Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


NCSU professor becomes convinced that colleagues built big research project on false foundation


This is a shocking tale. Most readers can't follow the "science of the matter," but as the reporter notes, There's a bedrock principle of science: One scientist should be able to reproduce the results of another.

Education is different from chemistry. In education, people in power don't even bother to pretend to conduct any studies before making Common Core mandatory.

Note that the National Science Foundation seems to be just as reluctant as everybody else to expose bad science.

And the two women who were graduate students working on this? One recently landed a university position, the other is looking.


by Joseph Neff

In 2004, two colleagues at N.C. State asked professor Stefan Franzen for his help. They sold him on research they said could create world-changing inventions through a process that mimicked natural biological evolution.

Scientists, they claimed, could devise tools to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, producing an endlessly renewable and clean fuel. Or they could create superconductors to transmit electricity at room temperature, revolutionizing the business of distributing power.

It was a heady and intellectually stimulating time, a chance to work on a project that combined two of the most potent scientific buzzwords of the period: nanoparticles and RNA, the bodyâs messenger service for genetic information.

"I was very jazzed about it," Franzen said. "I was in a very fanciful and creative mood, taken up with the possibilities."

A decade later, Franzen is still consumed. Not by the project, but by his attempts to force his former colleagues to admit they built their research on a false foundation.

After years of going through all the prescribed channels in the science community and at N.C. State, he's taking his story public.

Franzen is convinced that his colleagues knew early on that their research was flawed, and he was outraged when they refused to correct their misrepresentations. Legal threats and investigations ensued. An acrimonious battle raged in the arcane journals of research chemistry. He says university lawyers and administrators were more worried about controlling damage to N.C. State's reputation than about maintaining scientific standards and ethics.

Franzen is 56, a tenured professor of chemistry who also works two months a year at Zhejiang University, one of China's most prestigious schools. An author of 175 scientific papers, his research currently focuses on proteins in marine organisms that can clean up toxins in the environment.

His quest to correct the record raises larger issues. How much false science is published? Who polices the misconduct, and how well?

The questions burn at the core of one of the regionâs economic engines. The Triangle is home to growing alliances among businesses, academics and venture capitalists. Three major research universities bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in grants annually, and last week President Barack Obama came to town to announce more would be coming to N.C. State. Dozens of research-based companies in and around Research Triangle Park thirst for the discoveries and will pay handsomely for them.

But scientific misconduct has been on the rise. A 2012 study from the National Academy of Sciences found a tenfold increase since 1975 in scientific articles retracted because of fraud.

Researcher misconduct was the cause of two-thirds of the retractions, which were more likely to occur in prestigious journals. The competition for grant money and the pursuit of academic prestige were among the reasons, authors of the study have said.

The paper

Bruce Eaton, 59, has had a long career in industry and academics. He is named on at least 70 patents, helped start two companies and consulted on product launches. Dan Feldheim, 46, described by colleagues as a big thinker, has a wide research background, from DNA research to the development of tools to diagnose lung diseases such as cancer, pneumonia and drug-resistant tuberculosis.

In May 2004, both were professors at N.C. State. Eaton and Feldheim -- with the help of Ph.D. candidate Lina Gugliotti -- published new research in Science, one of the world's most prestigious journals.

The scientists wrote that they had used RNA to create tiny crystals of palladium, a metal used in catalytic converters and thousands of other industrial products. And while palladium is valuable, the greater promise was that scientists could potentially create any number of tiny structures -- a microfactory inside a test tube, with RNA as the machinery that could churn out valuable superconductors and high-strength materials.

The key ingredient was a mix containing an enormous number of RNA sequences -- the number 1 followed by 14 zeros. Eaton and Feldheim had patented the process for selecting useful RNA sequences as well as some of the resulting compounds. Venture capitalists and investors refer to such patented compounds as the "secret sauce."

Feldheim and Eaton said they mixed the RNA solution in water with a compound containing mostly carbon but also 20 percent palladium by weight.

