Harvard Medical “Expert” Disqualified in Federal Court Case Due to “Overwhelming” and “Misleading” Plagiarism
“he repeatedly outright refused to acknowledge the long swaths of his report that quote other work verbatim without any quotation marks at all—instead stubbornly insisting that he cited over 1,100 references, as if that resolves the attribution issue (it does not)”
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.
The report must contain:
(i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them;
(ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them;
(iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them;
(iv) the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;
(v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and
(vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).
Anyway, I have never even heard of a federal court expert witness being accused of plagiarism, never mind actually being disqualified for it.
But it happened in a case called Henderson v. Lockheed Martin, in which several dozen plaintiffs sued Lockheed Martin, alleging that toxic chemicals from Lockheed’s Orlando weapons plant caused them various diseases, many cancer-related.
From Legal Newsline: ‘A mess’: Expert in Fla. toxic tort plagiarizes cancer research of others, tries to submit it to court:
[P]laintiffs have been booted from a Florida toxic tort lawsuit because the expert hired by lawyers to connect their cancers to substances released at a Lockheed Martin plant plagiarized the work of a research group.
Judge Roy Dalton, in Orlando federal court, on March 18 granted Lockheed Martin’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dipak Panigrahy, a pathologist who was to testify that seven substances released at an Orlando plant can cause eight types of cancer that affect 22 plaintiffs in the lawsuit….
Panigrahy’s testimony alleged TCE, PCE, HCHO, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, trichloroethylene and styrene could cause these cancers: kidney, breast, thyroid, pancreatic, liver and bile duct, testicular, anal, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia.
The problem was Panigrahy simply copied, without any attribution, large swaths of research produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This, Judge Dalton determined, was deliberate Plagiarism:
“Here, there is no question that Dr. Panigrahy extensively plagiarized his report,” he added. A side-by-side comparison speaks for itself.
“And his deposition made the plagiarism appear deliberate, as he repeatedly outright refused to acknowledge the long swaths of his report that quote other work verbatim without any quotation marks at all – instead stubbornly insisting that he cited over 1,100 references, as if that resolves the attribution issue (it does not).”
This plagiarism demonstrates an unreliable methodology, Dalton found.
“Indeed, the plagiarism is so ubiquitous throughout the report that it is frankly overwhelming to try to make heads or tails of just what is Dr. Panigrahy’s own work – a task that neither he nor Plaintiffs’ counsel even attempts to tackle,” he wrote.
More importantly, Dr. Panigrahy took the stolen research and deleted cautionary references, thereby making it look worse than it was. From Judge Dalton’s Disqualification Order:
Again, the Court could end there. But the report gets worse—because Dr. Panigrahy did not just lift from IARC without alteration. Rather, several times, he copied lengthy paragraphs from IARC verbatim but conveniently left out sentences in which IARC urged caution about the limitations of its findings, misleadingly presenting the science as more definitive than it actually is…Copying from IARC is bad enough, but selectively copying to overstate the science makes Dr. Panigrahy’s methodology even less reliable…And because Dr. Panigrahy did not actually put quotation marks around what he was lifting from IARC, it would be a near impossible task to try to find every instance in his 500-page report where he went even further than IARC would by omitting its cautionary language, so the Court cannot parse out reliable sections.”
You can find Judge Dalton’s Disqualification Order at the end of this post. 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:
The putative plagiarist, Dr. Panigraphy, is an assistant professor of pathology, at Harvard Medical School, in the department of pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, in Boston.
Schachtman also notes that Panigrahy had his opinion excluded in another federal court case in 2022:
Panigraphy has a profile at the “Expert Institute,” sort of an employment agency for expert witnesses. His opinions were excluded in the federal multi-district litigation concerning Zantac/ranitidine. In re Zantac (ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL NO. 2924 20-MD-2924, 644 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1100 (S.D. Fla. 2022). [update – 4-30-2024][see below]
[Update] We received a communication from the Expert Institute requesting the following clarification:
We noticed a mention of our company that we would like to clarify. The article states that Dr. Panigraphy is available for hire through Expert Institute. This is not accurate. Dr. Panigraphy’s public profile is actually part of our Expert Radar service, which provides research, insights, and monitoring of expert witnesses. Dr. Panigraphy is not affiliated with Expert Institute. Interestingly, your article was added to his Radar profile just a day or two after its publication.
