International Committee on Scientific Ethics

P. O. Box 1577
Palm Harbor, FL 34682, U.S.A.

Palm Harbor, Florida, March 12, 2003

TO: Professors Dan Abramovich, Igor Krichever, Enrico Arbarello, Shigeo Kusuoka, Joseph Bernstein, Gilles Lebeau, Enrico Bombieri, Joachim Lohkamp, Richard E. Borcherds, Nikolai Makarov, Alexei Borodin, Yu. I. Manin, Jean Bourgain, Barry Mazur, Marc Burger, Haynes Miller, Tobias Colding, Shinichi Mochizuki, Corrado DeConcini, Fabien Morel, Percy Deift, Shigefumi Mori, Robbert Dijkgraaf, Stefan MŸller, S. K. Donaldson, Rahul Vijay Pandharipande, Weinan E, Michael Rapoport, Yakov Eliashberg, N. Yu. Reshetikhin, Edward Frenkel, Peter Sarnak, Emmanuel Hebey, Freydoon Shahidi, Dennis Hejhal, Stanislav Smirnov, Helmut Hofer, Michael Struwe, Gerhard Huisken, G. Tian, Yasutaka Ihara, Takeshi Tsuji, Kurt Johansson, David Vogan, Masaki Kashiwara, Dan Voiculescu, Carlos Kenig, Andrei Zelevinsky, Sergiu Klainerman, Maciej Zworski, Toshiyuki Kobayashi, Maxim Kontsevich, Morris Weisfeld,
in their capacity as Editors of
via e-mails listed below
TO: N. O. Keoane, President, Duke University; B. Mueller, Dean of Natuiral Sciences, Duke University; D. R. Morrison, Chairman, Department of Mathematics, Duke University; and H. Daranger, Chairman, Department of Physics, Duke University,
via regular mail with print out of Latex file
TO: President, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Egypt
via air mail with print out of Latex file

Due to implications of the case, this open denunciation has been published in the web page
with additional links in the web page
and other international links

Dear Colleagues,

This is a formal request to the IMRN Editorial Board to terminate Morris Weisfeld as managing editor of its journal. This is also a formal request to the officers of Duke University to initiate disciplinary proceedings against their above quoted employee. Finally, this is a formal notification to the Publisher of IMRN to organize a special committee monitoring scientific ethics in his journal so as to prevent possible large punitive compensations. The facts and their implications should be of interest to you because they may affect each of you directly and personally.

For your information, in January 2003, Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli, an Italian-American theoretical physicist, submitted to your journal as per the instruction in your web site (without any addressing to a specific editor) the following manuscript


as per attached Latex document also available in pdf file in the web page
Since Prof. Santilli is a theoretical physicist, the submission was made as a manuscript in applied mathematics for the intent of stimulating the participation of additional mathematicians (in addition to the numerous ones quoted in the 223 references) to achieve a mathematical rigorous formulations of the new mathematics presented in the manuscript. A curriculum vitae of Prof. Santilli was also indicated in the submission as available in the web page
The submission was made, as usual, by emphatically indicating the authorÕs availability for ANY revisions, expansion, reduction or correction requested by the editor.

As you can see from the cover page, the manuscript is the extended version of invited plenary talks delivered by Prof. Santilli at the International Congress of Mathematicians of August 2002 in China, the IARD congress in Washington, DC of June, 2002, and the PIRT congress at the Imperial College in September 2002. Shorter versions of the above quoted manuscript (1/10-th in length and content) were immediately accepted for publications in the proceedings of these meetings. The above quoted longer version was written following request by the Editors of said proceedings as well as by several mathematics and physics colleagues for more details. The submission to your journal was suggested by a mathematician from Belgium.

In response to this respectful submission, Weisfeld answered with a very arrogant rejection, without any technical content whatever, on grounds that the manuscript was not even worth reviewing. Following a very respectful request by Prof. Santilli for the courtesy of at least some technical motivations for the rejections due to the implications identified in the original letter of submission, Weisfeld answered with additional extreme arrogance.