After two hours at room temperature, they filtered and processed the solution.

In the dry, precise language of scientific journals, Eaton and Feldheim trumpeted their findings in Science. Their secret sauce had formed tiny hexagonal palladium crystals, they said. All life on Earth is carbon based, and DNA and RNA regulate the creation of carbon-based cells. Feldheim and Eaton claimed they were now able to step out of the carbon-based world and deploy RNA to bring about the formation of metals.

The paper was good news for the professors. Eaton, who had previously trademarked the phrase "Evolutionary Chemistry," moved in 2005 to the University of Colorado and joined a biotech firm, SomaLogic, as its director of research. The company then acquired the licenses to Eaton's portfolio of patents.

After the Science paper was published, Feldheim and Eaton asked Franzen, an expert in attaching bits of RNA and DNA to various surfaces, to join them. They wanted to apply for a $1 million grant from the Keck Foundation.

Franzen signed on. Both he and Feldheim had started teaching at N.C. State in 1997 and had collaborated on seven previous scientific papers.

Franzen was curious: What was the step-by-step formation of the crystals? How did the RNA fold the palladium into a hexagon? Why wasn't it a rod or a cube, the usual shapes for palladium crystals?

The bold grant proposal owned up to being perhaps too radical for more timid foundations "that do not possess the global long-range vision of The Keck Foundation," it said. The foundation's mandate is to support pioneering discoveries in science, engineering and medical research. One of the Keck board members was Larry Gold, a University of Colorado professor and founder of SomaLogic.

The grant proposal asked the foundation to imagine a fantasy vision of the world where any magnetic, optical, chemical or physical characteristic could be formed at will.

"Everything from new ultra high strength materials to room temperature superconductors might be possible," the trio wrote. "These materials would in turn enable new technologies for medicine, transportation, information storage and alternative energy; technologies that will have a profound impact on the world in which we live."

Keck approved the grant. Feldheim and Eaton went on to receive more than $700,000 in related grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.

No indexing

In November 2005, Feldheim and Eaton announced more progress in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. They had used RNA to form hexagonal crystals of platinum, another useful metal.

In a note at the end of the paper, they disclosed a minor-sounding detail: Their aqueous solution, mixed with the secret RNA sauce and the carbon-metal compound, was not 100 percent water. It contained 5 percent of a solvent called THF. The importance of this would become apparent years later.

But at the time, Feldheim's laboratory continued to research RNA and the creation of what it claimed to be metal crystals. As is normal, Ph.D. students and post-doctorates performed most of the work, under the supervision and direction of Feldheim and Franzen. Eaton had left for Colorado.

The students engaged in a constant attempt to confirm or disprove the work and expand the research. This brought Lina Gugliotti and Donovan Leonard together in fall 2005.

The two graduate students met in one of the electron microscopy rooms on Centennial Campus to run tests that would check whether the formed crystals were indeed palladium.

Gugliotti was the Ph.D. candidate who had, under the supervision of Feldheim and Eaton, carried out the research published in Science, which carried her name as a contributing author. She brought samples of the palladium crystals.

Leonard, a Ph.D. candidate in materials science, would operate the electron microscopes. Leonard set up the microscope to examine the diffraction pattern. Every crystal has a unique diffraction pattern -- an image of electron beams bouncing off atoms. In preparation for the test, Leonard had created models of palladium diffraction images.

They were nothing like the images he saw in the microscope.

"It was clear we weren't looking at palladium," Leonard said. "There was a lot of head scratching."

Leonard said he had calibrated the machine correctly. Maybe it was a bad sample. The grad students ran more tests and got the same results.

Leonard ran a chemical analysis that showed the particles contained a lot of carbon. It was not pure palladium, which is an element and a metal. He took his concerns to Franzen, who suggested it might be a bad sample. Franzen said the significance of the results didnât dawn on him at the time.

Leonard re-read the Science article and tried to talk with Feldheim about the data.

