Science and Medicine

... ...

Profiles in Plagiarism: Science and Medicine

________________________________________________________________________________

A.P.


F.T.


Z.C.

Scientific experimentation in genetic engineering at Peking University

In the mid-1990s, textual appropriation by scholars received much publicity in China after a rash of plagiarism cases (Xiguang Li and Xiong Lei 1996). One case involved what appears to be a "plug in" framework approach to the presentation of "original" research results.

Pan Aihua and 5 co-authors presented the results of a project investigating the potential for genetically engineering heavy-metal tolerant varieties of tobacco plants (1994 Plant Molecular Biology). The Peking University scientists reported how they had created a transgenic tobacco plant which was resistant to Cadmium by introducing a cloned mouse metallothionein gene into the plant's genetic structure. The resultant tobacco plants, and their offspring, demonstrated the potential for genetically engineering plants capable of withstanding high amounts of Cadmium or other heavy metals. Such plants would be useful in reclaiming heavy-metal contaminated soils which would normally be unsuitable for agricultural use.

Pan Aihua's project (1994) seemed to be a valuable contribution to genetic engineering research. However, it was discovered that the project was very similar to a project reported in the 1989 issue of Theoretical Applied Genetics (Misra and Gedamu 1989). Misra wrote to Plant Molecular Biology editor Robert Schilperoot to inform the journal staff as well as the scientific community that Pan et al. had plagiarised from her (and Gedamu's) 1989 article.

After an investigation, Shilperoot concluded that Pan (et al). had reported original research results from several years of experimentation with tobacco plants, but he also concluded that Pan (et al) had plagiarized extensively from Misra and Gedamu.

This problematic reporting of research results by Peking University scientists illustrates how a "plug in" framework approach is used by researchers wanting to publish in English, but lacking the needed proficiency in written academic English to do so on their own. To compensate for their English language deficit, they had copied the structure and much of the wording of a model research report, and they had inserted their own data into the article template in order to report the results of their own experimentations with the genetic engineering of heavy-metal tolerant varieties of tobacco plants.

The research by Pan (et al) had been conducted in Peking University's National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering. Since there were slight differences in the research methodology and procedures used by Pan (et al) in their experimentation versus the experimentation of Misra and Gedamu, it does seem that Schilperoot was correct in concluding that language had been plagiarized, but that the research data was original.

For example, whereas Misra and Gedamu used a cloned human metallothionein gene to introduce heavy-metal tolerance to tobacco plants, the Peking University scientists had used a cloned mouse gene. The derivative influence in the Pan Aihua (et al) article is first evident in the abstract and introduction. In the abstract, Pan et al's statement "seeds from self-fertilised transgenic plants were germinated on medium containing toxic levels of cadmium and scored for tolerance/susceptibility to this heavy metal" has been lifted from Misra and Gedamu with only a slight change of media to medium.

Next, shortly into the introduction, extensive verbatim copying begins, as is evident in comparing the two articles. It is clear from such comparison that extensive copying has occurred. Pan (et al) have skipped several lines in the source text here and there, and they have omitted textual information such as Misra and Gedamu's explanation of heavy metal binding/sequestration proteins.

The appropriation of Misra and Gedamu's results section is also evident. Pan et al have appropriated the section heading and much of the wording of the results presentation. There are, however, several slight modifications. Misra and Gedamu's section title "Construction of chimeric gene encoding the MT protein" has been modified to include the variant spelling for chimaeric, and the indefinite article has been used: "Construction of a chimaeric gene encoding the MT protein."

In describing the origin of the metallothionein gene used in their study, Pan (et al) note that their mMT (mouse metallothionein) was obtained using a process developed by Palmiter, whereas Misra and Gedamu cite Varshney and Gedamu (1984) for the isolation of their human metallothionein gene (hMT). The description of how the gene was inserted was copied practically verbatim by Pan (et al) from Misra and Gedamu, but the Peking University scientists report that they used a 335 bp fragment rather than Misra and Gedamu's 320 bp fragment. The language appropriation employed by Pan (et al) from Misra and Gedamu in the reporting of their research results is quite selective, skillful even, as these scientists plug in their own results to the existing language framework.

The derivative influence continues in the next section where the section title has again been appropriated with a slight modification. Pan (et al) have substituted tobacco for Misra and Gedamu's N. tabacum. But some original textual composing also seems to occur in this section. Except for the first 2 sentences, the following language has evidently been composed by the Peking University scientists themselves. However, it very well could be that they have appropriated fragments and phrases from other sources as the Spanish scientists in St. John's (1987) study did.

