nuclear Engineering from your title as of this
date. All rights and privileges associated with this designation, including the
allocation of discretionary resources, are hereby withdrawn.” He continued, “For
a minimum of three (3) years from the date of this letter, your status as a member
of Purdue University’s Graduate Faculty will be limited to that of ‘Special
Graduate Faculty.’ You will be permitted to serve on graduate committees but
will not be able to serve as major professor or co-major professor for graduate
students during this time. During this period, your mentoring of graduate students
will be monitored and reviewed. At the end of the initial three year period, your
Graduate Faculty status will be reviewed by the Head of Nuclear Engineering,
Dean of Engineering, and Provost.” Finally,
you should consider this letter
itself as a formal reprimand for your conduct, and a copy will [sic] placed in your
University personnel file.”
“...
MATTERS IN OPPOSITION
Dr. Taleyarkhan’s matters in opposition were received and thoroughly reviewed.
In sum, Dr. Taleyarkhan alleges certain inaccuracies in the Purdue and ONR
investigations and the Proposed Debarment memorandum of 3 February 2009. As it
relates to the 3 February memorandum, the errors cited had no bearing on the substance
of the recommended administrative action; however, where appropriate, the errors have
been correctly restated in this memorandum. While Dr. Taleyarkhan provided
voluminous information to refute the findings of the Purdue and ONR investigations,
regarding the two instances of research misconduct, Dr. Taleyarkhan’s matters in
opposition are unpersuasive as the information fails to overcome the preponderance of
the evidence standard.
Dr. Taleyarkhan first argues that the causes for which are the subject ofthis
debarment action are out ofthe jurisdiction ofthe Navy because the alleged offenses
occurred before the ONR award. This assertion is contrary to the overall intent of
nonprocurement Federal debarment which is to “protect the public interest” by ensuring
“the integrity of the Federal programs by conducting business only with responsible
persons.” 2 C.F.R. 180.125. Moreover, “[a] Federal agency uses the nonprocurement
debarment and suspension system to exclude from Federal programs persons who are not
presently responsible.” Id. Therefore, it is not necessary that a debarred individual
commit an offense in connection with a particular Federal contract or grant, the
applicable regulations only require that the act be such that it impact a person’s present
responsible to conduct business with government.
Next, Dr. Taleyarkhan contends that a higher-level review body, the American
Physical Society Editorial Board, did not find falsification in the journal articles that
support this action. Purdue University conducted a thorough review of Dr. Taleyarkhan’s
alleged misconduct and substantiated two claims. The results of Purdue’s investigative
findings were again analyzed by ONR IG and found to be reasonable. The weight of the
evidence supports Purdue’s findings and this recommended debarment action.
In support of independent corroboration by Dr. Xu and Mr. Butt, Dr. Taleyarkhan
provided an unsworn letter Dr. Xu submitted to Purdue’s Investigative Committee dated
January 31, 2008, which indicated he made the election to include Mr. Butt as co-author
of the NED paper; although, he did first seek and get Dr. Taleyarkhan’s approval. Xu
stated that Butt “conducted checks of data, validated and confirmed appropriate transfer
and use of post-processing, data analyses and conclusions. Butt transmitted his findings
to me and to Talyarkhan via email.” Further, Dr. Xu stated “Taleyarkhan did not
participate in the reported work ofthe NED” paper.
Dr. Xu’s assertions are unsupported by Purdue’s investigative findings. First,
Purdue’s Investigative Committee found Dr. Xu conducted the reported experiments
from January to May 2004, and was under the direction ofDr. Taleyarkhan from March
19, 2004, onward. Moreover, Dr. Taleyarkhan was “deeply involved at every step of [Dr.
Xu’s] reseach
and in the writing and submission ofthe [NED] paper to the journal.”
Dr. Xu was “minimally qualified, at best, to be the lead researcher on the project,” having
been chosen to carry out the experiment before he had completed his PhD. Further,
Purdue’s investigation showed Dr. Xu “had major gaps in his understanding of aspects of
the research which required Dr. Taleyarkhan’s regular consultation.”
...
