From: D.J. Keenan
Sent: 24 March 2009 21:19
Subject: Predication #XXXX: Research fraud by Wei-Chyung Wang and apparent cover up by the University at Albany

Dear XXX,
We spoke by telephone about the research fraud committed by Wei-Chyung Wang, at the University at Albany, using DOE funds.  To briefly recap, Wang's fraud comprises data fabrication.  It occurred in 1990, but the research continues to be cited today in important areas of science, and I presume that it is also cited in some of Wang's recent applications for DOE research grants.  An article about the fraud is at
--see especially the Appendix, which details the evidence. I believe that the evidence is conclusive.  Some further notes on the case are at
I reported the fraud to the University in August 2007.  The University then constituted an Inquiry Committee to review the case.  In February 2008, the Inquiry Committee released its report.  A copy of the report is at
(redacted, by the University).  The report states the following, in its review of the evidence for the fraud.  
... there were a sizable number of stations for which there was no data that could be used in defending the statement that these stations had remained relatively "constant".
In saying that "there was no data", the report supports my allegation that Wang fabricated data in his research.  The report goes on to unanimously recommend a full investigation.
An investigation was then undertaken.  In conducting the investigation, though, there were failures to comply with the University's own Policy and Procedures on Misconduct in Research and Scholarship.  Before describing those failures, I first quote from the Federal Register, 10 CFR 600.31(g) [emphasis added]:
By executing this agreement, the recipient provides its assurance that it has established an administrative process for performing an inquiry, mediating if possible, investigating, and reporting allegations of research misconduct; and that it will comply with its own administrative process and the requirements and definitions of 10 CFR part 733 for performing an inquiry, possible mediation, investigation and reporting of allegations of research misconduct.
The University has executed the agreement (via its acceptance of recent DOE grants).  Hence, by failing to comply with its own administrative process for investigating an allegation of research fraud, the University would be in violation of the above-cited federal regulation--even if the fraud occurred long ago.
A copy of the University's Policy is at
Following are excerpts from the Policy, and explanations of why I believe the University's conduct of the investigation failed to comply with that. 
Section III.G:
... At any time during an inquiry or investigation, where applicable, the University shall immediately notify the appropriate federal sponsoring agency ... if there is a reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law....
Making a federal grant application that cites research that is known to be fraudulent is a violation of criminal law.  For Wang, the report from the University's own Inquiry Committee states that "there was no data"; so the University had a reasonable indication that each federal grant application made by Wang that cited the fraudulent research was committing the crime.  (Disclaimer: I have no legal training, and my opinions here are based solely on my own admittedly-weak understanding of the laws.)  Thus, by Section III.G of the Policy, the University should have immediately notified the DOE.  It did not do so.
A seemingly-similar case of a scientist citing his own fraudulent research occurred with Eric Poehlman, in 2005.  There, the court found the crime serious enough to sentence Poehlman to a year and a day in federal prison.
Section V.G:
... The Vice President for Research shall notify ... the complainant ... of the President’s decision [to conduct a full investigation].
I was not notified of the decision to conduct an investigation until after the investigation was done.
Section VI.C:
...  The Vice President for Research will also notify the complainant in writing of the initiation of the investigation....
Again, I was not notified of the initiation of the investigation until after the investigation was done.
Section VI.D:
... The investigation process will include, but not necessarily be limited to, examination of pertinent research data and written materials, interviews with all individuals involved either in making the allegation or against whom the allegation is made....
I was not interviewed, or contacted in any other way, during the investigation process.  (This would also seem to be a violation of natural justice.)
Section VI.E:
The Investigation Committee will prepare a written report of the conclusions of the investigation. ...
The Vice President for Research will provide ... the complainant with those portions of the draft report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation. The respondent and complainant will be given 14 calendar days from the transmission of the report to provide their written comments. ....
I was not provided with any portions of the draft report.  When I asked for such, I was informed that I "did not receive a copy of the Investigation report because the report did not include portions addressing your role and opinions in the investigation phase".
The report of the investigation apparently concluded that there was "no evidence whatsoever [of] … any research misconduct".  I say "apparently" because the University has thus far refused to send me a copy of the report.  I have a Freedom-of-Information request for the report pending.
It is also my understanding that when an institution decides to investigate alleged research fraud, it must notify the DOE.  Apparently, however, there was no such notification.  I have been trying to confirm that: the University did not reply when I asked them about that, and I now have a Freedom-of-Information request for that pending.
Since 1990, Wang has received many federal research grants, from both the DOE and other agencies.  Wang's most-recent grant from the DOE, of which I am aware, was for $1.3 million.  A press release about that grant, dated 24 January 2007, is at
Douglas J. Keenan