THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, July 1, 1994 TAG: 9407010580
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JOSEPH P. COSCO, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Long : 113 lines
The former chairman of the Hampton University math department, who was fired for plagiarism, was acquitted Thursday of criminal charges that he used the plagiarized work to defraud NASA Langley on a $100,000 research grant.
A federal court jury cleared Ram Bachan Ram of seven mail fraud counts related to a plagiarized grant proposal and research report he submitted to the research facility in Hampton in the late 1980s.
The professor hugged his attorneys after the acquittal but declined to comment on the case. He spoke of his commitment ``to extend the boundaries of knowledge'' but said he has no firm plans.
Ram's attorneys, meanwhile, spoke of a possible lawsuit against Hampton University for wrongful dismissal.
Ram, 62, conceded there was plagiarism, but blamed most of it on a young research associate, Arun Verma, a prosecution witness who testified he had nothing to do with the plagiarism.
``I think perhaps the government was misled in relying on Dr. Verma's testimony,'' defense attorney Stuart Kaplan of New York said. ``I think the truth finally prevailed.
Ram's problems began in the summer of 1989, when another scientist saw thetopic ``shock wave diffusion'' mentioned in a list of new research projects at the NASA Langley Research Center library.
The scientist, research engineer George C. Greene, knew of two experts in that esoteric specialty: a mathematics professor at Clemson University and himself. So his curiosity was piqued.
Greene got a copy of the new report, which was written by Ram, and was stunned by what he found. The report, done under a $100,810 grant from NASA, was taken virtually word-for-word from the work of Clemson University math professor Clark Jeffries - without citing the source.
``That was a startling document to me,'' Greene testified this week.
Greene said he then obtained a copy of Ram's grant proposal. It, too, was taken virtually verbatim from Jeffries' reports.
Greene blew the whistle and set off a chain of events that stripped Ram of his department chairmanship at Hampton University and the endowed chair he held there. Ram was allowed to remain on the faculty until this year. His attorneys said he was dismissed sometime after he was indicted in March.
With the indictment, a story of academic dishonesty became a case of felonious plagiarism: Did Ram, an accomplished scientist, intentionally defraud NASA by presenting as new research some theoretical work stolen from another researcher?
Ram testified that his grant proposal, some three or four pages, was ``academically dishonest,'' blaming it on his busy schedule as chairman of the math department. He took full blame for the proposal, but said the report was written and plagiarized by Verma.
Ram, with six degrees from universities in England, India and the United States, had already done work for NASA Langley when Hampton University recruited him as math department chairman in 1986.
In January 1988, Ram heard Jeffries speak at a professional conference in Atlanta. The two men chatted briefly and Jeffries agreed to send Ram copies of two reports he had written.
``He seemed interested in my work,'' Jeffries testified. ``I very much wanted to collaborate with him.''
Jeffries had developed a mathematical theory related to diffusion of pressure, work considered important in possibly controlling aircraft shock waves and producing safer, more efficient jets. Ram was interested in helping to create better wings for tactical fighter jets.
Jeffries said Ram never got back to him about the subject. But Greene did, sending Jeffries a copy of Ram's research proposal. Jeffries said the proposal was virtually taken from his own writings, including the same symbols he had randomly assigned to various concepts.
``I did not spend a lot of time reacting to this discovery,'' Jeffries said, adding that he had too much other work to do.
Although the defense conceded the plagiarism, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alan Salsbury used an overhead projector to show the jury side-by-side comparisons of Jeffries work and Ram's grant proposal and the progress report he submitted to NASA six months into the yearlong grant.
Greene testified that numerous passages were ``essentially identical.'' However, while Jeffries referred to completed work, the grant proposal and progress report referred to proposed work, Greene said.
``He took Dr. Jeffries work and proposed to do what Dr. Jeffries had already done and reported on,'' Greene testified.
Greene said Ram called him several times to explain what had happened. ``He told me he didn't know anyone would read (the report) when he submitted it,'' Greene testified.
Ram testified that a colleague at NASA Langley urged him to submit the grant proposal. The colleague, William D. Harvey, monitored the grant and knew from the start that Ram proposed to expand on the work of Jeffries after verifying Jeffries conclusions, Ram said.
Ram testified that the plagiarized progress report was written by Verma, who joined the research project months after it began in August 1988. Ram said he hand-copied the handwritten report by Verma because the department secretary couldn't read Verma's writing to type the report.
A final report for the one-year grant was never submitted to NASA Langley. ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
COMPARISON OF PAPERS
From Ram's research proposal:
During this investigation a fluid will be regarded as a continuum
of matter which can be completely described by its density p,
velocity v, and pressure p.
A fluid will be presumed to change with time in such a manner
that matter and momentum are conserved; thus use will be made of two
of the familiar Navier-Stokes equations.
From Jeffries' report:
In this paper a fluid is regarded as a continuum of matter which
can be completely described by its density p, velocity v, and
pressure p.
A fluid is presumed to change with time in such a manner that
matter and momentum are conserved; thus use will be made of two of
the familiar Navier-Stokes equations.
by CNB