If you haven't been following this controversy it begins here. In later comments the charges become quite specific and there are links to download the relevant documents.
Anyone want to predict how this will play out?
Anonymous said...
The posters here are correct. Redondo's case = clear-cut plagiarism. Simple homework: read his "paper" & the "Comment" then follow refs therein.
At any half-decent institution, this sort of gross misconduct would've meant the end of one's scientific career. Not at LANL though where up is down and down is up. The guy stopped doing science, moved into management and years later was made Theoretical Division Leader!
Ask yourself: how can a plagiarist become a leader of a premier division at a major natl lab? The story of corruption actually goes deep here and makes for an interesting investigation. (Hint: Bishop really wanted to install a yes man to do dirty work for him. Redondo fit the bill perfectly: dumb and loyal. Bishop and Terry W. knew very well that Redondo had scientific fraud in his past, but hid that info from the committee. )
This kind of rotten culture permeates LANL. A good investigative journalist only needs to dig a bit -- it's a treasure trove.
11/17/08 12:42 AM
55 comments:
"Anyone want to predict how this will play out?"
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict it has already played out as a nothingburger.
Considering that Terry is buds with Tony, my guess is in addition to his promotion he will get a bonus. Failed scientists stick together...
Somebody should invite Redondo to comment on this.
"What blog?"
-Terry W.
Move along...nothing to see here. -Mike A.
Of course Redondo is invited to comment. As are Wallace and Bishop.
I'm trying to locate Cioslowski (at FSU?) and Levy (retired from Tulane?) to invite their comments as well. If anyone has their email addresses please contact me.
The days of great scientists like Metropolis, Oppie and Feynman are gone from Los Alamos. Most of the people working at LANL these days wouldn't even recognize these famous names. Mediocre guys like Wallace and Redondo rule the roost and are as good as it gets.
In case you didn't realize it, LANL is now being run by a sleazy, profit-whoring construction company. World class laboratories are generally not handed over to management by companies like Bechtel. It's amazing to me that many employees at LANL have yet to grasp this simple, yet vital, fact.
but wait ... I thought UC won the contract. I'm so confused...
(sarcasm for those who don't recognize it)
Based on the information at hand, I know that for any-little-tsm-peeon that there would have been a case review board assembled by now. Looks like the Friends and Family Plan is at work. The rules only apply to TSMs and not managers.
Oppie and Feynman? Who dat?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding.
From LANL: The Real Story:
"Saturday, December 10, 2005
Rumor Fusion
I thought it might be interesting to present a summary of all the rumors that have been sent my way during the past feew weeks regarding the contract announcement. In roughly chronological order, here they are:
1. LM had been awarded the contract.
2. UC had been awarded the contract.
3. Representative Hobson had been spotted storming out of a meeting, furious.
4. The contract announcement would be delayed.
5. The contract announcement would be made on December 9.
6. The contract announcement would be made by December 5.
7. The contract announcement would be made on December 8.
8. UC had won the contract, but Representative Hobson (re: the referenced meeting, above) had furiously sent the verdict back to the jury.
9. NNSA, er, wasn´t ready for the contract change over.
10. LM has won the contract, announcement to come "any day now".
Stay tuned.
-Doug
(# posted by Doug Roberts: 12/10/2005 10:29:00 AM, 4 comments.)"
(At the time, December 10, 2005, LANS was viewed as UC, and not Bechtel, and the competition for the M&O contract of LANL, was viewed as a competition between UC, and Lockheed Martin, and the more realistic competition, the competition between Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin, was not fully understood, and Lockheed Martin lost to Bechtel. Hilarious.)
Cioslowski is now a professor in Poland at the U of Szczecin:
http://www.fiz.univ.szczecin.pl/cioslowski.html
Cioslowski did his postdoc at LANL with Jeff Hay in T-12, when Redondo was group leader. Cioslowski is no lightwheight.
Mel Levy is an even heavier guy in DFT. His comments are to be taken seriously. These comments are as close to formal accusation as you can come in open literature. I've never seen anything like it before!
If Redondo was not wielding life and death decisions over T-division, this would be a nothingburger. However, this certainly speaks volumes to his integrity and judgment, and to the ability of the T-division director hiring committed to vet their candidates.
"In case you didn't realize it, LANL is now being run by a sleazy, profit-whoring construction company"
In case you didn't realize it, the USA is now being run by sleazy, profit-whoring banks. World class democratic republics are generally not handed over to management by companies like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. It's amazing to me that many citezens in the US have yet to grasp this simple, yet vital, fact.
Viva la differance!
