Documentation to "My Case"

September 8, 2003


Dr. Robert L. McGrath
Provost & Executive VP for Academic Affairs
Administration Building, Room 407
Stony Brook, NY 11794-1401



Dear Dr. McGrath:

It is with the utmost reluctance that I am writing this letter, and I am doing this only after I have exhausted all other possibilities. As a Research Associate Professor at the Department of Geosciences, I have been unable to generate any income since the end of the Center for High Pressure Research (CHiPR) on January 31, 2002. The funding for my latest research proposal submitted to the NSF was denied after an unfair review process, and all my appeals, including the final one to the NSF Director, Rita R. Colwell (V), were unsuccessful. The subsequent final inquiries at the Department of Geosciences for help went either unanswered (W), or did not produce any useful results (X). This appeal to you is the last opportunity for me to continue being a productive member of the academic community, and for the University to correct this unpleasant situation.

I have been fortunate to be able to spend over 20 years conducting cutting-edge hands-on research at high pressures. That by itself is unprecedented in an academic environment. I have recently summarized the results of these studies, as well as the results from the research by many other experimental petrologists, in a book published this year by Springer-Verlag. 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 there is no reason why, under normal circumstances, I should not be able to receive the highest honors myself. Unfortunately, my success in research produced so much envy that I am paying a heavy price rather than receiving honors. For 15 years I have been the victim of, what I have only recently found out is called, “mobbing.” As described on this Web site (http://www.leymann.se/), mobbing is a form of bullying in the workplace, when several coworkers gang up on a person to force him or her to quit, and represents a violation of the civil rights of that person. In my case, the main bullies have been Liebermann and Weidner, helped by Lindsley and Hanson. In addition, there have been two outside bullies, Alexandra Navrotsky (University of California at Davis) and David Walker (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory). Following, for the record, is the account of the mobbing sequence, as far as I was able to deduce. I have to emphasize that these mobbing activities are usually very subtle, a series of hard-to-explain, sometimes bizarre, events, that each by itself could easily be dismissed as the product of a paranoid mind. Only in retrospect, as the severe consequences of the mobbing process become apparent, these events start making sense. In my case, it took 15 years for the bullying process to play out, and for me to fully understand the true nature of these attacks. The severe consequences for me are the inability to conduct research since May 2001, isolation from the scientific community, mental anguish (PTSD), and, so far, the loss of 100 K in personal income. If this situation is not solved, by the time I reach the retirement age, the combined loss in wages and research funding could exceed $ 4 million. Enclosed is the supporting documentation in chronological order. For additional information about my research, please visit my Web site (http://www.mpi.stonybrook.edu/ResearchResults/PhaseRelationsGasparik/).

I received my Ph.D. in experimental petrology at SUNY Stony Brook in 1981. My advisor was Don Lindsley. I spent the next 4 years as a post-doc with Bob Newton at the University of Chicago. In 1985 I returned to Stony Brook to help Liebermann, Weidner and Prewitt make their newly funded multi-anvil laboratory a success. They promised that I would be treated as an 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 doing research at high-pressures, and had the utmost confidence that I could make the new lab work. For a while, everything was fine. The new multi-anvil 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 multi-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 an equal, and thus a partner, I had 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 their research only through 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. For example, a blunt review flatly stated that I was the only one producing 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. 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 stonewalled my efforts to actively participate in the planning and developments, because they did not want me to play any role in the Center, and thus to share the credit for its potential future success. I soon realized that I doomed good ideas by simply proposing them, and gave up.

As if this were not enough, I have been persecuted since 1988 by an outside bully David Walker. He visited in 1988 with his student Carl Agee, ostensibly to do research in our new lab. Following their visit, which to me appeared like a pleasant day filled with constructive discussion and friendly exchange of ideas, Walker sent a nasty letter to Liebermann accusing me of being unhelpful (B1, B2). Since the tone of the letter was so far out of proportion to what had actually happened, and all other outside users of the lab were always highly satisfied with my help (e.g. A), this appeared to me as an attempt to bully me into working for him. With my help, he could control the technological developments, share the credit for them, and have control over 50 % of the operation and production of the lab. It is also possible that he hoped to get me fired and replace me with Carl Agee, who at that time was looking for a job, thus achieving the same goal. When I refused to be bullied to work for him, he was forced to build his own multi-anvil lab, but kept looking for excuses to discredit me further. Other nasty letters followed in 1988 (C) and 1990 (E). He also started trashing my reputation, as evident in his otherwise a positive review of one of our NSF proposals for the continued operation of the lab (D). He sent us a copy of this review, thus suggesting that a potential future review may not be as good if I were not taken care of. Finally, at the end of 1991, he accused Weidner and me of undermining the Ph.D. research of his student (F1, F2). In the following nasty letter from January 1992, he graciously forgave Weidner, but insisted that they “hang me out to dry” (G1, G2). This was the critical conflict that triggered the mobbing process intended to make my work difficult and thus force me to quit on my own. Not even a supporting letter from professor Claude Herzberg from the Rutgers University, who had also been a victim of Walker’s bullying, helped (H).

