--- Begin Forwarded Message ---

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:03:17 -0500

From: "Dr. Brian J. Keay" <keayb@ci516372-a.nash1.tn.home.com>

Subject: Several First Amendment issues.

Sender: "Dr. Brian J. Keay" <keayb@ci516372-a.nash1.tn.home.com>

To: ellen.friedkin@senate.ucsb.edu

Reply-To: "Dr. Brian J. Keay" <keayb@ci516372-a.nash1.tn.home.com>

Message-ID: <200010102103.e9AL3Hv04367@ci516372-a.nash1.tn.home.com>

Dear Prof. Friedkin:

It was suggested to me that I try writing to you (and the other

members of the Academic Senate at UCSB) to bring to your attention

a very alarming situation, one in which I would have never imagined

could occur in the United States. (I tried writing previously to various

members of the Senate and the administration, but

I received few responses.) Just in case you didn't receive my previous

letter, I'm a physicist who

as a graduate student worked on a series of ground breaking

experiments at UCSB's Free-Electron Laser (FEL) Center

from 1991 to 1995. These experiments included the first observation

of photon-assisted tunneling in semiconductors and were among the

most important involving semiconductors in recent years. They have

also led to a revolutionary new kind of laser, the Quantum Cascade

Laser, invented at Bell-Labs (http://www.bell-labs.com/org/physicalsciences/projects/qcl/qcl.html)

and discussed frequently in scientific journals. Several companies

throughout the world are now pursuing the commercial development of

these new lasers which could potentially earn the companies tens of

millions of dollars in the near future. The response to my work,

however, and my role in the discovery of the principles that helped

lead to these revolutionary new lasers, has been systematic harassment

and intimidation. The last eight years have been a nightmarish

experience, one which has been reminiscent of McCarthyism.

The source of this nightmare has been Dr. Jim Allen, director of the

FEL program at UCSB. In 1995, after many years of

hard work and many outstanding results which brought UCSB's

FEL program international recognition, Dr. Allen threatened to

cut me off financially with no warning whatsoever. My main concern

at that time was to find a job. I had been looking for over a

year and I could not find a single job in spite of many outstanding

results, publications in some of the most prestigious journals,

invitations to speak at the most prestigious conferences, and

even though I had sent over three hundred resumes to

research labs and universities all over the world. My inability to

find work is even more alarming if one considers that several of my

references expressed positive opinions of me--without me

inquiring--and that scientists with my experience are in extremely

high demand by the semiconductor industry.

To Dr. Allen, however, I was a competitor and he believed it was not in

his interests for me to have a successful career. He was obsessed with

the ownership and domination of the scientific results and he was

particularly threatened by the fact that I wanted to publish a paper

which gave an interpretation of photon-assisted tunneling that differed

from his. He made it clear that I would not find employment until I

ceased any further discussion of my interpretation. "You can't have

your cake and eat it too" were among his comments on my search for

employment. The paper was finally submitted for publication in January

1996 against his direct warnings not to even to talk about the subject.

For him, his ability to control whether or not I found employment

became a bargaining chip to be used to prevent me from discussing my

interpretation. Four years later he is still able to prevent me from

finding a job and this fact is still being used to try to silence me,

although now I believe he is trying to prevent me from talking about

my experiences, some of which are now described on my websites:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Bridge/4116/

http://science.jumpeducation.com

http://physicssanctuary.members.easyspace.com.

http://www.homestead.com/physicssanctuary/files/

http://members.home.net/keay/

It has been clear that potential employers have been contacted by

someone on Jim Allen's behalf. Indeed, while I was in Santa Barbara

I overheard by accident Dr. Allen himself making an unsolicited

phone call to a potential employer telling them, among other things;

"You might be hearing from this student.....Well, he has back-to-back

Physical Review Letters [a very prestigious journal], but he's just

not there as a researcher". This incident only confirmed that

the subtle threats he made against my career were not a bluff.

Only after intervention from the chairman of the physics department

at the University of California did I receive two job offers in the

last week of March, 1996, more than three months after I

successfully defended my dissertation. Remarkably, both those job

offers were to work at Vanderbilt University. In total, I've mailed

nearly a thousand resumes during the last five years to research

labs, universities, and corporations all over the world. During that

time I have received a total of three job offers to work at

Vanderbilt University and zero offers to work any where else in

the world. Vanderbilt University has been willing to consistently

offer me jobs, yet no one else in the world has been willing to

consider me. It is evident that Jim Allen has had an influence at

Vanderbilt University and that is why I've been kept here. Besides

coming to Vanderbilt several times himself and attempting to get

me to work with him again, Jim Allen's ability to exert a negative

influence over my work environment at Vanderbilt has been clear.