Looks like Harvard has more to clean up than just the DEI and President’s office. And, I might add, it’s one thing for the head of DEI to have plagiarized, it is quite another for Harvard Medical School professors to have plagiarized. Good lord.
NEWSFLASH: A federal judge has determined that Harvard Medical School professor Dipak Panigrahy plagiarized a report submitted to the court.
Harvard’s plagiarism crisis is spinning out of control. pic.twitter.com/abR1YtV4tD
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 12, 2024
“Dr. Panigrahy’s report is—put plainly—a mess.” pic.twitter.com/cQsxDQS0m3
— Jean-Luc Canard (@JLCanard) April 12, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I imagine Hah-vahd will do with him what they did with Gay. He won’t be fired; he will be removed from his present position and shuffled off to someplace he won’t be seen, and paid the same, or maybe a bit more.
$900K a year sounds about right, lol
This is DEI in action. When you hire and promote based on race you get incompetence.
As progressives so often seem to be of a “hive mind”, there’s no telling how far the plagiarism rot goes in academia. How likely is it that this kind of thing is only happening to this degree at Harvard?
This speaks to a high level of dishonesty and laziness, and makes trusting these sorts a hazardous proposition. In any realm or endeavor.
It seems that Claudine Gay was not an anomaly. Harvard is now the home of plagiarism.. they should make Joe Biden their president.
Is Didn’t Earn It at the root of their problems?
No. At Harvard, that’s a symptom of a much wider problem of arrogance and, of course, the general problem of leftism everywhere: Greed.
Harvard should have a team busy reviewing all their staff, taking corrective action before more indiscretions surface.
Fauxcohontas Warren plagiarized and entire people to advance herself dishonestly.
It is beginning to look like the entire Harvard faculty and admins are “putative” experts etc.
This “Expert’s” career has just ended.
Will Lockheed Martin file a Rule 11 motion, requesting damages to be paid by the plaintiff’s counsel?
Another harvard DEI fraud? Dr. Dipak Panigrahy, name and photo checks out. smh
I was about to make a snarky remark about the good doctor, an Indian, doing cultural appropriation from the other Harvard plagiarists, but that’d have been racist.
Buy, isn’t it odd that all of the identified plagiarists are people of color?
I am sure that Harvard has someone, anyone, on staff that is white and a plagiarist.
It seems that unchecked plagiarism is a rather dark affair.
Do t expect a cure from cancer… anytime too soon..
Don’t
Now you are plagiarizing FJB. LOL.
Truth to tell, I believe Biden plagiarized “Don’t.”
It’s worse. Dr. P. presumably could not find ANY prior research that supported, without material qualification/caution, his pro-plaintiffs opinions. In substance, he was prepared to give sworn testimony knowing it to be false. Looks a lot like intended perjury. This is probably a case for disciplinary action by both Harvard and whoever has issued his medical license.
“More importantly, Dr. Panigrahy took the stolen research and deleted cautionary references”
But… but that is how we Progressives have ALWAYS done tHe scIEnce!
30 years ago, the clever tactic was to write a scholarly paper on a correlation that might or might not be a causation, including all the appropriate hedges and disclaimers, to get it peer reviewed and published. Once this hurdle had been jumped, an the peer reviewers were safely out of the loop. one would get interviewed by liberal hosts and make blatant claims that A definitely causes B. Nobody whose prose had public legs would ever actually READ your paper and call you out on it — your paper served simply as a mystical talisman against criticism.
And yes, I’m talking about you, Arthur Kellerman.
Nothing new under the Sun. Vile Leftists’ and Dhimmi-crats’ slavish devotion to ideology and Narrative(TM) trumps facts and science, every time.
What’s notable, here, is that the reprobate engaging in brazen and dishonest parroting of medical research of dubious worth, got caught and exposed.
Is it ironic that his name resembles pantograph?
He ruined any chances the plantiffs may have had that could have passed muster. They should sue him in civil court now.