These Peking University scientists have appropriated nearly the entire text structure of a research article in a "plug in" framework approach, but a "jigsaw" approach might have also been used in lifting key phrases and sentences from other sources besides Misra and Gedamu. In the next parts of this derivative article, it is evident that Pan Aihua (et al) have again substituted tobacco for Misra and Gedamu's Nicotiana tabacum.

Additionally, they have shortened Misra and Gedamu's Agrobacterium tumefaciens to A. tumefaciens. Some of these modifications may have been made by the editorial staff of Plant Molecular Biology, so it is not exactly clear how many of the modifications were actually made by Pan (et al).

As with the preceding sections, derivation is also evident in the section on "Transformation, selection and regeneration of B. napus and N. tabacum." Shortly thereafter, another section heading has been appropriated, and additionally, it is clear that nearly the entire section on inheritance of the cadmium-tolerant phenotype has been lifted from Misra and Gedamu, with only slight changes and omission of several lines of Misra and Gedamu's text.

Skipping the first paragraph as well as part of the second paragraph in Misra and Gedamu's section entitled "Inheritance of the cadmium-tolerant phenotype", Pan et al begin appropriating from the source text with Misra and Gedamu's sentence "Seed progeny from self-pollinated . . . ." Instead of calling the self-pollinated transformants the S1 generation as did Misra and Gedamu, Pan et al have labelled these transformants as the R1 generation. It is also evident that Pan et al (or the Plant Molecular Biology editors) prefer the use of medium instead of Misra and Gedamu's media. Pan (et al) also deviate slightly from Misra and Gedamu in the Cadmium concentration which they used in the medium on which the transformants and control plants were germinated.

Pan et al then skip several more lines of the source text, and toward the end of their section on the inheritance of cadmium tolerance, they substitute X2 analysis for Misra and Gedamu's Chi-square analysis.

The final sections of both articles, the discussion sections, reveal further appropriation by Pan et al on an extensive scale. The appropriation of Misra and Gedamu's concluding comments are particularly disturbing as the usefulness and potential application of their genetic engineering research is parroted from their fellow scientists.

Misra and Gedamu had demonstrated in their 1989 article that genetic engineering of plants for heavy metal tolerance held promise for "partitioning toxic metals in unconsumed parts of the plant" and for facilitating "reclamation of wastelands and mine spoils." Pan (et al) appropriated the conclusions of Misra and Gedamu as is glaringly evident.

The first paragraph of Pan et al's discussion section seems to be mainly of their own construction. However, beginning in the second paragraph, they appropriate the wording of the second half of the third paragraph of Misra and Gedamu's discussion section. Skipping the fourth paragraph of Misra and Gedamu's discussion section, Pan et al begin copying again from Misra and Gedamu's ending paragraph, this time copying nearly the entire paragraph with only the omission of several lines and the omission of a reference to Sherlock and Van Bruwne.

Pan Aihua et al have borrowed the model framework of Misra and Gedamu to "plug in" their own research results for their 1994 article, and they have appropriated the text structure, the presentation of results, and the conclusions reported by Misra and Gedamu in the 1989 issue of Theoretical Applied Genetics. When confronted, the Pan Aihua and colleagues agreed that "There is a significant degree of identity in the wording" but they refuted the charge of plagiarism saying "we have all the original data" (Xiguang Li and Xiong Lei 1996).

However, Plant Molecular Biology editor R. Schilperoot's conclusion was that although original results had been reported, "it is not acceptable practice to copy text--not even small passages--from published materials without reference." Later, Pan Aihua, who had been the main author of the article, claimed that the appropriation was a result of "his limited knowledge of English." A language "plug-in" framework was used to compensate for the fear held by many Chinese scientists, obviously including Pan (et al), "that they can't compete equally in Western journals because of a problem with English" (Xiguang & Xiong 1996).

It seems possible that these Peking University scientists who had appropriated Misra and Gedamu's text had come from a background (previous education as well as the general academic climate of the early 1990s at Peking University) which was somewhat tolerant of the use of derivation/copying as a second language writing strategy.

In order to compete on "equal" footing with native English speaking professionals, as Xiguang Li and Xiong Lei note, many Chinese scientists believe that copying the work of others and adding some new material, as Pan (et al) have done, "is not considered an aberration but part of an attitude that says it's OK to copy as long as you've done the work yourself."