Since I arrived here in Nashville my life has been made very

difficult. I believe my efforts to do experiments, for example,

were consistently undermined by dubious equipment failures. It is

truly remarkable, for example, that at the same time Vanderbilt's

FEL program was in the process of winning approval from the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) to perform brain surgery, the laser,

which is run by a staff of engineers, would consistently crash and

fail during my experiments. While some of the "crashes" I'm sure

were legitimate, some of them obviously were not. These types of

incidents happened for months on end. How could they win approval

from the FDA to perform brain surgery, yet for me the FEL would

consistently not function? This made progress almost impossible,

but at the same time I was told that I must use the FEL in my work.

I was also threatened to be cut off financially while at Vanderbilt

and I was even suspended without pay for two months for reasons

that changed from one week to the next. First I was told that the

entire Medical FEL program in the United States had been cut, then

I was told that there was funding and there were other reasons for

terminating my employment. I believe this was part of an effort to

silence and intimidate me. At the same time I've been pressured to

work again with Jim Allen, who has been here several times and once

told me I would be "rich and famous" if I worked with him again. I

have rejected his advances and instead of "rich and famous" I am

unemployed and slowly approaching financial destitution. The choice

has been apparently to either work with him again or he would

continue to pursue the destruction of my career. I would be

astonished if a law has not been violated, but at the very least

Dr. Allen's behavior has been extremely unethical. Using career

opportunities and federal research funds as weapons to suppress the

free expression of ideas is extortion and blackmail. It is also a

violation of the American Physical Society Guidelines for Professional

Conduct, the University of California Policy on Integrity in Research,

and a clear violation of the Federal Research Guidelines. Retaliation

for reporting misconduct is also a clearly stated violation

of these guidelines.

Although Jim Allen has been the obvious source of the harassment and

intimidation, it is also clear that he would not be able accomplish

his goals without help. When I arrived at Vanderbilt I was told by

the former director of Vanderbilt's FEL program, Dr. Glenn Edwards,

that several members of the national FEL program, run by the Office

of Naval Research, were under investigation for misconduct. He did

not say who was under investigation or for what, but I can't help

wondering if my experiences are related to this investigation.

Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. House

of Representatives' Committee on Science suggested that I might

wish to contact the Inspector General of the appropriate federal

agency with my concerns. I have contacted people at the Office of

Naval Research (ONR), which oversees the FEL program in the United

States, but I have not received any response regarding my objections

to Dr. Allen's behavior. A new commander, Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen,

took charge of the ONR on June 7th, 2000 and on July 8th I sent a

another letter, similar to this one. In addition to reporting my

concerns again, I tried, unsuccessfully, to verify some of the

things I was told about the Medical FEL program. In particular,

whether the Vanderbilt's FEL program was cut 100%, as I was told.

I also inquired whether it is true that there is an investigation

of misconduct, whether the investigation is still ongoing, and who

is conducting the investigation? I haven't received a response to

any of these questions.

I have also contacted people at the U.S. Army Research Office, the

U.S. Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, the

National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, the

Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National Labor

Relations Board. While I have received several responses, as far

as I know, no action is currently being taken. The National Labor

Relations Board did give a response and advised me that I could

file a complaint, but without a formal complaint and an investigation

they could not determine whether my experiences fall under their

jurisdiction. My own belief is that without someone offering

information about being contacted by Jim Allen or admitting to

taking part in a process of harassment and intimidation, such a

complaint would be pointless. After witnessing first hand in Santa

Barbara how Dr. Allen was able to intimidate into silence a tenured

faculty member who wanted to talk to me about my difficulties, it

seems very unlikely that there would be much cooperation in an

investigation. Such a complaint I think would be analogous to a

blacklisted scientist filing a complaint against Senator McCarthy

in the 1950's.

Finally, I would just like to say that it is truly a tragedy that

a person's simple dream of studying science could instead lead to

such a nightmare. While my experiences are alarming, they are not

unheard of in academia. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the

letter that I have sent to many members of the scientific community

and members of congress which discusses more generally the problem

of abuse of junior scientists in the United States. I have made a

considerable effort to raise awareness to these kind of outrages

and to try to seek help in my own case. And now I've even received

several threats from the @Home Network and others that my internet

service may be cut off for communicating this message (shown below).