In response, that very month, Liebermann permanently placed a secretary who smoked, Ann Lattimore, next to my office, knowing very well that smoke bothered me, and thus hoping that I would leave on my own (I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, I6, I7). Not even my appeal to the Office of Human Resources would solve this problem (J1, J2, J3). 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.

Because of the smoking incident, the departmental bullies 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 letter that saved the job of one of the machinists, Herb Schay, who had been exceptionally helpful to me (K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6). Another equally helpful 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 refused to help a student that I attracted to the Department, Jozsef Garai, and then tried to dismiss him from the graduate studies without my consent and under the excuse that he could not find an advisor (M). Another student, Vlad Litvin, who came to Stony Brook to work with me, was forced to work with Lindsley. They sabotaged my use of the electron microprobe by keeping it out of working order for months at a time, and made it extremely difficult for me to obtain parts for the sample assemblies from the machine shop (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5). 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, which was my primary goal.

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. Their opportunity came when Navrotsky, one of the four CHiPR executives, 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 research 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. However, while my previous 3 NSF grants were all for 3 years, the CSEDI grant was approved only for 2 years, and its continuation was extended for only 1 year. I realized at this time that the bullies might have gained control over the research funding, and that the NSF itself could have become a participant in the mobbing process. It is also evident now that the NSF stopped sending me research proposals for review since the end of 2001. While I received 6 proposals to review in 2001, none were sent since; they have simply written me off (Y).

On January 31, 2002, the CHiPR ended its planned 11 years of operation, and the bullies used this as an excuse to finally fire me, in gross violation of my true seniority status (P). It is now evident that I was the only senior research scientist fired at the end of CHiPR, despite being its most productive member. 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 poor overall performance of the CHiPR. 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.

The CHiPR was resurrected as the Consortium for Materials Properties Research in Earth Sciences (COMPRES) initiative, funded by the same resources that were used previously to fund CHiPR. To obtain the support of the high-pressure community, it was important to include everybody with influence that could potentially object, especially David Walker. It is now obvious that the price for getting Walker onboard was my head. Aside from the cosmetic changes in its structure, to cover up the fact that COMPRES is CHiPR under a new name, the only practical difference is that my research position of the lab manager was formally eliminated, and my former paycheck is now used to fund the administrative position of the president of COMPRES. Although this position is advertised as open to everybody, a pattern now emerges to suggest that this position is meant to rotate among the executive members as the reward for supporting the COMPRES initiative, and my former paycheck is being used to supplement their salaries.

When I submitted my latest research proposal to the NSF at the end of 2002, an extra goal was to test my suspicion that the NSF was a participant in the mobbing process. In addition to the clues already mentioned, it was obvious that the NSF officials must have been aware in the course of the negotiations to set up COMPRES (P) that I would be the only senior member of the CHiPR severely affected by the results of these negotiations. Of the 5 reviews of my proposal (Q-U), 3 were rated excellent or very good, and are among the best reviews I have ever received. The other 2 that rated me “fair” were obviously responsible for the declination of the funding. The results were as unambiguous as they can get in confirming that the NSF selected these 2 reviewers to assure that my proposal would not receive funding, and that the NSF has thus been a participant in the mobbing process. I am fairly confident that these reviewers were the two outside bullies, Navrotsky (Q) and Walker (S). I suspect, since I clearly stated in the proposal that the requested funding was my last chance to stay in science, that the two outside bullies simply could not resist the opportunity to deliver the final blow even by risking the exposure. Hence, this was not a fair review process but an execution. When I subsequently challenged the fairness of the review process using the standard appeal process, I was stonewalled at every step all the way to the NSF director, apparently to cover up the corruption of the review process. This, of course, made her personally responsible for the participation of the NSF in the mobbing process, and thus for the violation of my civil rights.

I hope that in response to this appeal the University will take, in contrast to the NSF, a constructive approach and firm steps to correct the results of the unethical behavior by the senior faculty of the Department of Geosciences. I am astonished to realize that so many prominent members of the scientific community would risk their reputation and spent so much time and effort to stop a single scientist from conducting research, before he gets too far ahead of everybody else. That by itself is a form of recognition that they have been so reluctant to bestow, although not the kind of recognition I would prefer. This effort obviously failed, as the publication of my book clearly shows, so that continuing in this form of collective punishment is pointless in achieving the original goal, and at this time has no other purpose but revenge. It is time for somebody to stop this madness. I have invested 17 of my most productive years in Stony Brook, and the least I deserve for my effort is a paycheck. I do not have another 17 years like that to make the same kind of investment somewhere else. Since the bullies are actively sabotaging my efforts to find a job elsewhere and to obtain research funding, I have no other place to go but to remain in Stony Brook. As I pointed out in my letter to the faculty of the Department of Geosciences (N), my goal has always been a tenured position at the Department. Although my appeal to the faculty has been denied (O), I believe that most of the faculty members would support me if they were free to express themselves without the fear of intimidation by the departmental bullies; in this type of environment everybody is afraid of becoming the next target of bullying. It is the responsibility of the management to stop this kind of unethical behavior that has nothing to do with either science or education. I hope you will rise to this responsibility.


Sincerely yours,



Tibor Gasparik
Research Associate Professor