[see also the Guo Jingming plagiarism case for further discussion of linguistic templates and derivation by second language writers]

References

End Profile SCMD-1994-AP/MY/FT/LL/ZC/BR

... ...

________________________________________________________________________________

Anonymous Research Center

This institution is known for various publications, high-profile conferences, and research training initiatives

While conducting research on Famous Plagiarists, a serious case of plagiarism at the professional level came to the attention of the current researcher. This case seemed to have all of the elements needed to illustrate the disruptive nature of a discourse community interchange where a writer has chosen to import an exterior text into the reader-writer interaction and the space surrounding the text, or the discourse community itself.

Unfortunately, the anonymity of both the research institution and the plagiarist must be preserved due to the following circumstances:

1) These allegations have not yet been published in the professional literature or public media

2) Legal threats from--and a confidentiality agreement with--the research center in question prohibit divulging specific details

In this particular case, the discourse community comprised a number of well known and prestigious research institutions and government "think tanks". The Research Center publishes a number of lectures, papers, and books each year and serves as a focal point for discussion and debate on issues of global importance.

The writer who had submitted a derivative compilation of unacknowledged source texts as an "original" manuscript for publications consideration back in 1999-2000 was a widely known scholar who will be referred to in this profile by the pseudonym of Dr. Plagiarist in the following discussion.

The initial readers in the interaction were referees who evaluated Dr. Plagiarist's paper which he had submitted for possible publication in an "Occasional Papers" series published by the Center, and the text itself was related to the impact of the petroleum industry on the environment.

The derivative manuscript submitted to the publications department of the Center was found to contain plagiarism by a manuscript referee in the process of evaluating the paper for possible publication as a monograph supposedly representing research by a leading scholar on petroleum and the environment. Here was a case of plagiarism which, thanks to the examiner who discovered it, had been prevented from creating a larger disruption to the discourse community than the disruption already caused by its discovery prior to publication. Out of three referees, one had already (conditionally) recommended the article for publication.

What might have happened had not the other perceptive reviewer, a scholar with expertise in petroleum economics, noticed the derivation due to his familiarity with the sources cited by Dr. Plagiarist ? What if two of the reviewers had recommended the paper for publication, conditional or otherwise? Conceivably the disruption to valid discoursal interchange could have been much worse.

But why should this instance of plagiarism be seen as a disruption to the discourse community in the first place? For that matter, why should any instances of derivation/plagiarism be seen as a disruption to a discourse community? In attempting to answer these questions by showing how such derivation/plagiarism does indeed constitute a discourse community disruption, the case of Dr. Plagiarist will be briefly analysed, and an analogy will be made of certain ideology underlying particular interpretations of plagiarism and plagiarations as forms of postmodern disinformation and propaganda.

As such, plagiarism, and the poststructuralist propagandists/disinformers in this Postmodern Age of Cut-n-Paste should be given no quarter in the ideological warfare occurring within discourse communities of scholars, researchers, and intellectuals who wish to maintain the integrity, vitality, and genuineness of their communicative interchange.

At stake is the very life of a discourse community. If an attack is made on the texts and written communications of a community, the lifeblood of genuine interchange is spilled. And as the attack is, so should the response be, one which will thwart the enemy's influence, one which will preserve the lifeblood of dynamic and genuine interchange, one which will strategically target the supply lines, ammunition, and logistical support of an enemy who hopes to gain in territory, power, and superiority of influence while continuing a hostile invasion of the domains of genuine, relevant, meaningful, unfalsified, accurate, truthful, bona fide scholarly interaction (in this case, one of the manuscript referees explicitly stated his trust in the good faith, or bona fide contribution, of the author, who had in fact plagiarized).

Where the enemy has infringed and encroached, in the journals, in the infiltrated institutions, in the subversive indoctrination camps, these must remain until their liberation from poststructuralist influence as the abode of war, and warfare is always a very unpleasant reality. As Todd Leventhal (1999) has explained in his study of Iraqi propaganda and disinformation, "The harsh glare of war throws the actions of states as well as individuals into stark relief. War demands an all-out effort that sweeps away niceties and illuminates what may have previously remained hidden. Policies, practices and people reveal themselves in extremis." Such an observation would seem to have great relevance for today's "War on Plagiarism" within the Postmodern Age of Cut-n-Paste.

