Documentation to "My Case"

June 26, 2003

Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director
Office of the Director
The National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rm 1205 N
Arlington, VA 22230

Re: Proposal No. 0308362: Experimental Investigation of the Origin of Inclusions
in Diamonds from the Deep Mantle


Dear Dr. Colwell:

Since my appeal to reverse the declination of my proposal No. 0308362 for funding, submitted to the Deputy Director of NSF Dr. Joseph Bordogna on May 21, 2003, remains unanswered, I have no choice but to advance this appeal to you. According to the NSF Grant Policy Manual, document No. 02-151, I should have received the answer to my appeal from the Deputy Director of NSF within 30 days. I am disappointed that such a high level NSF official appointed by the President of the United States is so irresponsive to the needs of the scientific community. Enclosed is the relevant correspondence on the matter, including the letters to the Director of the Division of Earth Sciences, Dr. Herman B. Zimmerman, the Associate Director for Geosciences, Ms. Margaret S. Leinen, the Deputy Director of NSF, Dr. Joseph Bordogna, and the replies I have received. Since the funding of this proposal is my last opportunity to remain in science, it is extremely important for me to exhaust all venues of appeal and to present my case as fully as possible. Thus, for the purpose of this appeal, all my letters pertaining to this case should be considered in their entirety.

In my appeal to the Deputy Director of NSF I raised what I believe are serious concerns that my proposal did not receive a fair evaluation: because of the unethical behavior by some NSF officials, corruption of the review process, and some more recently introduced NSF policies that make the continuation of the kind of research I am proposing extremely difficult, if not already impossible, regardless of its importance or merit. In particular I believe that the two reviewers who rated my proposal “fair,” in sharp contrast to the generally positive reviews, may have been selected with the intent to assure that my proposal would not receive funding. It is even possible, since everything is now done electronically, that these are not the original ratings, but the result of subsequent tampering by the NSF officials to make the results of the review process consistent with the current priorities of the NSF.

The main cause of the unethical behavior and the corruption of the review process is apparently the most recently introduced policy of setting priorities in research, and the corresponding covert effort to implement these priorities within the framework of the traditional merit review process. In the presently tight funding environment, this policy makes it extremely difficult to obtain funding in the fields of study that are not in priority. For example, by identifying environmental sciences among the priority themes for funding, and with the strong support in the related fields of atmospheric sciences and oceanography, this leaves the traditional geosciences, so important in the exploration for oil, gas and mineral resources, without adequate funding. Many geoscientists, who have been making important contributions in these traditional fields, are forced instead to become environmentalists to obtain funding, even though it could take years before they reach the level of expertise that would allow them to start making important contributions. In some geoscience departments, environmentalists are literally replacing the traditional geoscientists, apparently blamed by some for sharing the responsibility for the perceived environmental “destruction.” For example, since the Stony Brook University was awarded the NSF Center for Environmental Molecular Science, most of the faculty members at the Department of Geosciences became environmentalists. It is almost impossible for the students at the department to hear anything that is not in some way related to environmental issues, and thus to obtain a balanced education in geosciences.

Despite the clear evidence that this policy of setting priorities in research funding is having a devastating impact on the U.S. science, and my research in particular, the draft of the updated strategic plan, posted on your Web site on June 6, 2003, proposes to continue with this policy without any apparent modification to the original strategic plan submitted to the U. S. Congress in October 2000. Although, it is not evident that the priority themes listed in the original plan were particularly relevant to the needs of the society even in October 2000, it is hard to understand how these priorities, best described as heavy on social programs and soft on science, could be relevant now, considering the momentous events that have occurred since October 2000. These include: the election of a new President, the events of 9/11, the resulting security concerns, the ongoing war on terrorism, and the military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of these momentous historical events, the United States is a completely different country, and it is impossible to see how the priorities established in October 2000 could be of any relevance at present. Hence, the new realities call for nothing less than a complete revision of the strategic plan. This clearly illustrates the danger of setting priorities in science, a policy that should preferably be dropped from the new plan, if that is still possible at all.

I hope you agree that my proposal could not receive a fair evaluation under the current circumstances. In view of the positive reviews and my excellent record in research and publishing, I hope that you will reconsider and agree to fund my proposal at the reduced level ($ 300 K/2 years). The funding would restart the operation of a unique high-pressure facility and a word-class research program in petrology/geochemistry, and make possible for me to continue to make significant and lasting contributions to science, similar to those summarized in my book. This book is my legacy, written under extreme hardship, with no financial or moral support either from the NSF or my colleagues at Stony Brook. I have been unemployed since January 31, 2002, and would not be able to remain active in science without the requested funding. Please, let me know if you need any help with the new strategic plan. Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter.

Sincerely yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Research Associate Professor