On Dec. 6, 2005, to a group that included Feldheim, Leonard presented his findings: The hexagons weren't metal and contained very little palladium.

Franzen and Leonard recall that Feldheim was angry and defensive, accusing Leonard of not knowing what he was doing.

Leonard said Gugliotti pulled out diffraction images from the original research. He asked whether she had indexed the images, in effect calibrating the microscope and producing a benchmark image of a known substance. Indexing provides a unique fingerprint of a material. Unindexed images are useless random patterns.

Gugliotti admitted to Leonard, Franzen and all present that she had not indexed the images.

Leonard said that subsequent exchanges with Feldheim were unpleasant. When Leonard asked to meet, the response was, "'We're busy.' 'Don't worry.' 'Sorry we brought it up to you.' 'We're going to do it elsewhere.'"

Or it was combative.

"He was yelling at me, 'Leave this palladium stuff alone!'" Leonard said. "As a student, I was confused."

Lots of solvent

After receiving her Ph.D., Marta Cerruti joined N.C. State for a two-year post-graduate stint. In spring 2006, Cerruti started a series of experiments funded by the Keck grant. She uncovered a string of problems with the RNA research.

In the course of her research, Ceruti routinely ran basic control tests, including one without RNA, the building block of Feldheim and Eaton's evolutionary chemistry.

Even without the RNA, the experiment produced the hexagonal particles.

She ran it again. Same result, leading her to ask questions about the core of the research: Did RNA have any role at all? Did the notion of evolutionary chemistry have any value?

"It was really scary," Cerruti recalled. "There was no need for RNA to make the particles."

Cerruti discovered another problem: Other researchers in Feldheim's lab were running related RNA experiments using 70 to 100 percent THF solvent, she said, a far cry from the "aqueous solution" described in the Science paper. The solvent, not the RNA, was the key to creating the particles.

Cerruti regularly shared her results with her mentors. She couldn't have received more different reactions.

Franzen was shocked. He had wanted to believe in the power of RNA. But the data didn't add up. The hexagons were not sharply defined crystals. The hexagons were apparently 90 percent carbon, not 100 percent palladium.

In a June 2006 letter to Feldheim and Eaton, Franzen proposed new experiments. He pushed his arguments with Feldheim at a meeting in Raleigh and at a scientific conference in Poland. Franzen said Feldheim privately admitted there were serious issues, that the results could be a product of experimental error or a faulty test arrangement. They would run more experiments to find out what was happening, Feldheim said.

Cerruti got a very different response from Feldheim. In September 2006, she performed several of the tests in front of Feldheim, using his lab and his equipment.

"I said, 'What do we do? We should say something; there is something wrong in what has been published,'" said Cerruti, who had a few months left in her two-year contract.

"He said, 'You donât have that much time. Go finish something else.'"

Cerruti said it was awkward to be caught between two strong-willed professors.

"I felt terrible," she said. "It was a very, very bad time in my career."

But in the lab and in the chemistry department, things were about to get worse.



NC State professor uncovers problems in lab journal

Stefan Franzen is an intense man. He rattles off ideas and facts in machine-gun manner, in person or in early morning emails.

A classical pianist, he plays Bach to relax. He spent three years in Kenya as a Peace Corps volunteer teaching science. He learned two languages there and became so proficient in Swahili that he taught the language at his school. He speaks 10 languages, including Polish and Chinese, which he learned during annual travels to research projects he has established.

His colleagues at N.C. State say he's driven to be a researcher and a mentor.

And he retains the idealism that led him to the Peace Corps. Scientists, he says, must correct the record when they discover error. And professors have a duty to train the next generation of students to become rigorous, ethical scientists.

In 2005 and 2006, a graduate student and a postdoctorate fellow had developed strong evidence that a $1 million grant that Franzen shared with two colleagues was built on a false premise. The proposal, building on a prominent Science journal article, had said the other two scientists had used RNA, the body's messenger service for genetic information, to create tiny crystals of palladium, an element. The concept promised advances such as extracting hydrogen from water to create an endless source of clean energy.

