ackermann

In wissen.blog.com K. Muellen (Prof of MPIP) — T. Weil (Prof of Uni-Ulm & KM’s PhD student) — U. Ziener (TW’s associate & collaborator of KL) — K. Landfester (Prof of Uni-Ulm & MPIP) From G Lu Sent: 2011-05-19 14:56 To: E. P. K CC: Eagling Re: Accusation on paper b816751f Dear Prof. Kundig, I acknowledge you for your kind comfort and sincere counsel on the rules in scientific activities. As I told you before, I was actually kidnapped by the institute that I am currently staying in, so it is impossible for me to carry out research under such circumstances. I had also attempted twice to publish my paper b719277k to JACS and then Chem. Commu.. However it was unfortunately rejected directly by the editors without sending to referees. And Dr. Yue Li, who is a totally stranger to me, was selected to implement the work in order to cover the facts that the ideas were from me. Nonetheless some evidences still shed light on that the ideas do not belong to the authors themselves; for example, that Y. Li left Korea in Oct. 2006 contradicts with the availability of the funds. As shown in the main body of b719277k, the work on the synthesis of cation-loaded polymer nanosphere via miniemusion was actually carried out and mostly completed in spring 2005. On May 30, 2005 I showed all the results that I had got in a presentation given in our group seminar. I noticed that most audience was PhD students and postdocs from our group with Prof. Wegner at the scene. Only one young asian man seated himself at the last row was unknown. When I finished the report, he came to me and introduced that he came from another group, whose head is considered as one of the leaders in contemporary chemistry world. He requested to make a photocopy of the slide (I gave the presentation in printed slides), where the synthesis scheme was presented and I agreed him. However, I discovered a paper from that group using the same idea as mine was published at the beginning of 2006 and the authors claimed they owned the idea themselves.* As I repeated many times, I have never shared the ideas that I conceived in the Beijing conference in 2007 inside or outside the institute of ISSP. But I found out again this group published several papers employing these ideas with the assertion that the ideas were created by the authors. An invisible connection between this group and people from ISSP can be detected as well.** I retrospect the history of some parts of my work because I wish similar case would never happen on me again. I am weak and powerless as an individual, so I look forward to the understanding from conscientious people, which will bring me more hope for my life. Thank you very much for your valuable time once more. Best regards, G Lu (*)”10.1002/marc.200600027″ (**)http://wissen.blog.com/science-intrigue/ Some listeners at Wegner group seminar on May 30, 2005: Dr. R. Munoz-Espi, Dr. T. Seibel, Dr. M. Demir, Dr. I. Lieberwirth, Prof. G. Wegner, Dr. F. Laquai …… From: E. P. Kundig Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 3:17 PM To: G. Lu Cc: Eagling Subject: Re: Accusation on paper b816751f Dear Dr. Lu, Over the past months I have followed your e-mail exchange with Dr. Eagling regarding violations of intellectual property. Since, as you report, the adverse party continues to publish extensively I presume that they report work carried out in their own research group. You have to realize that once you discuss an idea with another person you run the risk that he/she will go and adopt it for his/her own work. It is not elegant, especially if they do not acknowledge you, but there is nothing you can do about it if you do not have taken out a patent on the invention. It happens all the time and particularly so in science. I have witnessed numerous cases where a large and well funded research group has ‘taken over’ a bright idea of someone else and, by the sheer power of their possibilities have made it their own. In other words, once you discuss an idea, you better be the first to publish results. When published or presented – in private or in public, the idea is in the open domain and it is a ‘free for all’. If you are the first to publish you can refer to this publication in subsequent papers and show that others have picked up and further developed your idea. If you have not published first, you have lost and any time devoted to claim back the idea and publications, patents, etc is time lost. It is then often better to concentrate on something new than to poison you life by trying to undo what cannot be undone. For an editor and a referee, all that can be done is to make sure that precedent publications are properly cited, that results that heve been previously published are not again published as ‘new’, and that publications are stopped when it the data are ‘copy/paste’ take-over from the competition. Other than that the check is purely on whether the results are of interest to the journal’s readers and whether the claims made are fully corroborated by the data. With sympathies and best regards, Prof. P. Kundig