11/18/08 9:56 PM
The portfolio of Lockheed Martin:
Defense- and Aerospace Industry.
Products: Ballistic missiles, Fighter aircraft, National Missile Defense, NASA´s Orion Spacecraft, Atlas launch vehicles, Satellite, Radar, Transport aircraft, ATC systems, Munitions.
LANS does not seem to care that many of the DLs and GLs are less than exceptional in the field of technology that they are managing.
I don't think that LANS wants smart people in management positions.
Anyway, it is a well-known fact that "a good manager can manage anthing."
Now, I don't know if that is a true statement since none of our managers would every be called a "good manager."
What's going on in T-Div since the Redondo Re-org?
Have good staff been leaving?
Has funding improved or has it become even more precarious?
What's happen to the morale?
Will T-Div survive at this rate? Does it even matter?
Could someone please post the comments that are being referenced regarding the Redondo paper? Thank you.
to 11:08:
morale is low, even the quality admin staff is leaving. i hear that in tony's old t-12 division, most of the quality staff have left or are leaving. it doesn't look good. funding is still sparse. will t-div survive? not if tony is left in charge. does it matter? lanl will turn into a pit plant in 5 yrs, so no.
"to 11:08:
morale is low, even the quality admin staff is leaving. i hear that in tony's old t-12 division, most of the quality staff have left or are leaving. it doesn't look good. funding is still sparse. will t-div survive? not if tony is left in charge. does it matter? lanl will turn into a pit plant in 5 yrs, so no.
11/19/08 7:20 PM
One of my hobbies is reading busness books. Some good titles are. "The Ten Commandments for Business Failure" by Donald R. Keough "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work" Robert Hare. "Billion-Dollar Lessons: What You Can Learn from the Most Inexcusable Business Failures of the Last 25 Years" Carroll. "The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave: How to Recognize the Subtle Signs and Act Before It's
Too Late" Branham. "30 Reasons Employees Hate Their Managers: What Your People May Be Thinking and What You Can Do About It" Katcher and Synder. These books will give you clear insight into how organizations fail.
How will this play out? It is pretty easy to predict. Posters will plunge their daggers into Tony to vent their frustrations with the lab, management, whatever (it really does not matter), until they run out of steam. Frank will then post some stupid irrelevant shit about legacy waste or something for a while that no one cares about, then some other target will be painted on a different manager who will serve as fodder for the knives for a while. Rinse and repeat.
Sure says a lot about us here in Los Alamos, doesn't it?
11/19/08 11:27 AM,
You can find the links to download the two papers here.
11/19/08 10:11 PM,
Ok, you don't care about plagiarism or legacy waste. What do you care about? Or are you just miserable and wanted to share?
Not miserable. Perfectly happy. I don't get worked up over relatively minor disputes between scientists 20 years ago.
It makes little difference what the issue is.
You tell me what part of how this will play out that I described is wrong.
I didn't say any part of your prediction was wrong or right. Despite what you say you do sound miserable, though. You don't care about this or that, you can't state what you do care about, "It makes little difference what the issue is"...
Perhaps you could just give us a more comprehensive list of things you don't care about. Don't hold back, I'm here for you!
Poster 10:11 PM doesn't seem to fully grasp the fact that people are complaining about high level LANL managers because these same managers have demonstrated poor leadership skills and are helping to plunge LANL into the brink.
Pretending that all is good is not the answer. Things have been getting worse at LANL since LANS took over. Everyone on the staff knows of many good scientists who lost hope and finally gave up in disgust and fled LANL over these last two years.
Time is running out to turn this thing around. Having good leaders is one of the keys to saving LANL, but LANS seems to have a knack of putting very poor leaders in top positions, starting with Mike at the very top.
"Ask yourself: how can a plagiarist become a leader of a premier division at a major natl lab?"
It's simply:
(A) T-Div is no longer a premier division at LANL (or at least LANS appears to feel that way), and
(B) LANL is no longer a major national lab.
That's how.
"Not miserable. Perfectly happy. I don't get worked up over relatively minor disputes between scientists 20 years ago."
No scientist would call this minor.
"No scientist would call this minor."
So... the people who control the money and make the important decisions aren't scientists?
"No scientist would call this minor."
But it does appear to be minor and there appears to have been no further ramifications in 20 years. If there was so much fire, why not? Have any of you actually looked up the references and verified the facts for yourselves? Reading Tony's paper and the rebuttal alone is not sufficient. Either way, if it was as simple as Tony copying something out of a book, the referees should have caught that. They did not. For whatever reason, the other scientists took offense at what Tony wrote and rebutted it. End of story. That is how the scientific process is supposed to work.