Franzen had been asked to join the grant proposal. His colleagues Bruce Eaton and Dan Feldheim, who produced the original research, were unwilling to correct the record. But Franzen believed strongly that their published claims to have produced ground-breaking nanoparticles were inaccurate.

The standoff raised significant questions for N.C. State. Verified research misconduct would embarrass the university, could force it to refund grants and would jeopardize future funding.

The feud also brought tension to one of the Triangle's most potent economic engines: scientific research.

The Triangle is home to growing alliances among businesses, academics and venture capitalists, one of the reasons President Barack Obama was here last week to announce a major research initiative at N.C. State. Dozens of research-based companies in and around Research Triangle Park thirst for the discoveries and will pay handsomely. But what are they getting for their licensing fees?

For years, this fight stayed below the surface. Since 2006, Franzen has worked to expose it, first within the university and now to the general public. The scientists whose work is in question -- Eaton, Feldheim and Lina Gugliotti -- are silent.

An angry exchange

In October 2006, Franzen resigned from the project, writing a three-page, single-spaced letter to Feldheim and Eaton. Every finding was wrong, he wrote: The hexagonal crystals aren't palladium; RNA isn't necessary for the hexagons; and the hexagonal crystals aren't even crystals. "Evolutionary Chemistry," Eaton's trademarked phrase, was not panning out.

These findings were completely unexpected when he embarked on the ambitious project, Franzen wrote.

"None of the people who have put effort into this . . . can understand why you, as our collaborators, would simply ignore data," Franzen wrote. "But you have ignored it."

Franzen was blunt: It would be unethical for a scientist to advise students and postdocs to continue work that should be retracted. Franzen urged them to retract the Science article and two others.

Feldheim responded the following day.

"To say you have been ignored or that Bruce and I have not taken this seriously is incorrect," Feldheim wrote. "However, I feel that a correction or quick retraction of all of our papers without looking into this deeply to understand what is going on would not be very smart."

The following day, Feldheim provided images from an electron microscope long requested by Franzen. "I would normally find it difficult to hand over my data to someone who has called me a cheat and a liar, but what the hell, you have seen these at least twice before," Feldheim wrote in an email.

The images that Feldheim used to support the articles included two slides that he said led to the statement about the formation of palladium crystals. The first was from Gugliotti's original research. The second was a composite image.

"So my students may only report what they think I want to see," Feldheim wrote, "I may have misinterpreted the diffraction, or maybe these complexes are just weird. But I am not a liar or a cheat."

Franzen was not satisfied. The first image was among those that were not indexed, meaning that the microscope had not been calibrated properly. And Feldheim would not provide him with the original data involving the second image, which Franzen acknowledged could be palladium.

The matter came to a head at a meeting on Oct. 17, 2006. Franzen handed out a short manuscript that would correct errors in the 2004 Science article.

Feldheim reacted angrily and responded with a legal threat, Franzen said. Feldheim claimed the correction relied on a chemical formula made in his laboratory. The formula, closely related to the RNA "secret sauce" used in the experiment that led to the article, was the property of SomaLogic, the company Eaton had joined in Colorado.

Feldheim said SomaLogic would sue N.C. State if the correction were submitted, documents show.

Feldheim did not discuss the scientific issues at the meeting, Franzen said. Instead, he accused Franzen of misusing grant money. Feldheim also said a scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had independently verified the work. He wouldn't identify the scientist.

Soon after the meeting, Franzen formally accused Feldheim and Eaton of academic misconduct and asked N.C. State to conduct an investigation. The university appointed a panel of five professors to look into the claim.

Calling in the lawyers

The dispute soon spilled beyond the pages of scientific journals into the offices of lawyers employed by N.C. State.

Franzen had to get permission from the university's legal counsel before proceeding with the correction to Science. Letters flew between lawyers for the university and for Eaton and SomaLogic. (Asked by The News & Observer for the correspondence, N.C. State refused or provided letters with the text completely blacked out, saying the letters were part of the personnel files of Eaton and Feldheim.)