The case of plagiarism which infiltrated this particular discourse community aptly illustrates the disruptive nature of plagiarism and ideological warfare to genuine, academic, scholarly interchange, and it provides a sort of independent validation of certain observations made in other cases of plagiary, particularly with regard to the features of derivative text, and the (disruptive) nature of (derivative) discoursal interchange. In this case, a respected scholar had submitted a paper relating to oil and the environment. The manuscript, under consideration for publication as a monograph, was sent out for independent evaluation to the first 2 out of 3 referees with expertise in the subject area of the monograph. Referee 1 rejected the paper on the basis of the unacceptable research practice (plagiarism) which was evident in the manuscript.

The following is a summary of Referee 1's evaluation. Referee 1 described the manuscript as lacking "the organization, originality and established practices in citing references and writing the bibliography." He also highlighted the lack of topical organisation (disjunctures), the extensive summary, and verbatim copying using "exact wordings" from source texts. The disjunctures observed, along with the irrelevant information present in the manuscript, are described by Referee 1 in detail:

. . . The author then jumps abruptly to analyze the framework of the oil market . . . The paper then jumps . . . This lack of organization has affected the paper's analytical value.

Errors of informational incongruency are also highlighted, with reference to the author's use of two model cases which have differing oil yield projections, but there is "no attempt from the author to reconcile the differences . . . ." Such errors of informational incongruency are now recognized as a category of error resulting from the copying and juxtaposition of source texts, or from use of a text template which does not quite fit the information or data being conveyed through that framework.

Referee 1 notes that "Chapters two and six are irreconcilable since they analyze two different models." The discoursal flow of the derivative manuscript "jumps" back and forth through a series of disjunctures and poor transitions which have resulted from the source text re-combination strategies of the author in forming a hybrid language manuscript.

Most seriously, Referee 1 has highlighted the derivative nature of the manuscript, the "outright copying [of] paragraphs or texts from other papers and research without proper reference or quotation." Referee 1's judgment on his fellow colleague and discourse community member is no anaemic excuse for plagiarism on the grounds of differing ideology, or the influence of culture (i.e. the rote-learning of the Quran influence which certain other discourse analysis experts have invoked). No, this judgment by a fellow scholar, from within the same culture and the same discourse community, is justly scathing and harsh:

The lack of Organization of the paper might have been overlooked or dealt with accordingly had the paper exhibited originality and thorough research. But, unfortunately, the paper resorts to outright copying paragraphs or texts from other papers and research and without proper reference or quotation. This is an unaccepted research practice . . . Relying exclusively on one reference in supporting the author's argument is one thing and outright copying of the argument and analysis is quite another.

The first referee included copies of two specific source texts from which the author had lifted text, and he had highlighted the passages which had been copied (The texts were (a) Ghanem, C., Lounnas, R., and Brennand, G. (1999). "The impact of emissions trading on OPEC" OPEC Review 23 (2), and (b) - - - (1997). "Implications of the post-Uruguay round international trading system for petroleum-exporting countries and for international trade in petroleum and petroleum products." UNCTAD).

Referee 1 also surmised that the "same pattern of copying without proper references" could be proven by consulting other sources listed by the author in the bibliography. It seemed that the referee was able to recognise the features of derivative text in the author's manuscript in much the same way that teachers are able to spot derivation in student work--obvious clues give the game away.

Finally, Referee 1 pointed out the author's unconventional, separate listing of his own publications "whether relevant to the material or not" (Ironically, this prideful act of the author resulted in the reviewer (Referee 1) being able to identify the author in what would have otherwise been a blind or anonymous manuscript review).

The second referee's comments were much in line with Referee 1's evaluation, although Referee 2 did not have the benefit of realising just how derivative the manuscript was. This paper might have been published had not Referee 1 discovered the plagiarism since Referee 2 had recommended the manuscript for publication, conditional on revising and rewriting. Had a third reviewer recommended the manuscript, conditionally or otherwise, the paper would have been accepted for publication as an "Occasional Papers" monograph by the Center, but fortunately, the discovery of plagiarism resulted in outright rejection of the paper without it undergoing a review by a third referee.

Referee 2, although he did not realise the extent of the plagiarism, recommended that "Bibliographic references should be included to suggest examples of whom the author actually has in mind." He also noted the serious disjunctures and lack of transitions (resulting from the manuscript's having been compiled from copied source text), and he wrote "I suggest a reorganization of this work." He also gave an extensive redrafting plan.