And so should their attorneys…. unless the methods used by the judge’s staff to find this fraud was a tool they had available and reasonably should have used…. in which case, their law licenses should be stripped for failure to do the due diligence.
Sue him for what? They’d first have to prove that their claims could have been sustained if not for his testimony. But as the judge pointed out there was no other evidence for their claims. So his chicken-shit behavior tanked their worthless claims, no harm, no fowl.
I thought the same. Lockheed could very well be guilty, but this clown made sure we’ll likely never know.
Harvard should no longer be considered top 10 university any more.
They should rip the ivy off the buildings.
I’ve done that. It’s harder than it sounds. Especially if it’s captured your window screens since the last time it was done.
Make them do it anyway. Punishments don’t always have to be easy and they’ve got plenty of money to pay for good workers – not Indian contractors.
Also, there’s shades, here, of disgraced and corrupt attorney (and, Dhimmi-crat bigwig) Steven Donziger’s bribery of an Ecuadorean judge, to obtain a massive judgment against Chevron (which judgment was eventually tossed out, by a U.S. federal judge). Perpetrating brazen frauds upon the courts — especially where deep-pocketed corporations are involved — in order to win big judgments is simply standard operating procedure, where dishonest, Dhimmi-crat trial lawyers are involved.
Thank you. I had forgotten that egregious example of woke lawyering.
You’re welcome. Donziger’s conduct represented one of the most brazen acts of attorney misconduct and ethical breaches in the history of civil actions. Truly, a bit of self-serving chicanery for the ages.
Plagiarism, data manipulation, bribery and extortion are the only real weapons environmentalists have. The science simply doesn’t support their suppositions, and the global economy cannot support their “solutions.”
In this case, it is probably likely that the chemicals contributed to higher cases of cancer. Proving it is another issue entirely. I feel bad for those plaintiffs, but glad that a court finally took action against someone who has zero business being in the business he is in.
Why do you think it is “probably likely”? I see no a priori reason to suppose that any chemical causes any disease. Evidence is required in each instance.
I am an academic physician. I’ve been an expert witness in medical cases in several state courts (never federal court). It never, ever occurred to me to plagiarize so much as a clause from another report, publication, deposition, or other material. I’d like to think that I’m an honest fellow, but I must also say that I’d live in deathly fear of what a judge would do to me if I did use material without proper attribution in a sworn statement.
I would like to think that the Federal judge in this case has sanctions coming against this physician. A biblical response is the only way to ensure this sort of thing doesn’t happen in the future.
It is unlikely the judge will seek to sanction the witness directly. Undoubtedly , however, the decision has come to the attention of both Harvard Medical School and his medical licensing authority and he should expect adverse consequences. It is also likely that Defendants lawyers will move for a punitive costs award against Plaintiffs lawyers( see comment above re relevant procedural rule) .If that happens, and they were not part of a fraudulent scheme, Plaintiffs lawyers will likely seek recovery from Dr P. This case will become well known among trial attorneys and potential expert witnesses.
I, likewise, am disgusted with this boob. I suspect a deep dive will expose a long trail of spineless supervisors and chairpersons passing this unethical idiot on, rather than disciplining or demoting him.
Probably the same for most of the faculty at Harvard.
I wonder how many “experts” were solicited before this fellow accepted the assignment. A problem that arises is that attorneys are advocates, and as such the truth is not necessarily the desired outcome. This can then bend the “science” to either fit or disqualify a theory.
This may be just the first of many legal issues the doctor will be facing
I wonder if other cases he has provided “expert” testimony for will be looked at.
I’m waiting for the lawsuit against Harvard from students that they’ve expelled for plagiarism (which is actually a substantial number) against the school for their double standards in maintaining plagiarist professors with little or no penalty while terminating the enrollment of students being taught by these plagiarist professors for committing the same offense.
If it weren’t for double standards, they’d have none at all.
Lawsuit on what grounds? If they admit that they were guilty, then the university had the right to expel them. That professors were not treated the same way is none of their business.
Of course you would find justification that removes any culpability of Harvard to hold their faculty to the same standards that they hold students.
