Documentation to "My Case"

April 10, 2003


Dr. Herman B. Zimmerman, Director
Division of Earth Sciences
The National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm. 785 S
Arlington, VA 22230


Dear Dr. Zimmerman:

I was notified on April 7 by the Program Directors, Thomas P. Wagner and Sonia Esperanca, that the funding of my proposal: “Experimental Investigation of the Origin of Inclusions in Diamonds From the Deep Mantle,” submitted to the Petrology and Geochemistry Program of the National Science Foundation, has been declined. The proposal requested, in addition to other expenses, my full salary. Since I am currently unemployed, and have been unemployed since the end of the Center for High Pressure Research (CHiPR) on January 31, 2002, the declination of the funding of my proposal would effectively end my scientific career, unless you reconsider this decision.

I fully understand that the NSF is not a charity, and I would not be writing this letter if I have not firmly believed that the proposed research deserves to be funded even under the most competitive and rigorous, but fair, review process. I do not know the reviewers or the members of the panel who made the unfavorable decision, but I am sure that none of them can match my record of over 20 years of cutting-edge hands-on research to be in a position to seriously challenge my predictions of what are the most important research directions in my field. At the same time, it is unfortunate that most geoscientists have not been going in these directions, and are not particularly anxious to hear and accept that. As is the case with all paradigm shifts, there are many more losers than winners, and the losers fight back to protect their legacy. I am presently at the pinnacle of my scientific career, having produced an unparalleled amount of high-quality experimental data, and summarized the results in a book. I may not have always been completely right, but, as the evidence from the inclusions in diamonds now clearly demonstrates, my instincts were excellent, my work turned out to be highly relevant, and my record will stand the test of time. So the question arises, how is it possible that someone who contributed so much to the advancement of science, in my case to the study of the Earth’s deep interior, is finding himself in such a difficult situation as I do? I would now like to suggest some answers and try to make a point that the NSF, because of its policies, shares some responsibility.

When I joined Liebermann, Weidner and Prewitt in Stony Brook in 1985 to help them make the newly funded multi-anvil laboratory a success, they promised that I would be treated as equal, despite being hired in a non-tenure research position. I remember being surprised that they received the funding, since none of them had any serious background in high-pressure research. I had just spent four years as a post-doc with Bob Newton at the University of Chicago, and had the utmost confidence that I could make the lab work. For a while, everything was fine. The new press was installed in December 1985. Within a year after the testing was completed and I could start using the press, I developed the techniques, procedures and sample assemblies that made possible to conduct high-pressure multi-anvil experiments at a high success rate. This was accomplished by combining the expertise learned from our Japanese colleagues during my visit there in 1985 with the experience from my earlier experimental work with the piston-cylinder apparatus. The first major study clearly demonstrating the successful operation of the high-pressure lab and the split-sphere anvil apparatus was published in 1989, and was followed in 1990 by four papers in the special volume of JGR published in memory of Chris Scarfe. These early developments and studies played a decisive role in the successful bid by the Mineral Physics Institute in Stony Brook to acquire in 1990 a NSF Science and Technology Center, the Center for High Pressure Research. The Center opened an opportunity for me to add to the already significant contributions from my earlier phase equilibrium studies, and thus to produce a large volume of internally consistent experimental data unparalleled in the history of high-pressure research. This has become the main focus of my research in the following years.

The problems, however, started almost from the beginning. Soon after Prewitt accepted the position of the Director of the Geophysical Lab and left, Liebermann and Weidner stopped consulting with me about the lab and future plans. They insisted on having complete control over everything, thus making it almost impossible to carry out my duties as the lab manager. Not having any or only minimal first-hand experience in high-pressure research, they tried to enforce procedures and rules that I knew from my experience were unworkable, and resulted in wasted effort, time and money. Despite their earlier promise to treat me as equal, and thus a partner, I have become a mere technician. The only way for me to continue was to stay out of their way as much as possible. For this reason, I did not get involved in the synchrotron-based research, which was headed by Weidner. Because of his insistence on having complete control over everything, it was almost inevitable that I would have to compromise my integrity, scientific reputation, waste time and effort, get involved in endless conflicts, and potentially be expected to put my name on inferior results. Therefore, I focused on my phase equilibrium studies. Because I did not have to rely on anybody else and could do the research by myself, I was extremely productive, while Liebermann and Weidner could conduct the research only through their students, and thus were slow in producing results and publications. This soon became apparent to the scientific community, and started reflecting in the reviews of the proposals for the continued funding of the lab. As you can easily verify from your records, a blunt review flatly stated that I was the only one who produced results, another seemingly more diplomatic review admired the complementary nature of our collaboration, me producing excellent science, and Liebermann with Weidner being excellent administrators. I doubt that they took that as a compliment.