So now I am supposed to get all lathered up about this 20 years later??? Do you have any idea how many disputes of this nature come up regularly in the scientific community?
Below has got to be one of the bizarrest statments I have ever seen. Who would write such a thing?
"Either way, if it was as simple as Tony copying something out of a book, the referees should have caught that. They did not."
Whoever 10:14 PM they are definitely not a scientist. What really gives them away as a non-scientist is they keep saying that it was 20 years ago as though that is some kind of argument. If they had any familiarity with the field of science they would know that the time any potential act of misconduct occured is
irrelevant as one of the foundations of sciene itself is to find the truth.
"This kind of rotten culture permeates LANL."
I think you've succinctly identified the core problem at LANL. Thanks!
11:11 AM,
Ah, the old "you must not be a scientist" defense.
I am not 10:14 PM, and I *am* a scientist. I'm curious what retribution or exposure you think is appropriate here. Is Redondo to be punished for his entire career for a paper published 20 years ago? Redondo's paper has been publicly rebutted. What more "finding the truth" is needed?
I'm not a big fan of Redondo (he is a big enough fan of himself, he hardly needs my support)... but his attackers seem to have conveniently omitted reference to his reply to the Cioslowski/Levy letter.
For completeness: it can be found on page 6728 of the same issue of Phys Rev A.
11:11 - "Whoever 10:14 PM they are definitely not a scientist."
You say that like being a scientist means something.
"For completeness: it can be found on page 6728 of the same issue of Phys Rev A.
11/21/08 3:42 PM
OMG, Frank you got to get the reply posted!!! The reply by Redondo is insane, you got to see it. This sordid story just gets more out there by the day. I cannot put a link to the reply however I can get you this.
"Abstract
A missing paragraph from the original work [A. Redondo, Phys. Rev. A 39, 4366 (1989] that is being commented upon [preceding paper, Cioslowski and Levy, Phys. Rev. A 40, 6727 (1989)] is included. The relationship between this work and a theorem by Lieb [E. Lieb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 457 (1981); 47, 69 (1981)] is also noted. "
In the reply itself it says that
a paragaph was "lost". WTF does that mean?
This isn't about a "relatively minor dispute between scientists". Los Alamos does nuclear weapons and national security work. I assume Tony has a Q clearance. If he did plagiarize, even 20 years ago, this speaks a lot about his character and trustworthiness. Because of the nature of work done at Los Alamos and the standards of trust that the public should expect, this is a very, very serious issue.
"Whoever 10:14 PM they are definitely not a scientist."
I am 10:14pm and I am a scientist.
You seem to be missing my point. The point was that it was 20 years ago and was publicly rebutted. The fact that nothing has happened since then other than someone posted it on a blog now points to the fact that it really is irrelevant. The discourse that happened 20 years ago is how the scientific process is supposed to work.
As for my comment about if it were as simple as Redondo copying it out of a book and the referees should have caught that -- well, they should have if they were doing their jobs well. Surely a referee for a paper like this is a technical expert and would be as familiar with standard equations and textbooks as Redondo's detractors were.
I am not trying to defend Tony here. I just think people should see this for what it is on this blog.
Ah, yeah, Tony's "reply". In Tony's reply, he states that he accidentally left out a paragraph in which he includes all the relevant citations. Well, so from the reply we can deduce that Tony did not accidentally rediscover anything. Rediscoveries do happen often, but Tony admitted in his reply that it wasn't a rediscovery. So, should we believe his reply that he "accidentally" left out one paragraph that happened to consist of nothing but citations? I don't know much about DFT, but I can read, and the reply looks like a poor coverup attempt cause it was just an obvious try to get all the missing refs into one place.
This kind of rotten culture permeates LANL. A good investigative journalist only needs to dig a bit -- it's a treasure trove.
Well, clearly no good investigative journalists reside in NM. Guess they are all on the take ...
7:05pm is correct in that Tony said he forgot to include some citations. As for his reasons or motivations, maybe it is a feeble attempt at a cover up, maybe not. We will never know, will we? People can draw their own conclusions. However, what I said still stands. This was dealt with 2 decades ago as part of the scientific method and dragged out here as fodder to bash another manager. At some point in the future, it will be something else for some other manager. Maybe deserved, maybe not. But it really won't matter. In this case, there no more smoke here. Or as someone posted at the very begining (not me), "[I will predict that] it has already played out as a nothingburger." Never heard of a nothingburger before that post, but I think this thread has provided a perfect definition of such a sandwich and that poster turned out to be correct in my view...
" Los Alamos does nuclear weapons and national security work. I assume Tony has a Q clearance."