According to the evaluation of Referee 2, the manuscript lacked "an ease of exposition . . . [and] the sorts of transitions from one section to another, that make for easy reading and contextualization." Referee 2 recommended that "[t]he analysis itself just needs to be presented in a more flowing manner, so that the reader does not have to work so hard to ascertain the thought, and can spend more time on actually digesting it." The manuscript needed a "re-drafting, to improve continuity and thus also clarity".

An obvious lack of referencing and citation was also evident to Referee 2, and he asked the author "to expand the specific documentary references" advising that "The actual citation of the material used would add significant authority to his arguments." Meanwhile, in making his recommendations, Referee 2 was trusting "the good faith of the author" but unfortunately he was deceived into thinking that this manuscript was a genuine, original contribution to the strategic studies discourse community interchange.

In fact, it was not. The manuscript was a compilation, a hybrid language text, a fraudulent representation by the author of work which was not his own. This paper represented a seriously deceptive product of an individual's disinformation campaign, an attempt to gain monetary remuneration (payment for published monographs amounted to US$1500 at the time) and academic recognition which were most emphatically undeserved.

In addition to the disjunctures, the lack of organization, the missing referencing and source documentation for very specific items of information, the manuscript contained the type of errors which result from a mechanical, scribal manner of copying from a text, and perhaps also resulting from the copiest making slight changes in wording which result in subtle ungrammaticalities due to the writer's not possessing a native linguistic proficiency which might permit a smoother recontextualisation and a less noticeable style of text re-combination.

For example, at one point in the manuscript the author copied from the UNCTAD paper "a balancing was not supportable in Article III:4" omitting the word that from the original text which read "a balancing that was not supportable under Article III:4." At another point, in copying from the same article, the author wrote "Failing to use Method 2, use data on quality post-1990 gasoline blendstock or gasoline." The author has here slightly deviated from the wording of the original which read "if the evidence in this respect is not complete, they must use data on the quality of blendstock produced in 1990 ('Method 2') or, failing that, use data on quality of post-1990 gasoline blendstock or gasoline."

In slightly changing the original phrasing, the author has created a grammatically imperative construction which does not fit with the preceding discourse. In keeping with the preceding grammatical structures he should have written "Failing to use Method 2, they [referring to the antecedent individual refiners] must use . . . ."

At another point, another error occurs with a slight change in the original source text wording. The author mistakenly omits the indefinite article in writing "Under the last rule, domestic refiner must maintain . . . ."

Thus, there have been copying mistakes which resemble very closely the copying mistakes made by college student-plagiarists on occasion in their patterns of source text appropriation. Also significant in this case, there is an extensive pattern of appropriation, and an awkwardly implemented fitting back together or recontextualisation of copied source texts, very similar to other plagiarists' patterns of appropriation. And as such appropriation is obvious to teachers aware of a student's writing capabilities, so the derivation in the EOP manuscript was obvious to Referee 1, and the textual features of derivation (but not the specific fact of plagiarism) were also evident to Referee 2 (who trusted the "good faith" of the author).

Through this author's submission of a derivative manuscript to be considered for publication, a disruption was caused. This disruption included a breach of trust between the research center staff and the author, and between Referee 1 and the author. The publications department's view was that if this paper had been published, it would have potentially damaged the image and credibility of the Center, and so as a result of this breach of trust, the department recommended the following:

In view of this and previous experience with regard to Dr. Plagiarist, I would suggest that he should definitely not be considered for any future publication/research project by the center, whether as a contributor, author, referee, or even as a conference presenter. [this previous experience indicates that this 2000 case was not the first instance of plagiarism discovered by the Center staff. Previously, Dr. Plagiarist had tried to submit as an individual research project a report which, in fact, had been a collaborative effort involving other researchers!].

 

In addition to a breach of trust, the disruption also involved a wasting of time in evaluating this derivative manuscript. Within the Center's publications department (as within any publishing house), many hours go into preparing each manuscript for review, finding suitable referees, posting the manuscripts, corresponding with referees, and finally, reviewing their written evaluations. Much money is spent as well, US$300 dollars being paid at the time to each referee for the manuscript evaluation. This amounts to US$900 dollars for the manuscript evaluation process for one paper, not including the time spent by internal staff in facilitating the review process. Potentially, even more time and resources could have been wasted in preparing this derivative manuscript for publication, but fortunately it did not get to this stage.

