As we have reported, senior officials at Harvard have repeatedly been accused of plagiarism over the last year:
- Chief Diversity Officer at Harvard Accused of Plagiarism
- Yet Another DEI Official at Harvard Accused of Plagiarism
And of course, Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned, or was forced out, over rampant plagiarism charges:
- Harvard University President Claudine Gay Facing Plagiarism Allegations
- More Plagiarism Allegations Unveiled Against Harvard President Claudine Gay
- Harvard President Claudine Gay Starts New Year With Six New Plagiarism Allegations
- Confirmed: Claudine Gay Forced Out at Harvard Because Of Plagiarism Scandal, Not Campus Antisemitism
So, I suppose it should not have been a surprise when late last month a federal judge disqualified a Harvard Medical School doctor for rampant plagiarism, but it was to me. In my former life as a patent litigation attorney, we often used experts in federal court cases to “establish” certain facts about complex technologies that are beyond the comprehension of everyday people like you and me.
This is allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the disclosure of the expert’s qualifications and the basis for his or her expert opinions is tightly controlled:
[A] party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any [expert] witness it may use at trial to present evidence…this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report—prepared and signed by the witness—if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party’s employee regularly involve giving expert testimony.
You can find Judge Dalton’s Disqualification Order here. It makes for good reading.
Judge Dalton summed up:
In sum, the rampant plagiarism in Dr. Panigrahy’s report leads the Court to conclude that his general causation methodology as a whole is too unreliable to put before a jury. So Lockheed’s motion to exclude Dr. Panigrahy is due to be granted in full. With Dr. Panigrahy excluded, there is no reliable general causation testimony on any of the types of cancer at issue, so summary judgment is due to be granted in favor of Lockheed on the exposure claims of [22] Plaintiffs.
That means Lockheed wins the case, and these Plaintiffs’ claims against Lockheed are dismissed, with prejudice, meaning these claims may not be brought again in any court of law.
Dr. Panigrahy’s report was so bad that it made Nathan Schachtman’s Wall of Shame blog, who went over the Lockheed case, Dipak Panigrahy – Expert Witness & Putative Plagiarist, and then noted Dr. Panigrahy’s current job title:
Delusions of Adequacy 