Documentation to "My Case"

May 27, 2004

AD/Office Head
Directorate for Geosciences
The National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 705 N
Arlington, VA 22230

Re: Proposal No. 0408208: Experimental Investigation of the Origin of Inclusions
in Diamonds from the Deep Mantle


Dear Dr. Margaret S. Leinen:

I was notified on April 11 by the Director of the Division of Earth Sciences, Dr. Herman B. Zimmerman, that the funding for 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, had been declined. The funding for a similar proposal was declined last year in what I believe had been an unfair review process. In that case, I followed the standard appeal process, as outlined in the NSF Grant Policy Manual, document No. 02-151 (see the enclosed documentation). Since the same NSF officials were in charge of reviewing the current proposal, I have no reason to believe that the review of the current proposal was any less corrupt than last year’s review. And since the same officials are still in charge of the appeals, I assumed that going again through the same standard appeal process would be just as pointless as it was last year. This is the reason why I appealed the declination of my proposal directly to the new Director of the NSF, Dr. Arden L. Bement. However, I received a reply from the Senior Advisor to the Director, Dr. John B. Hunt, urging me to follow again the standard review process, starting with you. Since the funding of this proposal is my last opportunity to remain in science, it is extremely important for me to present my case as fully as possible. Thus, for the purpose of this appeal, all enclosed documentation should be considered in its entirety, including the appeal letter to Dr. Bement.

In view of the positive reviews of my proposal, I believe that the single factor that made this, as well as last year’s, proposal uncompetitive was the relatively high level of the requested funding. This is because the proposal requested my full salary, essentially the salary for my former position of the lab manager, without which the high-pressure lab, where I propose to continue in my research, cannot function. The enclosed documentation includes letters submitted to various officials and my colleagues at SUNY Stony Brook in the effort to regain my employment and thus improve my chances to obtain funding and be able to continue in my research program without the need to ask the NSF for my full salary. Although this effort has not been successful so far, it is obvious that a firm commitment from the NSF to renew funding for the Stony Brook High Pressure Lab and for my research program would also greatly improve my chances of securing a teaching position at the Department of Geosciences. Since I am the only faculty member at the Department who has the most complete and detailed knowledge of everything associated with the high-pressure research and equipment, I would also be available to assist and advise all users of the lab.


I would now like to address the specific points in the reviews. Some reviewers and the panel pointed out again that I do not cite enough the work of others, despite the fact that I expanded the list of references in my proposal to 3 full pages. I am starting to suspect that this has become a standard excuse for giving me a lower rating by those reviewers who do not wish me to receive funding, since they cannot find anything else wrong with the proposal. If that is the case, no matter how many references I would include in this or any future proposals, these reviewers would probably still use the same excuse. Therefore, I suggest that unless these claims of omission are specific, they should not be viewed by the panel and the program director as valid.

The panel pointed out that my best opportunity to ensure continued interest by the broader community in phase equilibrium studies is to mentor a new generation of young scientists and to develop collaborations. I have a great record of past collaborations, as is evident from my list of publications, and it is primarily the lack of interest among the faculty members at the Department in hiring me in a teaching position, as is evident from the enclosed documentation, that makes it impossible for me to pass on my expertise in high-pressure research to the future generation of scientists. I would also like to add that it is the importance of the phase equilibrium studies for understanding the Earth’s interior rather than the interest of the scientific community that should be the primary criterion for the NSF in deciding to fund this kind of research.

The panel also pointed out that my proposal does not include funding for a summer school program. There is a separate NSF grant that funds the still on-going summer program at the Department, and the funding requested in my proposal would expand even more and complement these research opportunities for the summer scholars.

Finally, Reviewer #6 rated the acquisition of phase diagrams as “excellent,” while scientific objectives and intellectual merit as “poor,” which resulted in the final rating of “good.” Since the proposed research is 80% acquisition of phase diagrams, I suggest that the final rating in this case be reclassified as “very good.”

I hope you will agree to reconsider the funding for this proposal and I thank you for your kind attention on this matter.


Sincerely yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Research Associate Professor

Cc: Dr. John B. Hunt