Conceivably, if fraudulent, plagiarised manuscripts make it to the publications stage, more serious disruptions to the discourse community might ensue. In the strategic studies discourse community, information is important in informing policy and decision-making at the highest levels of government. If this information is false, fraudulent, outdated, or misrepresented, then the decision-making and policy-making process can be undermined.

Of course the extent of the damage done depends on how extensive the plagiarism is, and on how dated, inaccurate, and fraudulent the information is.

In this postmodern age of plunder (AKA The Postmodern Age of Cut-n-Paste) , there are some striking similarities that postmodernism's propagation of ideology has with the forms of disinformation and propaganda employed by ruthless governmental regimes for whom untruthfulness, "lies, deceptions, half-truths, forgeries and other forms of unscrupulous media manipulations" (Levanthal 1999) are the means of maintaining totalitarian control. In those parts of the postmodernist-influenced academy which have been infiltrated by purveyors of poststructuralist propaganda and disinformation, whether at an individual or collective level, the subversion continues.

By definition, propaganda involves "information, arguments and images that appeal mainly to the emotions of a target audience" (Levanthal 1999) for example, the argument that the so-called Enlightenment engendered construct of plagiarism is a tool of imperialism (Pennycook 1996).

Who would want to be accused of continuing the imperialist era through imperialistic oppression of students in former colonies? No one would, but the argument, for all of its emotional appeal, is a form of propaganda designed to invoke images of empire and colonial oppression, but as Sower (1999) has argued, such propaganda "goes beyond the justifiable trashing of the jingoism of a darker era and crosses over into discounting the good-faith efforts of educators trying to extend the knowledge of the field."

Such "attempt[s] to induce guilt and shame" can be "effective, emotion-based propaganda" (Levanthal 1999), and the propaganda purveyors' (i.e. Pennycook and Scollon) invocation of heavyweights such as Barthes and Foucault as primary influences must not remain unignored. But the task of confronting any form of propaganda is an unpleasant one, for one must come to grips with emotionally-laden issues, containing elements of truth, but nevertheless underlying a vast and pervasive network of poststructuralist influence, something akin to a regime who like ruthless governmental regimes will "engage in all sorts of lies, deceptions, half-truths" (Levanthal) toward the ends of achieving power and control within academe.

Propaganda, or the use of emotionally-laden ideas, represents an attempt to influence perceptions. In the case of plagiarism and postmodernism, propagandists would have the general populace in academe believe that the issue of plagiarism is relative, that in certain times, in certain cultures, in certain places, it might be all right to plunder the ideas and hard work of others. Disinformation, as opposed to propaganda, comprises the falsifications and deceptions themselves, and thus continuing the analogy of postructuralist ideology as forms of disinformation and propaganda, the resultant plagiarism and textual fabrications/falsifications are forms of disinformation, deceptions "masquerading as fact" (Levanthal 1999).

Levanthal, who served as Senior Policy Officer for Countering Disinformation and Misinformation in the USIA (United States Information Agency) from 1987 to 1996, correctly notes that "it is important to recognize that if disinformation claims go unchallenged--even if they run counter to logic and known facts--they can be widely believed and do tremendous, lasting damage." He further illustrates in his monograph on the Iraqi disinformation and misinformation campaign "how cheap and easy it is to engage in disinformation."

How cheap and easy indeed! In some instances, the disinformation or plagiarism is simply a matter of switching terminology, such as exchanging cervical cancer for throat cancer. In other instances there is a simple "plugging in" of scanty bits of research data (whether falsified or genuine), or in other instances there might be a payment for someone else to compose a text for submission to the reader-writer interchange. And there also explanations for plagiary which reference postmodern literary genres as if verbatim *intertextuality* were just part and parcel of postmodern literary composing:

As a writer, I consider myself a postmodern regionalist, that is, as an artist I have sought to marry the sense of Southern place and identity found in the works of William Faulkner and Flannery O'Connor with postmodern novels of cultural information and fragmentation popularized by authors such as Don DeLillo and Thomas Pynchon (Brad Vice quoted in J. Sledge's "Plagiarism charges pull prize-winner from shelves").

Thus, an investigation of the explanatory variables and dynamic interactions involved in derivative writing contexts reveals the necessity of countering the propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation of the poststructuralists and their ilk. It becomes vitally important to challenge the cheapness of knowingly, fraudulently "contributing" a plagiarised work to what should be a genuine discourse community interchange.