There has been a lot of discussion in the scientific literature

recently about the plight of junior scientists and the National

Academy of Sciences released a report on September 11, 2000, a report

entitled, A Guide to the Postdoctoral Experience. What I believe is

needed to prevent this kind harassment and intimidation is strong

leadership. Just as the end of McCarthyism was brought about, to a

large extent, by the courage of one person, Edward Morrow, strong

leadership is needed both to expose these kind of outrages and to show

that they are not acceptable. Any assistance you could give would be

greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Brian J. Keay, Ph.D.

Enc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear X:

As your fellow scientist I am writing to you to express my concern

about the working conditions of junior scientists in the

United States. It is well known that we are entering an exciting

new age in which science and technology are becoming ever more

important in our daily lives. It is also widely recognized that being

competitive in science and technology will be essential to the

United States' continued economic prosperity. It is with great relief

that I see that many of our representatives in government take the

initiative in increasing our investitures in scientific research and

science education. At the same time, however, one of the most

important group of scientists are working under conditions that would

not be tolerated in other areas of society. A major portion of the

scientific research in the United States is done by graduate students

and post-doctoral researchers (e.g. Science 285,1513; 1999). These

young researchers are among the brightest and hardest working society

has to offer. To get to the Ph.D. level and beyond, they must take the

most difficult courses, survive academic selection processes, pass

advancement and qualifying exams, and then survive the rigors of

scientific research. It is on these people that much of our scientific

competitiveness and our future prosperity rely. This will be even more

true in the years to come. Yet as we enter this new age the number of

students that are pursuing graduate studies in science and

engineering has been declining since 1993 (see the Report to the

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation:

http://208.249.124.108/web/site/bbcharts/bbcharts/bb2.htm)

What is perhaps more alarming is that the "best and brightest" students

are also beginning to avoid science (e.g. Science 288, 43; 1999).

Furthermore, economists and industry leaders have cited the current

shortage of talented and highly skilled technology workers as the

biggest threat to the prosperity found in the new economy. Why,

then, are the young people who actually choose to study science

allowed to be treated so poorly? Graduate students, for example,

are expected to work at least sixty hours per week, yet many earn

a wage near the poverty level, typically between $8,000 and $15,000

per year. Few receive any health coverage from their respective

universities. I've never known of a graduate student researcher

receiving other benefits, such as unemployment insurance. The average

graduate student must work for over six years under these conditions

and the situation is not much better for some postdocs.

What is much worse, however, is that many students and post-doctoral

researchers end up leaving science, not because of the poor pay,

difficult courses and long hours, but because of abusive treatment

from their research advisors. I've known several graduate students and

postdocs, some of which were highly regarded fellowship recipients

and considered among the best in their class, who left science because

of pressure from, or poor relationships with, their supervisors. The

abusive attitudes that often lead to young researchers leaving science

are perhaps best summarized by the well known remarks of one Nobel

laureate described in "Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate

Experiment" by Gary Taubes: "Physicists are like lemons, you squeeze

them for all they are worth and then throw them away." This particular

scientist won the Nobel Prize, but among his students, postdocs and

assistant professors:

One dropped out and went to business school. Another

dropped out and floated around the California drug crowd;

a third drove a cab in Cambridge for years: several just

disappeared. I found one working successfully in industry

in California, who told me that he had been in love with

physics until he met Rubbia, and that anything bad I had

heard about the man was probably true.

What distinguishes this scientist from many others is not that he

thinks crushing people and throwing them away is acceptable, but that

he is outspoken and famous enough that his statement was published.

My own experiences with my former Ph.D. advisor are another example

of a nightmare that can continue to haunt even after graduation.

What should have been an exciting and fulfilling time for me doing

research, instead was the beginning of some sort of Kafkaesque

nightmare. From 1991 to 1995, while I was a graduate student, I worked

on a series of ground breaking experiments which included the first

observation of photon-assisted tunneling in semiconductors. These

experiments were among the most important involving semiconductors in

recent years and have led to a revolutionary new kind of laser, the

Quantum Cascade Laser, invented at Bell-Labs and discussed frequently

in scientific journals:

(http://www.bell-labs.com/org/physicalsciences/projects/qcl/qcl.html)

A relatively new concept in semiconductor laser technology,

the quantum cascade (QC) laser, promises to revolutionize

laser technology in the mid-to far-infrared spectrum.