After Franzen sent his correction to Science, Feldheim and Eaton submitted a rebuttal. Their argument against Franzen was mostly scientific, yet sprinkled with adjectives typically not found in science journals: "misguided," "ill-informed," "technically imprecise," "erroneous," "brazen" and "illogical."

After having two "referee" scientists examine the exchange, Science chose not to run the correction. According to one referee, "much of this seems to be a personal attack on Feldheim and Eaton." One said that Franzen's approach was "unconscionable" and arrogant, while the other said that the proposed correction submitted by Franzen "makes these authors look like amateurs."

Franzen's submission covered his attempts to duplicate the experiments. He did not reveal that the images from Gugliotti's research were not indexed. Unindexed images are useless random patterns.

Franzen rewrote the correction into a full article published in December 2007 in perhaps the most prestigious journal for chemists, the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

The article drew a scathing response from Feldheim, who had left NCSU in summer 2007 to join Eaton at the University of Colorado. Feldheim repeatedly labeled Franzen's work as false (four times), deceptive (six), misleading (three), fictitious (twice) and demanded that the journal retract the article. It did not.

His top complaint was legal, not scientific: Franzen and his colleagues had analyzed a material that did not belong to them.

Eaton soon followed with a similar legal threat. A Colorado lawyer accused N.C. State of infringing on patents owned by Eaton and SomaLogic and demanded that the research immediately stop. The lawyer accused Franzen of using the patented compounds to attack the integrity of Eaton and his published research.

On June 30, 2008, the university investigative committee submitted its report on the 2004 Science paper to the NCSU administration. The investigation had a three-part test:

⢠Was there falsification? Yes. The paper had falsely asserted that the hexagonal particles were crystalline palladium, the committee ruled.

⢠Was the conduct a significant departure from accepted practices? Yes. The scientists had failed to identify the exact makeup of the particles through indexing, the committee said. The report quoted Donovan Leonard's reaction upon first seeing the images: "My jaw hit the floor at this point."

⢠Was the falsification knowing or intentional? No. The committee found that Lina Gugliotti was a novice in the use of a key electron microscope. The committee said the brunt of the responsibility fell on Feldheim, who should have been aware of the importance of proper indexing and failed to thoroughly consult with experts.

By a 4-1 vote, the committee said Feldheim's behavior did not rise to the level of recklessness.

The university forwarded the investigative report to the National Science Foundation and urged Feldheim and Eaton to correct their errors in the Science article. The NSF launched an investigation.

Franzen: not enough

Franzen was dissatisfied with the N.C. State investigation. He was interviewed, and he asked to present evidence but was not allowed to point the committee to where he believed they would find evidence of fraud. He asked the university to let him look at all material it gathered. In particular, he wanted to see the lab notebooks of Gugliotti, who conducted the experiments for the Science paper.

He also turned to Eaton and Feldheim's employer. On Aug. 6, 2008, he sent the University of Colorado a seven-page letter outlining what he labeled as four years of misconduct.

The entire claim that RNA can produce metals is a fraud, he wrote, asserting that Feldheim and Eaton's litigious behavior betrayed financial motives, not a search for scientific truth.

"The falsified solubility and composition are only the manifestations of a fraud that was perpetrated with a profit motive," he wrote.

In December of that year, the Office of Research Integrity at the University of Colorado disagreed: "Given the thorough evaluation completed by the North Carolina State Investigation Committee and its exoneration of Professors Eaton and Feldman (sic) of any and all charges, the Inquiry Subcommittee unanimously concluded the two allegations were unfounded."

Similarly, Franzen tried to fix the errors in Science and other journals. The responses ranged from sympathetic to curt, but none agreed to correct the record.

Franzen then tried to get N.C. State's help. Terri Lomax, vice chancellor of research integrity, drafted a letter asking Science and the other journals to retract the articles or demand that the authors correct them.

