May 10, 2004:
The "May 10th Complaint"
A new, confidential formal complaint of research misconduct
is filed against J. Michael Bailey at Northwestern University
Contents:
Introduction:
During the past year, as evidence accumulated of J. Michael Bailey's research misconduct, many of his colleagues began to have serious doubts about his integrity and quietly began withdrawing their support of him. In some cases, colleagues even began to forward to investigators evidence they themselves had of past misconduct on his part.
Late in 2003, a prominent psychologist (who wishes to remain anonymous) approached Lynn Conway, and presented Lynn with stunning direct-evidence of scientific, clinical and research misconduct by Mr. Bailey. Lynn spent several months following up on this mass of important new evidence. She confirmed its authenticity in detail by contacting other Bailey colleagues who were aware of its existence and of all the events involved. She then began to construct a formal complaint to Northwestern University, based on this new evidence.
On May 10, 2004, Lynn sent this new (49 page) formal complaint to C. Bradley Moore, Vice President for Research, Lewis J. Smith, Associate Vice President for Research, and Timothy J. Fournier, Associate Vice President for Research Integrity at Northwestern University.
For now we will call this "The May 10th Complaint".
In summary, the new complaint contains hard evidence implicating Mr. Bailey in, among other things, (i) deliberate failures to examine counter-evidence to the theory he was studying, (ii) open defamation of those who put forward counter-evidence to that theory, (iii) the making of “remote clinical diagnoses” of mental illnesses in persons he has not ever even met, (iv) libel, (v) flagrant abuses of the power of his office and (vi) the deliberate suppression of complaints by colleagues about such conduct.
A number of people, including innocent bystanders, were witnesses to the broad range of misconduct involved. For this reason, the handling of this complaint will require considerable advance planning and coordination in confidence, in order to protect the good names of those innocent bystanders and also to preserve the option of calling on those bystanders as confidential witnesses.
In the complaint, Lynn formally requested a meeting with the investigating committee in order to thoroughly discuss this new evidence of scientific, clinical and ethical misconduct by Mr. Bailey. She also asked the Northwestern administrators to keep the new complaint and all information therein confidential within the investigation committee, until she had the chance to meet with the committee and discuss it with them.
We will keep you posted in later communications regarding the processing of the May 10th Complaint.
Lynn Conway
5-10-04
Date: August 23, 2004
From: Lynn Conway
To: Lawrence B. Dumas, Provost, Northwestern University
CC: C. Bradley Moore, Vice Pres. for Research; Lewis J. Smith, Assoc. Vice Pres. for Research,
Timothy Fournier, Assoc. Vice Pres. for Research Integrity, Northwestern University
Subject: Request for response and meeting regarding the “May 10th Complaint”.
On May 10, 2004, I sent a formal complaint to C. Bradley Moore, Vice Pres. for Research, Lewis
J. Smith, Assoc. Vice Pres. for Research, and Timothy J. Fournier, Assoc. Vice Pres. for Research
Integrity at Northwestern. For now, we will call this "The May 10th Complaint" (attached).
That complaint contains hard evidence implicating your Mr. Bailey in, among other things, (i)
deliberate failures to examine counter-evidence to the theory he was studying, (ii) defamation of
those who put forward counter-evidence to that theory, (iii) making “remote clinical diagnoses”
of mental illnesses in persons he’d never met, (iv) libel, (v) flagrant abuses of the power of his
office and (vi) deliberate suppression of complaints by colleagues about such conduct.
A number of people, including innocent bystanders, were witnesses to the misconduct. For this
reason, handling of the complaint will require coordination in confidence, in order to protect
evidence, protect the good names of the innocent bystanders and preserve the option of calling
them as confidential witnesses. Thus I’ve requested that Northwestern officials keep its contents
in confidence, including from Mr. Bailey, until we’ve discussed how you plan to process it.
In that complaint, I requested a meeting with the initial investigation committee to present and
discuss the new evidence against Mr. Bailey. It’s now been three long months, and I’ve not
received any response to my request, other than to learn second hand that the complaint wasn’t
forwarded to the committee. Instead, it is presumably now being handled by your office.
I consider this “silent treatment” to be very troubling, evasive and dismissive. I now formally
request an audience with you, so that I may discuss with you in person how you intend to process
the May 10th complaint. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter via both e-mail and in writing.
Sincerely,
Lynn Conway
Ms. Lynn Conway
Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Emerita
152 ATL Building
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48109-2110
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Attachment: The May 10th Complaint (CONFIDENTIAL)
This page is part of Lynn Conway's