Please be reassured that I am not contacting you for the rejection, since rejections are a perfectly normal part of our scientific lives. I am contacting you, first of all, because of the extreme arrogance by Weisfeld toward a scientist his senior and a much higher scientific reputation. Arrogance is bringing to life one of the darkest periods in the history of the United States of America and should not be tolerated by any responsible citizen, let alone as a way of conducting science, as done by Weisfeld at Duke University.

ABOVE ALL I AM CONTACTING FOR THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CASE THAT MAY AFFECT EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY. In essence, following said arrogant rejection, I conducted an investigation on the case, collected some intelligence and was told by friends at Duke University that Weisfeld rejected Prof. Santilli's the manuscript because he wanted to give the paternity of Prof. SantilliÕs new mathematics to some of his friends.

To understand the occurrence, you should be made aware that your Journal, under WeisfeldÕs editorial management, has already plagiarized various mathematical structures originally discovered by Prof. Santilli without any quotation of such origination, including, for instance, papers on q-deformations of Lie and other algebras, various liftings of geometries, isotopies and genotopies of Lie theory, and others new mathematics. Since Weisfeld has been completely insensitive toward any correction, Prof. Santilli gave him a chance of at least having a record in your journal of the origination of said theories.

You should be made aware that, following such arrogant conduct by Weisfeld, we have initiated an inspection of all publications appeared in your journal. Upon completion of this investigation, our attorneys will formally notify all of you requesting the publication of corrective statements of paternity. In the event of continued resiliency and obstruction against such request, that is a basic ethical duty for all of us to qualify as real scientist, you should be aware that, very regrettably, we shall be forced to file lawsuits against all of you, including Duke University and the Publisher.

Permit me to recommend each of you, most respectfully, that YOU MONITOR THE PUBLICATIONS IN YOUR JOURNAL FROM NOW ON TO AVOID ADDITIONAL PLAGIARISMS FOLLOWING THIS PUBLIC NOTICE, since any such additional plagiarisms would evidently be reasons for large punitive compensations.

Thus, THIS IS A FORMAL NOTIFICATION TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ANY ADDITIONAL PLAGIARISM OF PROF. SANTILLIÕS DISCOVERIES WITHOUT FULL QUOTATION OF HIS WORK, OF COURSE, JOINTLY WITH ANY ADDITIONAL DESIRED REFERENCES, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AND LISTED CHRONOLOGICALLY. You should know that, in view of the incredible collapse of ethics in our contemporary science, we have been already forced to file lawsuits for plagiarisms and additional lawsuits are forthcoming, as you can see in the web page
where you can also see a list of our scientific priorities and related main originating references.

You should also be informed that that this IS NOT the first occurrence of organized plagiarisms perpetrated at Duke University by its employees. WeisfeldÕs behavior mandates recalling the case of the late Larry Biedenharn, an employee at the Physics Department of Duke University, who was a personal friend of Prof. Santilli in the early 1980 (they even applied together for a DOE grant on physical applications of AlbertÕs Lie-admissible algebras). Following pressures from S. Weinberg, S. Glashow, S. Copleman and others at Harvard University, in his paper of 1989 on q-deformations with product AB-qBA the late Biedenharn intentionally suppressed the quotation of the origination of these deformations by

[1] R. M. Santilli, "Imbedding of Lie algebras in nonassociative structure," Nuovo Cimento Vol. 51, pages 570-582, 1967 (sic),

where in Eq. (8), page 573 Prof. Santilli introduced for the first time (as part of his Ph. D. Thesis) the broader deformations pAB-qBA. This origination was fully known to the late Biedenharn because it was the main reference of said joint DOE grant proposal.

As a result of this scheme, S. Weinberg subsequently assisted the late Biedenharn to have a position at the University of Texas in Austin, while none of the tens of thousands of papers on q-deformations appeared in mathematics and physics journals following Biedenharn's work never quoted Prof. Santilli's origination of 1967 despite countless requests to authors and editors alike by me and various other ethically sound scientists. Similarly fruitless have been solicitations of countless author at least to quote paper [1] jointly with any other desired reference.

