Urgent Query to UF Regarding Ethics and Public Funding
|Date:||Sat, Jan 15, 2011 4:55 pm|
|To:||“Janine Sikes” <email@example.com>|
|Cc:||“Lisa Grossman” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Nathan.Crabbe@gvillesun.com|
Director of Public Affairs University Relations
University of Florida
101 Tigert Hall
Dear Ms. Sikes:
I am copying Dr. Ding in this communication and welcome his input on this very serious issue that directly concerns him.
I am also copying Gainesville Sun Reporter Nathan Crabbe since we have each spoken to him separately about the nature of Dr. Ding’s research.
Given that you just denied to furnish public records per my request in accordance with this state’s open records law, Fla. Stat. Secs. 119.01 to 119.15, it seems prudent that our communications going forward be subject to a degree of public scrutiny.
Last year, I reported that Dr. Ding, a researcher employed by the University of Florida, applied for and received $260,070 in federal grants to do barbaric brain-mapping experiments in monkeys.
You denounced this finding in various media including the Gainesville Sun. Your position was documented by another news source on October 12, 2010 as follows:
“But according to UF Public Affairs director Janine Sikes, the experiments were not done at UF and the data were public domain.
‘Organizations such as this [Negotiation Is Over] use mischaracterizations and inaccuracies to make an argument, and they falsely alleged things about this individual who just analyzed the data,’ Sikes said.”
Yet again, in 2010, Dr. Ding applied for and received another $259,528 to conduct the exact same experiments in which you denied his involvement. Why is he applying for money to assess information that you said is available in the public domain? This sounds less-than-ethical.
According to data available through the NIH, we can glean a fair amount of information about Dr. Ding’s agenda. The abstract doesn’t go into the specifics since he is focusing on establishing a way to measure monkeys’ brainwave output and analyze it. But the procedure is the same as before and, based on his proposal, what is physically done to the monkeys — brain-mapping “research” — is implicit in his grant request. He makes no reference to the data being provided by a third party. The proposal implies that his project will generate the output data that he will then analyze. Perhaps Dr. Ding is unaware that this data is already publicly available.
Contrary to your published statements about me, I do not wish to mischaracterize anyone. Dr. Ding and UF are receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to conduct brain-mapping experiments when you are on record portraying him as a disinterested third party simply availing himself of public data.
Please help your community and me understand:
1. Is Dr. Ding physically performing invasive experiments on captive primates?
2. If these experiments were done in New York, why was UF the beneficiary of taxpayer-funded federal grants?
3. If the data that Dr. Ding manipulates is already in the public domain, why is he applying for federal grants?
4. If the information is not already in the public domain as you purported, are the brain-mapping experiments being performed by others at his behest?
5. Are these other parties also receiving federal grants for the identical experiments for which Dr. Ding does?
6. Is Dr. Ding responsible for the cruel neurological experiments performed on monkeys? Yes or No?
7. Is Dr. Ding receiving federal money to analyze data that is already freely available to the public? If so, why?
8. Is Dr. Ding receiving taxpayer-funded federal grants fraudulently?
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.