Documentation to "My Case"

May 21, 2003

Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director
Office of the Deputy 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. Bordogna:

Since my requests to reverse the declination of my proposal No. 0308362 for funding have been denied by both, the Director of the Division of Earth Sciences, Dr. Herman B. Zimmerman, and the Associate Director for Geosciences, Ms. Margaret S. Leinen, I am requesting that you reconsider this action in accordance with the policies outlined in the NSF Grant Policy Manual, document No. 02-151. Enclosed is the relevant documentation: the letters to the Director of the Division of Earth Sciences and the Associate Director for Geosciences, requesting the reconsideration of the declination, and their responses. Due to the sensitive nature of this appeal, I chose not to seek the endorsement by a SUNY executive, and should be viewed for the purposes of this appeal as an unaffiliated PI.

In my letter to Dr. Zimmerman, I raised what I believe are valid arguments questioning the objectivity of the review process, and the main reason for its unfavorable outcome. Dr. Zimmerman, however, chose not to comment on my letter in his formal reply.

I emphasized in my appeal to the Associate Director that the high level of the requested funding might have been partially responsible for the declination. This is because the proposal requested my full salary, essentially the salary for my former position of a lab manager, without which the high-pressure lab, where I propose to continue in my research, cannot function. During the transition from the Center for High Pressure Research (CHiPR) to the Consortium for Materials Properties Research in Earth Sciences (COMPRES) initiative in 2002, my position and my research program were, with an almost surgical precision, removed, while leaving the rest intact. It is difficult to believe that this plan against me by my colleagues could have been accomplished without the full cooperation with the NSF officials. The poor overall performance of the CHiPR alone would make it difficult to justify the funding for the COMPRES initiative under a fair review process, which suggests a certain level of control by the scientific elite, represented by some of my colleagues, over the funding process, thus compromising its objectivity. Therefore I believe that the two reviewers, which 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.

Although, I agreed to reduce the level of the requested funding to $300 K (for 2 years), the Associate Director declined my appeal, citing as the main reason that the approach I proposed (simple systems with a small number of components) is somewhat controversial. I have been fortunate to be able to spend over 20 years conducting cutting-edge hands-on research at high pressures in simple chemical systems; hence, this is not some new, unproven, or “controversial” approach. I have recently summarized the results of these studies, as well as the results from the research in simple systems by many other experimental petrologists, in the enclosed book. The book represents by far the greatest achievement in the history of high-pressure research, and is a major contribution to the advancement of science. Many experimental petrologists with less significant personal accomplishments have received the highest honors, and some even had distinguished careers as NSF officials. If you still had experimental petrologists on your staff, as used to be the case in the past, for example Ian MacGregor, Jim Hays and Dan Weill, all referenced in my book, they could confirm that equilibrium can be demonstrated only in experiments in simple systems. The NSF spent millions on funding experimental studies in simple systems at the times when the NSF budget was a small fraction of the current budget. This kind of research is just as important now as it has been in the past. Based on my achievements in high-pressure research, I should be among the scientists with the highest levels of funding. Instead, I am fighting for survival. I believe that the NSF is partly responsible for this situation, not only because of the possible unethical behavior by some NSF officials, or the corruption of the review process, but also because of some recently introduced policies that make the continuation of this kind of research extremely difficult, if not already impossible.

The recommendations of the National Science Board (publication NSB02-190) to increase funding to midsize and large infrastructure platforms have already resulted in the closure of many small labs, including at times numerous experimental petrology labs. Thus the fields of study that do not translate well to larger size are being eliminated. This policy may have played a role in the cancellation of the support for my lab and my research program, regardless of their importance or merit. But worse, it identifies experimental petrology as a field that is no longer fundable, with dire consequences to all involved in this field. I consider this to be one of the reasons why I have not been successful in securing a permanent position, despite a substantial effort in that direction. Granted, some research programs require larger facilities and teams of scientists, but most do not. As the example of the CHiPR clearly shows, many of these larger-size research platforms are not particularly efficient or productive, and, because of higher levels of funding, could be quite wasteful. I know from my own experience that the highest levels of efficiency and productivity can be achieved when a single, highly motivated individual is in the full control of the whole research process. This is possible only in small labs.

The recommendations of the National Science Board also emphasize multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approaches, and my field of study is a particularly good example of an interdisciplinary field. Experimental petrology has been supported generously in the past by the Petrology and Geochemistry Program, but when focused on the investigation of the deep mantle, it belongs to the field of Mineral Physics, traditionally supported by the Geophysics Program. It may seem that I should be able to obtain funding from both programs. Unfortunately, in the current extremely tight funding environment, if I submit to the Petrology/Geochemistry, the reviewers feel that I should be requesting funds from the Geophysics Program, and geophysicists are only interested in physical properties and are extremely reluctant to recommend funding for anything that involves chemistry. This is also apparent in the current reviews of my proposal from the general lack of enthusiasm for recommending the funding, despite the positive reviews. It is evident that the NSF does not have a funding mechanism in place to assure that its professed support for the interdisciplinary research and multidisciplinary approach can be realized in practice. The joint decision by the leadership of COMPRES and the NSF officials not to fund the operation of the Stony Brook High Pressure Lab ended the most successful petrology/geochemistry program worldwide for the study of the Earth’s mantle, and was thus inconsistent with the recommendations of the National Science Board that emphasize the development of multidisciplinary infrastructure platforms and identify the exploration of the Earth’s mantle among its priorities.

One of the causes for the tight funding in geosciences is the excessive emphasis on the environment and climate, which may have played a role in the declination of my appeal by the Associate Director. While nobody can dispute the importance of these fields of study, the current NSF support for these fields is excessive and clearly inconsistent with the priorities of the present Government. I suspect that a more balanced funding across all fields of science would be far more consistent. Particularly, the excessive emphasis on the environmental sciences at the expense of the traditional geosciences reflects more the liberal views of the scientific community than the needs of the society. In some geoscience departments, environmentalists are literally replacing the traditional geoscientists, apparently blamed by some for sharing the responsibility for the perceived environmental “destruction.” Environmental sciences are also favored because they seem to provide a perfect match between the less demanding 19th century scientific techniques and the assumed limited scholarly abilities of the American students of the 21st century. The more challenging “hard sciences” are now pursued almost exclusively by Asian students. I believe the American students deserve better. In contrast, for over a decade the Stony Brook High Pressure Lab has been offering an opportunity for undergraduate students from universities and colleges nationwide to obtain hands-on experience in conducting meaningful research with our multi-anvil presses. The funding of my proposal would restore the full operation of the high-pressure lab, and thus make again available this unique and challenging opportunity for our summer scholars to experience the hands-on research at high pressures.

Since the first inclusions in diamond from the depths greater than 200 km were reported about 20 years ago, it has become apparent that these rare inclusions sample the Earth’s interior continuously to the depth of 800 km, and thus provide a unique opportunity to determine the mineral and chemical composition and the structure of the deep Earth directly by the study of these inclusions. High-pressure experiments are essential for interpreting the evidence from these inclusions, which, when combined with the equally important and complementary information obtained from seismic observations, could lead, under a favorable funding situation, to the full and detailed understanding of the composition and structure of the Earth’s interior in the very near future. The requested funding is essential to make possible for the geoscientists in the United States to participate in this final decisive push to understand the deep Earth.

I hope you will reconsider and agree to fund my proposal at the reduced level. I have been unemployed since the end of CHiPR on January 31, 2002; hence, the declination of this request would effectively end my scientific career. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Sincerely yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Research Associate Professor