The case MUST be denounced because it caused a severe loss of American mathematics because of equivocal personal gains by employees of Duke University. Prior to releasing paper [1] for publication, immensely far from the behavior by Biedenharn and Weisfeld, Prof. Santilli spent one year in European mathematics libraries to identify prior mathematical papers. In this way, as a physicist, he discovered in 1967 the notion of Lie-admissible and Jordan-admissible algebras by the American Mathematicians A. A. Albert in T.A.M.S., vol. 64, p. 552, 1948, quoted in Ref. 2 of [1]. Actually, Prof. Santilli introduced his deformations (under the name of "mutations" for algebnraic reasons) as a concrete realization of Albert's abstract notion of Lie-admissible and Jordan admissible algebras.

The damage suffered by American mathematics is that the late Larry Biedenharn could not identify Albert's Lie- and Jordan-admissibility in his 1989 paper on q-deformation because by that time Prof. Santilli had justly acquired a world renouned reputation as the leading scientist in the field. Therefore, the late Larry Biedenharn was forced to suppress the Lie- and Jordan-admissible character of the deformation to prevent them from being immediately connected to Prof. Santilli. Particularly distressing is the premeditated intent by the late Larry Biedenharn of suppressing in his paper of 1989 (as well as subsequent ones) the Jordan content of Santilli's deformation, since that content represented the fulfillment of Jordan's lifelong dream of physical apploications of his algebras, Jordan content that was personally and insistently told by Prof. Santilli to Biedenharn and, in any case, quoted in any paper by the former. Still as today, no paper out of the tens of thousands in the field, except a few exceptions, quotes the American Mathematician A. A. Albert or honors the memory and legacy of Jordan. In this way, employees of Duke University served their personal interests via sinister manipulations of science, at the price of causing a severe loss to American mathematics as well as to human knwoeldge.

This episode born at Duke University is internationally known and denounced, as a result of which said college has suffered a significant loss of reputation to the detriment of American Science. This is a reason why this open denunciation is also addressed to the main Officers of Duke University with the respectful request that, in the event they are really serious for their college regaining an international reputation, the only credible way is to make sure that episodes similar to that of the late Biedenharn's misconduct are not repeated again by their employees. In turn, this can only be accomplished in a credible way by conducting serious disciplinary proceedings against Weisfeld not only on his documented support of past plagiarisms, but also because of his extreme arrogance that is most damaging to Duke University.

Whatever officers of Duke University elect to do, they should be here publicly notified that any repetition by their employee Weisfeld of the scientific misconduct by their former employee Larry Biedenharn will be met this time with the most vigorous possible action permitted by law.

BUT THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CASE ARE MUCH DEEPER THAN THOSE INDICATED ABOVE. It is essential for your own personal interest that you are made aware of them, so that you have the information to protect your own future in the way you individually deem appropriate.

The novel iso-, geno-, and hyper-mathematics and their isoduals were discovered by Prof. Santilli when in the early 1980s, as a theoretical physicist, he was a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University under a DOE research grant (that he shared with Prof. Shlomo Steinberg toward whom Prof. Santilli still harbors sincere gratitude and great esteem). The grant had originated from President (and now Nobel Laureate) Jimmy Carter for the development of new clean energies and fuels. As internationally well known and denounced, S. Weinberg, S. Glashow, S. Coleman and others at the Lyman Laboratory of Physics at Harvard University opposed the will of the American Government and forced Prof. Santilli to move to the Department of Mathematics because his studies were based on the necessary surpassing of organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics, as a necessary condition to seek truly novel clean energies and fuels.

Some two decades have passed, and Carter's dream is today a reality. In fact, Santilli's iso-, geno-, and hyper-mathematics and their isoduals have long passed the level of scientific interest, and, following the investment of millions of dollars by US corporations, have now produced new clean energies and fuels, as you can inspect (as far as the limited public disclosure of technologies is concerned) in the web sites

This notice is intended as a public record that you have been made aware of the fact that the new Santilli mathematics are used for the achievement of fuel independence not only by the United States of America, but also by our allies, such as Israel and Italy, where industrial, let alone scientific research and development based on the new mathematics are well under way. Weisfeld was made fully aware of this crucial societal role of the article he so arrogantly rejected.