NCSU's lawyers forwarded the letter to Feldheim and Eaton for comment. NCSU never sent that letter to the journals; Franzen said they got cold feet after Eaton's lawyer threatened to sue. NCSU declined to provide letters from Eaton's lawyers, saying they were part of Eaton's personnel file.

In October 2009, the university sent a shorter letter to the journals pointing to two errors in the articles. Lomax said the process that led to the changes in the letters was routine.

'Open-and-shut case'

Franzen made a formal request under the state's public records law to see Gugliotti's lab notebooks; university lawyers turned him down.

In fall 2009, he spent $1,334 of his own money to hire Mike Tadych, a Raleigh lawyer who specializes in public records law and who has represented The News & Observer. In 2010, the university relented and allowed Franzen into the room where the investigation records were locked away.

Franzen found the lab notebooks, which track experiments and results. As he turned the pages, he recognized that Gugliotti kept a thorough and well-organized record.

"I found an open-and-shut case of research fraud," Franzen said.

The aqueous solution mentioned in the Science article? The experiments routinely used 50 percent solvent. The experiments only produced the hexagonal crystals when there was a high level of solvent, typically 50 percent or more. It was the solvent creating the hexagonal crystals, not the RNA.

On Page 43 of notebook 3, Franzen found what he called a "smoking gun."

Gugliotti had pasted four images of hexagonal crystals, ragged around the edges. The particles were degrading at room temperature. The same degradation was present in other samples, she noted.

Palladium has a melting point of 2,831 degrees Fahrenheit. The metal, like gold or platinum, does not flake and fall apart at room temperature.

The page was dated Nov. 7, 2002, 19 months before the publication of the Science article.

Franzen said he does not blame Gugliotti. He said Feldheim and Eaton had the responsibility to know that the degrading crystals were proof that the hexagons were not palladium before the article was published in Science.

A secret meeting

Franzen shared his findings with his chemistry department colleagues, who were concerned at what they saw.

In spring 2011, the senior faculty met with Matt Ronning, a research integrity officer. Ronning had been Franzen's contact person for the misconduct complaint, stuck among Franzen, university lawyers and the research integrity office. Franzen gave this account of the meeting:

Ronning began by saying the meeting was secret.

Ronning said he had consulted with administrators at the highest level of the university. They were prepared to revoke Gugliotti's doctoral degree and that of another researcher if that would satisfy the department and end the matter. Faculty members objected. They said Eaton and Feldheim should be held responsible, not their students.

Ronning said the process was over once the university finished the investigation in 2008, according to Franzen's account. Some professors requested a copy of the investigation; Ronning refused.

The chemistry department formally requested a copy of the investigation from Chancellor Randy Woodson. In a letter to the department chair, Woodson declined to provide it, saying a National Science Foundation investigation was ongoing.

Ronning and Woodson declined to discuss the case with The N&O.

Staying silent

The NSF investigation into research fraud is still unfinished after more than five years. Franzen and colleagues say it is the longest-running investigation in its history.

In the heated meeting of October 2006, Feldheim had referred to an ace in the hole; he said their work had been replicated by a Lawrence Livermore scientist. That scientist was James DeYoreo, who published a 2008 paper with Feldheim and Eaton. At Franzen's urging, DeYoreo later published a correction: The solution was 50 percent solvent, not 5 percent, and authors weren't sure the so-called palladium crystals were metallic.

In 2013, DeYoreo and Franzen published a paper in Particle, a science journal, reporting that RNA has no apparent role in forming the hexagonal crystals from the palladium compound. It was Franzen's ninth paper debunking the notion that RNA could create metallic crystals.

The 10th was published in August in the Journal of Materials Chemistry, whose editors asked Feldheim and Eaton to comment before publication. They declined.

Errors and fraud multiply in science journals has soared

by Joseph Neff

Whether it's manufacturing medicine, measuring a microscopic object or culturing cells in a petri dish, there's a bedrock principle of science: One scientist should be able to reproduce the results of another.