To eliminate the embarrassing competition that made them look bad, they decided to get rid of me as soon as they had the CHiPR approved and had enough students and post-docs trained in the procedures and techniques that I had developed. Liebermann planted a smoking secretary next to my office, knowing very well that smoke bothered me, and thus hoping that I would leave on my own (see the enclosed documentation). I ended up exposed to the second-hand smoke for 5 years, until the strict regulations forbidding smoking in the whole building forced the secretary to move to the first floor to be close to outdoors. However, the exchange of letters concerning this incident, and the possibility of a lawsuit resulting from it, probably saved me from being fired outright. As you may well know, there is absolutely no security in a research position, which is an open-ended appointment without any contract. Even a janitor has a more secure position than a research scientist. At about this time, in preparation for my future dismissal, they reshuffled the already sizable research staff funded by the CHiPR, placing everybody on state lines and leaving me alone on the research line to formally destroy my claim of seniority. They no longer dared to attack me directly, but instead, to isolate me, started attacking everybody who became too closely associated with me. Enclosed is the exchange of letters that saved the job of one of the machinists, Herb Schay. Another machinist, Ed Worisek, was forced into an early retirement. They attacked the microprobe specialist, Dr. Robert P. Rapp, who was under my supervision. They scared Dr. J. Zhang from publishing a paper on the melting of brucite, a joined project with me, thus ending our collaboration. They discouraged my close friend, professor Claude Herzberg, from continuing in his experimental studies at Stony Brook. They tried to dismiss my student, Jozsef Garai, from graduate studies without even consulting me. Another student, Vlad Litvin, who came to Stony Brook to work with me, was forced to work with somebody else. They turned the whole CHiPR against me. I was no longer invited to give talks or to contribute to various publications edited by the CHiPR members. They, of course, destroyed any chance that I could become a tenured faculty at the Department of Geosciences.

All this may not be of much concern to the NSF. Although this type of behavior, I hope, is not standard in the academic environment, it is much more common in the business world, and is sometimes referred to as the “weasel zone,” the gray area between the ethical and criminal. However, I believe that with time, as they became more frustrated not being able to make me leave or even to slow me down, they decided to take a different approach that, unfortunately, involved the NSF. It did not help when my research took directions that started to undermine the favored dogmas of the CHiPR executives, thus threatening their comfortable lines of funding, namely the pyrolite model favored by Weidner and Liebermann, and the microscopic approach promoted by Navrotsky. Their big opportunity came when Navrotsky was invited to serve on the NSF panel for the Petrology and Geochemistry Program. I believe she misused her position of trust and her influence as the member of the Academy to convince the panel to reject the funding for three of my proposals in a row. Although my funding was never even remotely generous, it was enough for my work and, most importantly, continuous. The interruption in the funding caused by her seriously affected my research in the most negative way. They finally succeeded in slowing me down. Only when I submitted the next proposal to the CSEDI Program, I was again able to obtain funds and to continue in my research. Then the end of the CHiPR came at the end of January 2002, and they used this as an excuse to finally fire me, in gross violation of my true seniority status. Since then, I have been applying for various jobs, but without any success. I do not know what they write in their letters of recommendation, but it is not helping. I do not even dare to think how much my reputation has been damaged by just being associated with them and thus, inevitably, sharing the blame for the CHiPR fiasco. I am also convinced that they wage a campaign of lies to further trash my reputation and thus to destroy my career as a scientist. It is unfortunate that they used the NSF to achieve this goal.