(Science 286, 2459; 1999)

My main concern by the time I graduated was to find a job. I had been

looking for over a year and I could not find a single job in spite of

many outstanding results, publications in some of the most prestigious

journals, invitations to speak at the most prestigious conferences,

and even though I had sent over three hundred resumes to research labs

and universities all over the world. What I received from my advisor

at this time was a threat to cut me off financially with no warning

whatsoever. This is an example of the total power the dissertation

advisor has over the career of their students. It is also an example

of the total and complete abuse of that power. To my PhD advisor, I

was a competitor and he believed it was not in his interests for me to

have a successful career. He was more concerned about ownership and

domination of scientific results than helping his student or science

itself. He was particularly threatened by the fact that I had an

interpretation of photon-assisted tunneling that differed from his

and he made it clear that I would not find employment until I ceased

any further discussion of my interpretation. "You can't have your cake

and eat it too" were among his comments on my search for employment.

For him, his ability to control whether or not I found employment

became a bargaining chip to be used to prevent me from discussing my

interpretation. Four years later, he is still able to prevent me from

finding a job and this fact is still being used to try to silence

me. Although now, I believe he is trying to prevent me from talking

about my experiences, some of which are described on the following

websites:

http://members.home.net/keay/

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Bridge/4116/

http://science.jumpeducation.com

http://physicssanctuary.members.easyspace.com

http://www.homestead.com/physicssanctuary/files/

It has been a nightmarish experience, not unlike what one would expect

from McCarthyism; and one that certainly has not been consistent with

the principles on which this country was founded. Using career

opportunities and federal research funds as weapons to silence the free

expression of ideas is extortion and blackmail. It is also a violation

of the American Physical Society Guidelines for Professional Conduct,

the University of California Policy on Integrity in Research, and a

clear violation of the Federal Research Guidelines. Retaliation for

reporting misconduct is also a clearly stated violation of these

guidelines. In my opinion this kind of behavior should be a crime. If

career assassination, harassment, intimidation and unemployment are

the responses to major scientific discoveries, made possible with

public money, then God help this nation.

I am certainly not alone in my nightmare experiences. I've heard many

other stories from several different universities that were just as

alarming as mine, some of which have received recent attention in

scientific journals (Science 285, 1516; 1999; Nature 399, 521; 1999).

These sort of incidents almost always result in the junior researcher

being forced out of science by the supervisor. On the other hand, I've

never heard of a case in the United States which ended in the

supervisor facing disciplinarian action; even in the cases in which

wrongdoing was found on the part of a supervisor. It is a system

which, in case of conflict, is designed for the graduate student or

postdoc to fail. These are the elements of an unjust society--one in

which there is an elite nobility, incapable of wrongdoing, and an

oppressed underclass in many cases exploited and abused.

I do not wish to vilify the average scientist or academic at any

level. Scientists are among some of the finest people I know. I

believe, however, that the moral character of scientists and academics

are no better or worse than society in general; rather, they are simply

a mirror image of that society. Scientific achievements also do not

signify moral integrity. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "I've never

observed a man's honesty to increase in proportion to his wealth."

Similarly, I don't believe a scientist's honesty increases in

proportion to his title, or even his scientific achievements. The

problem is not with the moral character of the average scientist, but

the attitudes and environment in which abuse of junior scientists has

been allowed. As another Nobel Laureate once described the problem of

how junior scientists can be mistreated, "Abused children grow up to

abuse their children." Everyone knows that abused children are more

likely to become alcoholics, drug addicts, and are less likely to be

healthy, happy, and productive adults. Why, then, has the atmosphere

of abuse towards junior scientists been allowed? Slavery was once

accepted. Ethnic jokes were once accepted. But condescending jokes

towards graduate students are still accepted. A relatively mild

example is the time a well respected professor gave a colloquium in

front of a filled auditorium. At some point he said:

...and my student brought me the result and I said,

"Are you sure?" He answered, "I'm 90% certain", and

I said, "Do you realize that you just told me that there

is a 10% chance that you aren't going to get your Ph.D.

with me?"

To which the audience broke into laughter. In this example, the

professor was just joking about firing his student. But I know several

cases in which the threats were real. One person from another

university told me that his advisor said: "You know, you don't need a

PhD", in order to force him to start a new experiment only a month

before his final dissertation defense. The professor needed the cheap

labor and he was prepared to use graduation as a bargaining chip even

though the student had completed his dissertation. This particular

professor was also having an affair with one of his graduate students.