The point in all this that may affect each of you, personally and directly, is the following. Two decades of studies in the field have established that a necessary condition to reach really "new" and clean energies and fuels is to generalize Lie's theory and its underlying symplectic and other geometries. Prof. Santilli proposed in 1978 (see his two monographs of 1978 and 1982 published in the most prestigious series of Springer Verlag) the isotopic lifting of Lie's theory, including the lifting of universal enveloping associative algebras, Lie algebras, Lie groups, Lie symmetries, and Lie representation theory, that can be expressed via the following lifting of Lie transformation groups in their finite and infinitesimal forms

(1a) A(w) = Exp(ixXxTxw)xA(0)xExp(-ixwxTxX) = U x A(0) x U^+,
(1b) ixdA/dw = AxTxX - XxTxA = A*X - X*A = [A, X]*,

where: AxX is the conventional associative product; A*X = AxTxX is Santilli isoassociative productÕ [A, X]* is the Lie-Santilli isoproduct (see several independent monographs in various countries listed in the submitted paper); w and X = X^+ are the original Lie parameter and generator, respectively; and T = T^+ is a fixed matrix or operator with the same dimension of X.

Because of this historical contribution, the new theory based on structure (1) is today universally known as the "Lie-Santilli isotheory" (see the various monographs and papers in the subbject in the attached Latex file). Yet, following the so successful, premeditated assassination with impunity (and actually with rewards) of Prof. Santilli's paternity of the q-deformation by the late Larry Biebenharn and his friends at Duke University, Weisfeld has attempted the audacious assassination of Prof. Santilli's paternity despite the fact that it is today universally known as the "Lie-Santilli isotheory." (again, see in the enclosed Latex document the numerous monographs carrying the name "Santilli" in the title).

However, the implications are now much more serious than sheer plagiarism and I need a record that all of you are PUBLICLY informed of them. Following the discovery of isotopic lifting (1) of Lie's theory in 1978, Prof. Santilli discovered that such lifting is afflicted by catastrophic mathematical and physical inconsistencies that constituted THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT TO YOUR JOURNAL.

In nontechnical terms, a necessary condition to exit from the class of equivalence of Lie's theory is that the new transformation groups are characterized by NONCANONICAL transforms at the classical level and NONUNITARY transforms at the operator level, as indeed it is the case for liftings (1). However, such transforms imply the loss of the basic unit

(2a) I => I' = U x I x U^+ ≠ I,
(2b) A*X => Ux(A*X)xU^+ = A' *' B' = A'xT'xB'≠ A'xTxX'.

It then follows that any lifting of Lie's theory according to structure (1,2) suffers the loss of the base field under the action of the transformation group (since you lose its basic unit). The loss of the base field implies the collapse of metric space, manifolds and geometries defined on such a field, with problems today known as CATASTROPHIC MATHEMATICAL INCONSISTENCIES, according to theorems initiated by Okubo in 1981 and continued by several scholars (check out the references in the attached Latex file).

The corresponding inconsistencies in physics and chemistry are equally horrendous and imply the inability to apply the theory to experimental measurements (trivially, because you have no invariant units of measurement); the lack of invariant numerical predictions, thus lacking any physical value of any type; the lack of preservation in time of Hermiticity, with consequential lack of meaningful observables; violation of causality and probability laws, etc., problems today internationally known as CATASTROPHIC PHYSICAL INCONSISTENCIES.

A primary reason for Prof. Santilli submitting his paper to your journal was that of making your readers aware of these catastrophic mathematical and physical inconsistencies, solicit the participation of the mathematics community for their study, and indicate the discovery of their solutions via the lifting of the basic unit and the corresponding axiom-preserving reformulation of fields, spaces, geometries, etc., as a complement of liftings (1),

(3a) I => I^ = UxU^+ = U^*U^+, U^ = UxT^{1/2}, T = (UxU^+)^{-1} = 1/I^,
(3b) I^ => I^' = U^*I^*U^+ = I^,
(3c) A*B => U^*(A*B)*U^+ = A'xTxB' = A'*B', T' = T, etc.

