The former director of the X-ray crystallography lab at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, who was found by the Office of Research Integrity to have faked findings in three papers, is once again earning a government salary, this time as a patent examiner, Retraction Watch has learned.
A Bijan Ahvazi has been working at the USPTO since at least 2008, and today a source confirmed that it was the same person who was the subject of last October’s ORI report. Ahvazi was found to have faked five different images in three different papers, two of which have been retracted.
Some of our commenters have objected when we report on what happens after someone is found to have committed fraud, while others believe — as we do — that this is an important aspect of such stories. This case, however, seems very clear-cut: Not only is Ahvazi still employed by the U.S. government, but a scientist found to have faked images is now charged with examining other’s images and other materials. He earned $116,402 in base salary, and a $9,575 bonus in 2013.
Neither Ahvazi nor the USPTO has responded to our requests for comment.
Well, better hours and less pressure to publish. Sounds almost like a vacation from research.
Frankly, the USPTO lets such garbage patents through that I doubt he could make matters worse. In fact, it seems like quite a good place to keep someone with flexible honesty out of harm’s way. Moreover, I suspect that a lot of that salary is coming from filing fees, not directly from the government.
Not sure about the requirements for patent examiner, but to become a patent agent or attorney one must pass the patent bar and be of good ‘moral character’. Those are the only two requirements. The US Patent and Trademark Office Rejected my application to take the bar exam until I provided them with court and police records for an arrest I had for underage possession of an alcoholic beverage – that occurred nearly 40 years previously!!
Well at least he appears to know what fakes look like.
Based on the opinion of USPTO rubbish, it seems like this individual is perfectly qualified for the job. It would be interesting to know what was on the resume he used to apply for this position. It would have also been interesting to know what sort of questions were raised during the interview. These aspects should be divulged publicly because there seems to be an increasing number of national and foreign candidates who are most likely quite interested in joining the department. Is USPTO looking for an economist, by the way?
http://retractionwatch.com/2015/01/05/anyone-want-hire-economist-retracted-16-papers-fake-peer-reviews/
Based on the description of the timing, it sounds as if the Patent Office didn’t know about his faking when they hired him. Now it’s too late, probably.
Do you think it’s right to publish such a story about someone who has apparently performed the new job well for over five years? What purpose is served? Would you advocate such stories generally–take, for example, former criminals who now lead productive lives? Unless there is evidence of current bad behavior, why not leave the guy alone?
I think the reason people get upset about this is because the only punishment for scientific fraud is loss of reputation and so career damage. But the investigation is so long and confidential that people have moved on, using their (supposedly unblemished) scientific track records to get good jobs. Had they not committed the fraud they would most likely have had to move careers anyway (wouldn’t be faking it if they were a real rising star, and it’s very competitive) and wouldn’t be able to move to such a good job without the fake credentials (or if their new employer were allowed to know about the fraud).
So the criminal analogy isn’t fair. He didn’t serve his time. He did benefit from the crime. He continues to benefit from the crime.
To support your use of the term “apparently” – that the someone has perfomed the new job well for over five years – please confirm that you have actually reviewed the office actions issued by this someone. If you have not had a chance to review his office actions, then please do so and repost after having assessed the merits of his office actions. Specious statements are not at all helpful, and akin to a frame-by-frame, slo-mo rendering of a train – although each frame or statement per se would appear quite proper and innocuous, if also placed in proper context, i.e., a runaway train on a collision course, the consequences could be severe and quite harmful. While it is true that filing fees will cover the examiner’s salary, the greater loss is in the granting of patents by an examiner who may not understand the scope of the claims they are allowing or, conversely, their denial of claims that are worthy of a patent, because they do not understand it. The day to day loss is paid by patent practitioners and applicants who have no choice but to wade through the drivel excreted by someone who may see the procedural rules and requirements but has no sense of how they are to be applied and in what context.
The federal law for debarring people — those found to have committed misconduct or fraud — from receiving federal funding (for a period (up to lifetime in very serious, rare cases) — does NOT preclude them from being considered for and hired for federal employment, even while they are being debarred from receiving federal funds for grants, contracts, and fellowships. See the Code of Federal Regulations for 2 CFR 180, including Guidance for Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, which states:
” §180.215 Which nonprocurement transactions are not covered transactions?
The following types of nonprocurement transactions are not covered transactions: . . .
(c) Federal employment.”
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2cfr180_main_02.tpl
[I never understood this when I was in ORI, and I still do not really. Of course, these papers were from a decade ago, and the hiring was done 6 years ago, long before ORI’s action would have had any possible impact on the consideration for hiring.]