Defense Dept. clears two MIT scientists

A Department of Defense investigation has exonerated two scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory who were accused of research misconduct by an MIT professor.

As a result, MIT officials say they are closing the books on a bitter dispute over the allegations that has dragged on for nearly a decade.

Top scientists at MIT and elsewhere had criticized the university for not doing more to pursue MIT Professor Theodore A. Postol's charges against the Lincoln Lab staff members who had prepared a review of a Pentagon missile test conducted in the Pacific Ocean in 1997. In not letting MIT do its own investigation, the US government made the university vulnerable to charges that it was giving up its independence in exchange for millions of dollars in defense contracts.

The report's author, Brendan B. Godfrey , a civilian scientist working at the Pentagon, wrote that the two Lincoln Lab scientists in question , Ming-Jer Tsai and Charles K. Meins Jr. , were not responsible for research misconduct. He said their report left out certain pieces of information they should have discussed, but that there were reasonable explanations for their omissions.

Both scientists still work at the Lincoln Lab, created in 1951 as a federally funded research and development arm of MIT. The lab, which is in Lexington, primarily does defense research.

"It's a relief for me," Tsai said yesterday in a phone interview. "It has been many years, and I hope it can come to closure at this time."

Postol , a professor of science, technology , and national security policy, has vigorously pursued the allegations for years. He declined to comment yesterday. He previously called it "clumsy and dishonest," to ask the government to investigate a matter in which it had a direct stake and said MIT was abdicating its responsibility for work conducted under its own roof.

In 1998, the Pentagon asked a team of five scientists, including two from Lincoln Lab, to evaluate the results of a test conducted to see whether a missile could distinguish a mock warhead from decoys.

They sought the extra evaluation because a scientist was suing one of the contractors in the testing, TRW, after she was fired. She accused the company of fraud.

The team of five scientists deemed the test "basically sound."

The Pentagon used their report to champion spending on missile defense, although it later shelved the technology in favor of a competing contractor's design.

Postol, who exposed flaws in Army claims about the Patriot missile during the Persian Gulf War, did his own analysis based on information he obtained during the lawsuit. He concluded that the original data were flawed, and the reviewers could not have come to their conclusions honestly.

A later investigation by the federal General Accounting Office criticized the scientific team's analysis, saying it should have sought the raw data about the missile test instead of relying on data processed by TRW.

In 2003, in response to Postol's allegations, an MIT professor conducted an inquiry for MIT and concluded that the university should launch a full investigation because he could not resolve several issues that Postol had raised. But then the Missile Defense Agency classified the necessary documents, including MIT's own documents from its internal investigation.

After three years of negotiations, MIT and the Defense Department agreed that the Defense Department would be the sole investigator.

Godfrey's report said the government's investigation should have started much earlier. Because of the delay, many people with knowledge of the alleged misconduct changed positions or retired, and one person died, he noted.

Though he said the scientists did not engage in misconduct, Godfrey wrote that the team's written report could have been more thorough and "should have more prominently emphasized caveats and limitations" that would have cast more doubt on the conclusions. However, "there are plausible explanations for their actions, and no evidence was found of intentional efforts to deceive," he wrote.

In an interview, Godfrey said Postol couldn't do a proper analysis of the study because he didn't have access to classified materials. He said the MIT professor had based his analysis on a redacted version of the missile study that had been prepared by a non-scientist who lacked proper technical knowledge and security clearance.

"It's simply unjust to be accusing people of misconduct based on half a report," he said.

Godfrey, for his report, interviewed 49 people and read about 160 documents. Only one person refused to be interviewed.

Even though MIT was never able to complete a full investigation on its own, the government did a more thorough study than MIT could have done, said Claude R. Canizares , MIT's vice president for research.

"I feel very good about this. I think the outcome is just," he said. "Because of his position, [Godfrey] was able to interview people who would never have agreed to talk to MIT."

Godfrey wrote that no one had improperly attempted to influence his work. At 61, he said he could afford to retire and would do so before he would put his name on something dishonest.

Former Lockheed Martin chief executive Norman R. Augustine , a past member of MIT's Corporation, was able to sit as the university's representative during the government's discussions about the investigation.

He said he had access to all of Godfrey's materials and participated in all the interviews except one.

Godfrey conducted the investigation "with extraordinary diligence and a sincere effort to ferret out the truth," he wrote in a forward to the report.

Marcella Bombardieri can be reached at bombardieri@globe.com.

Correction: Because of a reporting error, a Page One story on March 31 about a Department of Defense investigation that cleared two scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory of research misconduct incorrectly described an MIT professor's allegations. The article should have said that while MIT professor Theodore Postol had called a Lincoln Lab report fraudulent, he had not made allegations against the specific individuals.