According to reliable information I received from friends at Duke University, Weisfeld rejected Prof. Santilli's manuscript not only to suppress the paternity of his new mathematics in favor of paternities by his friends for apparent personal gains, but above all to suppress the knowledge of the above catastrophic mathematical, physical and chemical inconsistencies. In fact, all papers by Weisfeld and his friends on generalized structures suffer of such inconsistencies (since they are not invariantly formulated via Santilli's isonumbers, isospaces, isomanifolds, isogeometries, isofunctional analysis, etc.). As a matter of fact, the reading of the submitted manuscript reveals that numerous mathematical structures studied by Weisfeld and his friends suffer of these catastrophic inconsistencies, including q-deformations, Weinberg's nonlinear theory, Kac-Moody algebras, superalgebras, most quantum and semigroups, etc., and more precisely ALL mathematics with a noncanonical or nonunitary structure when formulated on conventional spaces over conventional fields.

This communication is intended for the scope that, FOLLOWING THIS PUBLIC NOTIFICATION (UNDER WHICH YOU CANNOT DENY KNOWLEDGE), ANY PUBLICATIONS AT YOUR JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES VERIFYING SAID THEOREMS OF CATASTROPHIC INCONSISTENCIES WITHOUT THEIR QUOTATION OR THEIR DISPROOF IN REFEREED JOURNALS, WOULD CONSTITUTE A CLEAR CRIMINAL VIOLATION PERPETRATED VIA SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. It is in your best interest for you to know that we have already filed criminal complaints precisely on the above violation (publication of catastrophically inconsistent papers under the documented knowledge by the authors without the quotation of the theorems of catastrophic inconsistencies or their disproof in refereed journals).

In regard to the officers of Duke University, it is time that they come to their senses and realize that a campus without a strict implementation of scientific ethics is like a body without soul, and that no college can claim any serious control of ethics without due disciplinary proceedings, the more famous the employees under such proceedings, the bigger the benefits for the image of the college throughout the world. As far as the current condition at Duke University is concerned, its officers should be reminded that scientific ethics in their campus has collapsed to such a level that, in the absence of due corrective measures, THEY RISK TO BE PERSONALLY IMPLICATED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC FRAUD GENERALLY PERPETRATED AT THEIR CAMPUS UNDER PUBLIC-GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT.

Due to the lack of ethical control by the administration for decades, there has been a rather widespread practice at the departments of mathematics, physics, and chemistry of Duke University to publish papers generally under public support that are catastrophically inconsistent without any mention of the related inconsistency theorems initiated by Okubo in 1981 and continued by several ethically serious scholars, or without their disproof in refereed journals, thus perpetrating clear scientific fraud. Officers of Duke University should know that this conduct of science via academic manipulations for personal sinister gains is now threatening the need for energy and fuel independence by the United States of America and its closest allies and, for that reason, officers of Duke University should be CERTAIN that this type of academic misconduct at their campus will not be tolerated any longer.

If there is anything I can do to defuse this dangerous situation in an orderly way, please do not hesitate to contact me via mail, e-mail or phone (+1-727-934 9593). In the event any of you wishes to have a statement uploaded jointly with this public denunciations, please send it to me. I also remain at the disposal of the officers of Duke University to provide an ethical analysis of the papers published by Morris Weisfeld and other employees at their campus. Finally, we would be delighted to appear in person at any disciplinary hearing for a documentation of the case and its appraisal by other ethically sound scholars.

Yours, Truly

William Pound
International Ethics Committee
P. O. Box 1577
Palm Harbor, FL 34682 U.S.A.
This notice has been written pro se as an individual U.S. citizen under the protection of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression particular for the protection of public interests against organized crimes that, when of scientific nature, are much more damaging to society than ordinary crime.

E-ADDRESSES OF THE EDITORS OF IMRN RECEVING THIS NOTICE,, ,, , ,,, ,, ,, ,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,, , or,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,



Copyright © 1999-2003 Committee for Scientific Ethics.
First updated July 18th, 1999. Revised July 30th, 2001