Errors and outright fraud in science have become a topic of increasing interest in recent years.

The National Academies of Science noted last year that there has been a tenfold increase since 1975 in scientific papers retracted because of fraud. A popular scientific blog, Retraction Watch, reports daily on retractions, corrections and fraud from all corners of the scientific world.

Scientific fraud and error can rack up large costs, either to scientists trying to replicate the claims, or companies that purchase patents and invest in the research.

Here are several cases of high-dollar, high-profile research for which claims made in the scientific literature could not be replicated in other research labs:

⢠In 2008, Pfizer paid $725 million for the rights to a Russian cold medicine called Dimebon. The pharmaceutical giant thought the drug could help ameliorate the symptoms of Alzheimerâs. Several clinical trials showed the medicine had no more impact than a placebo. Pfizer has largely abandoned the project.

⢠In 2008, GlaxoSmithKline paid $720 million for Sirtris, a pharmacuetical company that touted the anti-aging benefits of resveratrol, a substance found in red wine. In 2011, the company ended its clinical trials of resveratrol. In March, GlaxoSmithKline shut down the Sirtris office. The company said it was optimistic the Sirtris team would develop valuable drugs but said it had stopped pursuing resveratrol research.

⢠In 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery reported that Bayer Corp. successfully reproduced published results in just one-quarter of 67 seminal studies published in academic journals. Nature later reported that scientists at the drug company Amgen were able to replicate only six of 53 landmark studies on cancer.


Research publications

N.C. State chemistry professor Stefan Franzen has attempted to force former colleagues to admit they built their research on a false foundation. Here are some publications related to the research.

May 7, 2004 Science RNA-Mediated Metal-Metal Bond Formation in the Synthesis of Hexagonal Palladium Nanoparticles

Nov 25, 2005 Journal of the American Chemical Society RNA-Mediated Control of Metal Nanoparticle Shape

Nov 10, 2007 Journal of the American Chemical Society The Role of Selection Pressure in RNA-Mediated Evolutionary Materials Synthesis

Jan 25, 2008 Scanning Scanning Probe-based Fabrication of 3D Nanostructures via Affinity Templates, Functional RNA, and Meniscus-mediated Surface Remodeling

Jun 30, 2008 NCSU report Report of the investigation committee allegations of possible misconduct in research

Aug 5, 2008 Langmuir Interfacial and Solvent Effects Govern the Formation of Tris(dibenzylidenacetone)dipalladium(0) Microstructures

Sep 26, 2008 Eletter Eletter Concerning RNA-Mediated Metal-Metal Bond Formation in the Synthesis of Hexagonal Palladium Nanoparticles

And so on. Hot links are available at the NewsObserver site.


Dec 1, 2008 Scanning Scanning probe- based fabrication of 3d nanostructures via affinity templates, functional RNA, and meniscus-mediated surface remodeling

Mar 20, 2009 Nucleic Acids Research A role for hydrophobicity in a Diels-Alder reaction catalyzed by pyridyl-modified RNA

Jun 20, 2009 The Journal of Physical Chemistry Is Pd2(DBA)3 a Feasible Precursor for the Synthesis of Pd Nanoparticles?

Feb 24, 2011 Journal of Chemical Education Determination of the Solubility Limit of Tris(dibenzylideneacetone) dipalladium(0) in Tetrahydrofuran/Water Mixtures

Apr 26, 2011 The Journal of Physical Chemistry Analysis of RNA-Mediated Materials Synthesis Using Magnetic Selection

Mar 1, 2013 Particle & Particle Systems Characterization The Formation of Pd Nanocrystals from Pd2(dba)3 Microcrystals

Apr 20, 2013 Journal of Materials Chemistry B Comment on 'Cooperativity between two selected RNA Pdases in the synthesis of Pd nanoparticles'

Source: News & Observer research

— Joseph Neff
Charlotte News Observer

2014-01-18

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/18/3539211/ncsu-professor-becomes-convinced.html

na


MORE OUTRAGES


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.