Someone has gotten to the true danger of the issue. Think about this for a second and you will realize just how absoltely serious this is. It is also I why I feel sick about this issue.
"I am 10:14pm and I am a scientist."
I find it very hard to believe that you are a scientist. In any case even a non-scientist such as yourself can see the implications of what is going on.
"The point was that it was 20 years ago and was publicly rebutted. The fact that nothing has happened since then other than someone posted it on a blog now points to the fact that it really is irrelevant."
Maybe the consequences are finally happening now! If you rise high enough in politics or any other endeavour these things can catch up with you. You do know about he whole vetting thing?
Your statements give yourself away as someone who is not involved in the field of science. I cannot imagine any scientist saying such things as you have said...not one. There is no statute of limitations in science and every scientists knows this! A scientist takes responsibility for their work for all time. Who are you then?
"publicly rebutted"?
There were no blogs twenty years ago. Most of us would have never seen this if it had not appeared here.
Someone that disagrees with your point of view, that's who. As is typical with many scientists at LANL, when there is a disagreement like this, one is personally attacked as an idiot, or not a scientist, or not a real scientist like I am, and so on. This just makes you look pathetic and weak. If you think that also makes you look like a real scientist, I guess it probably does here at LANL, which is a shame. I don't know who you are. I don't care. You have a different opinion of this matter than I do.
As for publicly rebutted, it was publicly rebutted in published documents. Not sure why that is difficult to understand.
1:10 AM... that's kind of the point. As far as you or I know, Redondo has already taken his floggings from the DFT community and rebuilt his reputation through honest work. At worst, this paper represents a deliberate attempt to get away with plagiarism. At best, it represents intellectual sloppiness. In either case, it's a potent reminder that we shouldn't overly venerate the peer review process.
I am pretty much in the nothingburger camp. The story played out two decades ago, among the community that has a stake in it. Clearance-wise, I am a lot more concerned about the unrepentant drug users, alcoholics, and general nut jobs I've known who have receieved clearances. The ones who not only lie through their teeth but also have their friends covering for them. And the ones that are so frighteningly unstable that the people who really know them are afraid to tell investigators the truth.
As far as the T Division reorg goes - and that seems to be the real driving force behind the current blog expose - why is everyone in T Division so threatened by this? Weak Division Leaders almost always choose to do a reorganization. It gives the appearance of action and strategic thinking without actually requiring substantive analysis or decision making. Don't you all read Dilbert?
The LANL 'ship of science' is sinking and yet the crew and captain are all circled around on top deck, engaged in a circular shooting exercise.
That's a fitting analogy of today's LANL. If there is a sicker science institution than LANL, I would sure like to know about it.
"and rebuilt his reputation through honest work."
And just what reputation would that be?
"As for publicly rebutted, it was publicly rebutted in published documents. Not sure why that is difficult to understand.
11/22/08 7:10 AM"
How was it rebutted? Did you read the reply? It does not appear to be any kind of a rebutal. So the issue still stands, not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.
Redondo's response can be downloaded here:
Reply to "Comment on 'Density-matrix formulation of ab initio methods of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics'"
As Frank pointed out (inadvertently), 12:16PM is an idiot.
Now do you understand, or some someone have to draw you a picture?
Umm, look at the URL for that link. The document wasn't available to most of us until someone with access sent it to me and I posted it.
It does not matter. The point is that this was dealt with years ago. People might not believe the response of Redondo, but that goes to intent which none of us will never know. It was a published, peer reviewed paper, with a response and counter response in a peer reviewed journal. That thread seems clear enough, and seems to settle the matter. Whether one chooses to believe in the honesty of any of the individuals involved is another matter entirely, outside the realm of scientific fact, data, and discourse. Intent is not something you can collect data on and draw conclusions about in a logical, scientific, manner. One conjecture about such matters an emotional level, based on whatever personal biases one has. Which is what is mostly on display in this blog thread.
Finally, it is not like Tony is bringing this up now to tout his scientific prowess (so far as I know). If that were the case, this would be far more relevant.
"As Frank pointed out (inadvertently), 12:16PM is an idiot.
Now do you understand, or some someone have to draw you a picture?
11/22/08 6:15 PM"
How is 12.16PM an idiot? The reply that is linked does not appear to a rebbutal. Maybe you should "draw that picture".
"11/22/08 10:30 PM
What is your point?
Evidently, just beyond your grasp.
As you read the comments in this thread notice how Tony Redondo [under various guises ] is trying his best to diffuse the issue and limit the fallout. He's obviously very worried about this getting out into the open.
Post a Comment