The NSF policy most responsible for this type of unethical behavior is the long tradition of funding research empires and bureaucrats. Most money is awarded to few individuals belonging to the scientific elite, sometimes referred to as the “big boys.” These are now mostly administrators, who may have had some limited experience in conducting hands-on research early on in their career, but for many years after that have received new information only at meetings and through the work of their students and post-docs. The most successful are usually opportunists, who invent harebrained schemes, have their friends to sign on to them, they promote them at meetings, short courses and workshops, and then they sell them to you. Because they receive most of the research funding, they are able to produce most students, most of them like-minded clones, who then fill the academic positions at the most prestigious universities. In a generation or two, these harebrained schemes receive widespread acceptance, regardless of whether they are true or not. The result is a monolithic establishment that routinely ignores the evidence and views inconsistent with the prevailing dogmas, where the diversity of ideas is always sequestered to the margins, and the progress is extremely difficult. Then, when somebody like me comes along and tries to find the truth the hard way, by honest work in a lab, and threatens to expose these harebrained schemes, the whole scientific establishment turns against him. I have been trying to point out this problem, evident in the glaring inequality of funding, in my reviews of many NSF proposals, but without any obvious success. Since I am no longer receiving many proposals to review, I suspect that this kind of reviews has not been particularly welcomed. In contrary, the funding of CHiPR, and most recently of COMPRES, clearly shows that the funding of the research empires is still the valid NSF policy for channeling funds to the scientific elite. Although, I have been able against all odds to transform some of the CHiPR funding into useful and lasting contributions to science, I have also seen that most of the remaining funds were simply wasted, producing minimal results and no evident change in the views about the deep Earth. In fact, I would not be surprised if some scientists, who see equally little value in my contributions as the CHiPR leadership, would consider the CHiPR to be a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. It is simply inconceivable, following such a poor performance, that the follow-up COMPRES initiative, which appears to be some kind of a kumbaya-style program, would have had any chance of success under any kind of even remotely fair review process. Compared with the incredibly low odds of receiving funding that independent scientists are facing these days, the contrast in the double standards between these two ways of funding has never been greater. In a funding environment, where a substantial fraction of the research funds is being diverted to non-research related activities, such as environmental causes and various feel-good accomplish-nothing social programs disguised under the label of “education,” and another big chunk of money is set aside for the funding of the scientific elite and research empires, the independent scientist has been abandoned. Getting funding under such conditions has the same odds as winning a lottery. Under such conditions, it is impossible to make commitments to students and post-docs, or pursue a long-term research program. Since the official NSF view is that there are more “deserving” proposals than is the availability of funds, the merit effectively ceased to be a factor in the selection process, and the funding is decided using some non-merit based criteria, or simply selected arbitrarily on the basis of the personal preferences of the members of the panels or the program directors. For example, a discussion with Maryellen Cameron, then the program director for Petrology and Geochemistry, following the rejection of the funding for one of my proposals, clearly showed that she felt completely comfortable ignoring peer reviews and making alone the final decision on the funding. There is no doubt that when faced with such daunting hurdles, many excellent scientists, who have secure positions and a sufficient record of accomplishments to afford it, simply give up and abandon research. Obviously, I am not one of them; I literary cannot afford to let this go.

I hope that my experience as a research scientist is not typical, and that it reflects aberrations specific only to Stony Brook. At the same time, if anybody is under the illusion that the research scientists funded by the NSF in one of the research empires have the luxury of being objective and carry on research and publish the findings independently of the beliefs and wishes of their superiors, my experience clearly demonstrates again that this is not so; the price to pay for that is simply too high. Because my influential scheming superiors blacklisted me for daring to be independent, it is not likely that I would be able to find a tenured position, and the research funding is the only way for me to stay in science. As you can see from the information given here, I have reasons to seriously doubt that my proposal received an objective evaluation, and I hope that you reconsider this unfavorable decision.


Sincerely yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Research Associate Professor

Cc.: Thomas Wagner
Sonia Esperanca
Robin Reichlin
David Lambert