CLOSEOUT FOR M94060025 that were unique to a po&octoral Mow. The a q h a n t explained that the subjed should have contactedthepodoct~raltPllowtoaskfbr~tousehisideas. inthesamerescarchgroup. The . ' complainant told OIG that he had not dkussed the aIlegaEion with the p o d o d d &w. OIG contacted the postdoctoral Mow who confiirmed that he and the subject had worked together fbr about a year as a part of a laboratory research group and that he had developed in cooperation with the research group, ideas and experiments in the topic area He said that the subject had the right to use these ideas in any way she wanted and did not need to ask fix his penr6ssion to do so because these ideas were a ampsite of material prMished m the literatme and firrther developed in gnwp cikasions and, therefbre, were not unique to him ThegostdoddMowdtRatsomeoftheideasthatheand~~haddeveJopedwere part of his NSF fimded f k h d i p grogosal ~Heexphhedth.he-~theseidarbemuseheWdanso;lhisrrrard,LI &&&on 0 1 ~ n o t e d t h a t t h e ~ s & t h e p o a ~ d o c r d & d s p m p r m l . ~ ~ s e v ~ l similarsrperiments a n d c m c h k d t h a t t h e ~ w e r e t h e r e s u oftheir h rmtual researdr interests andgroup-ons. OIG could find no evidence that the &as presented m the subject's proposal were unique to the postdoctoral %w and conduded that there was no substance to the a k g a h n that the subject had mhppmphed ideas into his NSF prop<wal. ThisinquirywasdosedandnofitrthehacthPrvilsbetaken cc: Staff.' Scientist, Deprty Aim* N W & I6 Page B of t
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 1995-09-13.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)