This is not behavior that would be accepted in most other areas of

society. What if, in the example in which professor joked about firing

his student the word "student" was replaced with "secretary" and the

professor had said, "Do you realize you just told me that there is a

10% chance I'm going to fire you." Somehow it seems more cruel than

humorous. I don't know very many secretaries that would tolerate that

sort of treatment. But graduate students, under the current conditions,

have to tolerate that treatment and much worse, if they want to have a

career in science. A secretary can quit his or her job and find a

better one, but a Ph.D. is a several-year-investment. Quitting a Ph.D.

not only means throwing away that investment, but it usually means

giving up the dream of studying science as well. Some students and

postdocs literally end up trapped and enslaved--enslaved by their

desire to study science and the almost absolute power a supervisor

can have in determining whether the student will be allowed to achieve

that goal. This sort of power, even in the hands of the most decent

person, can have a corrupting influence. In the hands of an amoral and

ruthless supervisor, it can be disastrous. It is the passion for

science that often pushes students to endure the many years of poverty

wages, long hours, and in many cases, abuse. But everyone has their

limits. And the current system allows supervisors to push junior

scientists beyond those limits on the slightest whim, often with

tragic results. An example of a student who was pushed beyond his

limits, well publicized in the New York Times and discussed often in

scientific journals (e.g. Nature 399,521; 1999), was Jason Altom, a

promising fifth-year graduate student in the chemistry department at

Harvard University who killed himself by taking cyanide. Some of the

details of Altom's suicide note were described in the New York Times:

"This event could have been avoided," the note began.

"Professors here have too much power over the lives of

their grad students." The letter recommended adoption

of a three-member faculty committee to monitor each

graduate student's progress and "provide protection

for graduate students from abusive research advisers.

If I had such a committee now I know things would be

different."

(New York Times Magazine, November 29, 1998, Sunday).

I do not wish to give the impression that the majority of junior

scientists have abusive supervisors. Many graduate students and

post-doctoral researchers have wonderful experiences to look back on.

But too many have miserable, career-ending experiences that could be

easily avoided. To address these issues the National Academy of

Sciences' Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

(COSEPUP), has recently issued a number of guides and policy

recommendations for students, postdocs, mentors and administrators

(http://members.home.net/keay/Ethics.html). These documents include:

* Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students

in Science and Engineering (1997)

* Careers in Science and Engineering: A Student Planning Guide to Grad

School and Beyond (1996)

* On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research,

Second Edition (1995)

* Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers (1995)

* Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers:

A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisors, Institutions, Funding

Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies (2000)

While "squeezing scientists for all they are worth and then throwing

them away" and "using financial support and career opportunities as

weapons of terror" were not included among the recommendations, there

are a number of other recommendations that would be very useful to

improve the working conditions of junior scientists. Like the

Constitution and the Bill of Rights, however, these documents will not

be worth the paper they are written on without the determination and

vigilence of the people. That is why I am writing to you.

I believe Frank Serpico's testimony before a

New York grand jury about the New York Police Department can be

applied towards society as a whole, or the scientific community

in particular:

"Ten percent of the police department is absolutely honest. And ten

percent of the police department is absolutely dishonest. The other 80%

is a vast gray area, most of which wish they were honest."

The goal, Serpico added, should be to create an environment in which

the dishonest police officer fears the honest police officer, instead

of what was the situation at the time, in which the honest officer

feared the dishonest officer. By the same token, the goal in science

should be to create an environment in which the dishonest and abusive

scientist fears the honest and supportive scientist, at any level.

It is not in the long-range interest of this country to support

abusive scientists, no matter what his or her title or record of

accomplishments might be, especially at the expense of the careers

of scores of young scientists who might never even be given

the chance to show their talent and potential as

researchers. The most prosperous nations in the world are

democracies--countries which are governed by the rule of law and the

largest proportion of people are given the opportunity to contribute

to society. People in these nations are also allowed to prosper for

their contributions, certainly not punished for them. In contrast,

many of the most miserable and poorest nations are dictatorships--

nations in which one or a few tyrants hold a death grip on power at the

expense of the well-being of the entire nation. The working conditions

for junior scientists can often resemble more those found in a

dictatorship than those found in a democracy. Whether their experiences

are the kind to look back on with happiness, or are miserable,

career-ending experiences depends too much on luck and the whim of the

supervisor. The people who abuse their students and postdocs depend on

public funding, are usually working under government contracts, and are

entrusted to train and educate young scientists for the benefit of

society. Instead, these public investitures are sometimes viewed as an

opportunity for egocentric self-aggrandizement, and students and

postdocs are little more than tools to meet that end. This, in my

opinion, is a total betrayal of the public trust as well as their

responsibilities as educators and scientists. Squeezing scientists for

all they are worth and throwing them away, while working on government

funded projects, should be a crime. Our nation simply cannot afford to

throw away some of our best and brightest minds. Our national security

and future prosperity depend on a healthy working environment for our

young scientists. Reforms and change to improve the working conditions

of junior scientists are long overdue.

Sincerely yours,

Brian J. Keay, Ph.D.

--- End Forwarded Message ---