NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM I(( Case Number: A07070042 Page I of 1 A reviewe'r recently told a program manager (PM) he was concerned about material in a proposal he was asked to review.' The. reviewer had previously given a talk a t the PI's university and thought some of his material was in the PI's proposal. As required by NSF policy, the PLiI notified us of the allegation. The reviewer provided a copy of the slides he presented a t the PI's university, five papers, and three patents to indicate his intellectual property and body of work in this area. However, he failed to identify what material in the PI's proposal he thought was his intellectual propel-ty. When asked to do so, the reviewer declined to provide further details. We reviewed t,he available material and determined there was a 2-month period between the reviewer's visit and the PI's proposal submission. This time frame appears t.oo short for the PI to have assimilated the reviewer's idea, set up and carried out t,he experiments necessary to provide substantiation of the idea (the proposal included preliminary theoretical and experimeiltal data from the PI), and follow up with a proposal submission to NSF. Therefore, we conclude the subject was likely working on this idea prior to the reviewer's visit. The reviewer did not appear to use the same material a s the PI's group does. The PI's and co-PIS' biosketches indicate a history of working with that material in this general and related areas. Given these facts, we concluded there was insufficient
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 2007-12-27.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)