Why should they? How is that any of the students’ business? Harvard is a business. It has no obligation to treat its customers and its staff the same way.
Landlord: I’m evicting you because you were playing your drums at 2 AM and woke the entire building.
You: But Apartment 5 did the same thing last week and you didn’t evict them!
Landlord: That’s right. I like them, so I just told them not to do it again. I don’t like you nearly as much, so I’m enforcing your lease. Got any problem with that?
Feel Good Story of the Day
Restores my faith, a little, in our legal system. Seems there still exists some few Judges worthy of their position.
I take back 2% of the things I’ve said about them.
When I was a member of a Federal grand jury several years ago, I sat in on a couple of cases going on. One was similar to this case, and where I live it was a very controversial one.
I literally sat in a court room for over three hours with nobody but the plaintiffs and at least a dozen lawyers and the court officers and judge.
During those three hours when multiple lawyers were doing nothing but taking notes and passing messages to their lead attorneys, they did only one thing. They fought over the credentials of a witness with multiple PH, D’s who had something like 20 years of experience in his field and almost as long as a witness in legal proceedings like this.
I can’t say here what his area of expertise was, let’s just say all of his degrees were in hard sciences.
I literally watched a distinguished scientist get a legal ‘proctology exam’ in open court, and they weren’t done with the fight when I left.
It is absolutely unreal that this guy from Harvard would do what he did. He had to know what would happen when he showed up in court, and these lawyers play for keeps in these kind of cases.,
He torched the case for the people who paid big bucks to hire him. No sane lawyer will ever hire him again for this, and likely his reputation is ruined. Harvard is being tuned into the Wikipedia of colleges by people like this, an untrustworthy joke of an institution.
I hope the judge monetarily sanctions him and the lawyers who hired him sue him for ever last penny the guy owns.
Those who are unqualified for the positions they’ve obtained choose not to understand. They honestly believe they are in the right, even when appropriating ideas and content from others. I’m sure he was as blindsided as the defendants and their attorneys.
“Plaintiffs and their attorneys.”
This “expert witness” is not clear on the assignment. Sad.
Seems like this guy thought he was a journalist. Sorry, “journalist.”
For the past 25 years, I’ve served many times as a consulting/testifying expert in litigation involving information technology: about 40% intellectual property, 40% disputed/failed projects, and 20% miscellaneous. I’ve encountered a number of opposing experts whom I felt were unqualified or just did a weak job, and I’ve encountered a few who I thought were outright intellectually dishonest.
Never encountered plagiarism, though. 🤣🤣🤣
Am I missing something here? The plaintiffs seem to be missing in all this. Well, it’s just a few cancers.
I’m not opining on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, here, but, in our current era, all “toxic tort” actions and cancer or other disease/illness claims must be looked at with intense scrutiny and skepticism, given the pervasive dishonesty that is present among the trial lawyer Bar.
Take a look at the civil actions that Bayer has had to settle for obscene sums of money, even though there is zero scientific evidence conclusively demonstrating that the company’s Round-Up weed-killing product causes cancer. Sympathy for the plaintiffs, even in the absence of sound factual evidence supporting their claims, is a big reason why these juries vote in their favor.
Correction; Bayer settled some of the claims, after losing several jury trials.
Sounds unfair to the plaintiffs. How would they know that their expert witness is a fake? Let them bring another one.
I was thinking the same. Rejection of the expert should be followed by the opportunity to present another.
Who knows? Perhaps they had only the one bite at the apple. If you don’t get it right the first time, you don’t get a second shot.
“Mamas don’t let your babies grow up to be Harvard students …”. Citation: Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson.
Harvard, a den of elitist Marxist a-holes who know better than you do. Just ask them!
What do Harvard graduates, CrossFitters, and Vegetarians all have in common?
They will tell you within 1 minute of meeting them.
Harvard formerly had a reputation that seemed impervious to criticism, but now it looks like they are hell bent on destroying themselves, so it may not take too long to run through that massive endowment at the rate they are going. Of course all of this is going to be dismissed as envious nitpicking for as long as possible, but narcissists do not do well for long when they are ridiculed by the hoi polloi!