With regards to Mr. Butts, Purdue’s Investigative Committee found Mr. Butt was
not cited as a collaboratoron an earlier Physical Review Letters (PRL) manuscript that
was submitted and rejected, as one of that journal’s referees stated that it was “unusual
that the experiment reported was apparently done by one person so that needed cross
checks and witnessing of results seem lacking.” Later, on the morning ofJanuary 26,
2005, Dr. Taleyarkhan asked Mr. Butt, his master’s student, to become an author on Xu’s
NED paper. The investigation also found that Dr. Taleyarkhan managed the submittal of
the manuscript to which Mr. Butt was added. The Committee also found that Mr. Butt’s
contributions to the manuscript were editorial and not substantive. Even Mr. Butt
testified that he “only checked the transfer ofnumbers from a spreadsheet to the
manuscript,” he did not contribute any ofthe data, and did not know it name was on the
manuscript until it was completed. An independent report confirmed Mr. Butt did not
participate in the experiments reported in the NED paper.
Dr. Taleyarkhan also argues that the two instances of research misconduct which
form that basis ofthis action were first investigated and rejected by Purdue in 2007 and
then later substantiated, resulting in a form of double jeopardy. In December 2006,
Purdue noted that there was “insufficient evidence to warrant further pursuit” of
misconduct action against Dr. Taleyarkhan. Therefore, the investigation was closed, not
completed, due to lack of evidence. More to the point, the two instances of research
misconduct that were substantiated in 2008 were never considered in 2006. They were
properly investigated when additional evidence, not previously known by Purdue, was
brought to light. At that point, Dr. Taleyarkhan was given adequate due process to
address the allegations. Therefore, double jeopardy, if applicable, does not pertain to this
case.
Finally, Dr. Taleyarkhan contends that the two instances of research misconduct,
for which he was found to have committed, were fabricated by Purdue. There is simply
no evidence in the administrative record to corroborate this allegation. Purdue conducted
an initial investigation which was reviewed by the second independent board. Later, the
results ofthat investigation were analyzed and reviewed by ONR Office of Inspector
General. There is no indication that Purdue or any other entity fabricated evidence
against Dr. Taleyarkhan,
ANALYSIS:
The Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) provides, in pertinent part, “[t]o protect
the public interest, the Federal Government ensures the integrity of Federal programs by
conducting business only with responsible persons.” 2 C.F.R. Part 180.125. The CFR
further provides that “A Federal agency uses the nonprocurement debarment and
suspension system to exclude from Federal programs persons who are not presently
responsible.” Id.
In order to effectuate these policies, the CFR provides that a person may be
debarred for any of those causes stated in the 2 CFR Part 180.800. That regulation
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A Federal agency may debar a person for—
(b) Violation of the terms of a public agreement or transaction so serious as to
affect the integrity of an agency program, such as-(1) A willful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or
more public agreements or transactions; and
(d) Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects your
present responsibility.
The information contained in the Administrative Record meets the preponderance
of the evidence standard to debar Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan for the causes stated in 2 C.F.R.
Part 180.800(b)(1) and (d). The documents therein provide evidence of participation by
Dr. Taleyarkhan in research fraud offenses and the willingness to disregard legal duties
and established practices in furtherance of personal objectives. Dr. Taleyarkhan’s actions
indicate a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects
his present responsibility to participate in the United States Government non-procurement
process. These causes are serious enough to warrant debarment because they are based
upon the willingness of Dr. Taleyarkhan to engage in fraudulent, unethical and dishonest
business practices.
CONCLUSION:
The Administrative Record contains evidence sufficient to support the debarment
of Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan under 2 C.F.R. Part l80.800(b)(l) and (d). Dr. Taleyarkhan’s
research misconduct in connect with an ONR grant demonstrates a lack of the business
honesty and integrity necessary to do business responsibly with the Government.
Therefore, Dr. Taleyarkhan should be debarred to protect the interests of Government.
Considering all of the factors in this case, I recommend a 28 month period of debarment,
expiring on 3 September 2011.
RECOMMENDATION:
That you sign the enclosed letter notifying Dr. Taleyarkhan of his debarment until
3 September2011.
JOSEPH K. MOORE
Associate Counsel
Acquisition Integrity Office