What seems to be one of the best options for countering postructuralist propaganda would be to isolate within their own Wastelands those who choose not to participate in discourse community interchange according to the accepted standards and conventions of the international discourse community. To be able to maintain pockets of productive interchange and interaction, uncorrupted by obfuscation, withstanding the pervasive postmodernist influence, seems to be a feasible goal, pockets of resistance against the enemy-Plagiarists.

More to the point in this case, why would a fairly reputable research center continue to harbor an enemy-Plagiarist? The plagiarist featured in this profile, although discovered on at least several occasions to have engaged in some rather extensive and quite serious instances of plagiarism, has had feature articles posted on the Center's website as recently as May 2005. In spite of the Publications Department recommendation that this plagiarist "should definitely not be considered for any future publication/research project by the center, whether as a contributor, author, referee, or even as a conference presenter", the Center continues to collaborate with the Plagiarist-enemy. This would seem to be more of an indictment against the character of an institution (and its leadership) rather than merely an individual plagiarist.

Note: Dr. Plagiarist is a pseudonym for the plagiarist in this profile who must remain anonymous for the time being due to legal threats and a confidentiality agreement.

References

End Profile SCMD-2000-ANON

... ...

________________________________________________________________________________

Charles J. Arntzen

Pioneering edible vaccine development; former editorial board member for Science; appointed by President George W. Bush to the President's council on Science and Technology

Many graduate students have made important discoveries and contributions to scientific research only to have their work appropriated by an adviser or senior colleague with more clout and weight to throw around. Such students find themselves with little recourse, and if they do raise their voice in complaint, they may find themselves facing severe recriminations for daring to question the plagiaristic behavior of a tenured, powerful, and corrupt scientific overlord.

All of a sudden, the lowly graduate student finds himself cut out of the deal for important researh projects. He finds himself out of laboratory space, out of a research assistantship, out of a job, and maybe even out of a career. Such sob stories are not just out of the ordinary, scare-mongering urban legends. Horrific experiences have befallen numerous graduate student researchers bold enough to let out so much as a peep of protest against the greedy usurpation of their hard labor by a senior researcher.

The case of Dwayne D. Kirk at ASU seems to have had a happier outcome than the ongoing saga of Michael Pyshnov at the University of Toronto. As reported by T. Bartlett and S. Smallwood in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Kirk discovered that his mentor and adviser, Professor Charles J. Arntzen, had lifted portions of a paper which Kirk had authored individually for publication in a book on Genetically Modified Foods. Arntzen appropriated this material verbatim from Kirk's article for use as part of a cut-n-paste composing strategy in a chapter which he submitted for publication in Vaccines: Preventing Disease and Protecting Health. About one third of Arntzen's chapter in this book came from Kirk's article, and the rest of the text was lifted, or self-plagiarized, from another published article written in collaboration with another ASU colleague.

Arntzen even admitted his "cutting and pasting" strategy, justifying his behavior by claiming that such derivation and recycling of text is a common phenomenon in the scientific discourse communities!

Arntzen tried to throw in a few distracting elements to disguise the serious issue of plagiarizing a colleague's work. For example, he claimed that the issue was just a personal misunderstanding between himself and his former student. He also claimed that he had intended to insert Kirk's name as a co-author when the galley proofs arrived for a final proofread, and because those proofs never came, this final change was never made. In fact, the proofs were sent to Professor Arntzen as book editor Ciro A. de Quadros insisted, supporting Kirk's version of this plagiarism incident.

Kirk filed a formal complaint with the ASU when he found himself excluded from important research projects. As a result of such cases, critics have called for greater accountability in the scientific disciplines. Graduate students and junior researchers deserve credit and recognition for their contributions to scientific advancement, and as demonstrated by other notable cases of scientific misconduct, the potential for corruption of the scientific and professional discourse should not be taken lightly.

Straightforward observation of the scientific misconduct phenomenon demonstrates that scientific researchers who get away with the first few instances of misconduct may be in the fastlane toward becoming career plagiarists, fabricators, and/or falsifiers capable of contributing hundreds of questionable articles and research reports to the professional literature over the course of a fraudulent career (cf. J.W. Grove 1996 and other cases reported in this webspace).

References

End Profile SCMD-2004-CJA

... ...