Dr? No: Glamorgan scientist falsely claimed PhD - Comments

It seems to me that the press coverage of this issue is assuming a "tabloid" status, with increasingly personal attacks. Let the university sort out the professional issues, and leave the personal ones out of the Times Higher. I don't think that any of us would like it if a journalist got a quote off everyone we've ever disagreed with.

I disagree strongly with the above comment. The relevant fact is that Mark Brake falsified his academic qualifications. The University of Glamorgan seems to have decided this is not a serious offence. To me it looks like Gross Misconduct. Taxpayers have a right to know why this individual got away with it!

To theagingfanboy: I see no personal attacks in this article. It is about the behaviour of one man, that's all. Based on what this article says, U Glamorgan seem to have acted in the unhappy tradition of sacking a whistleblower. I presume they managed to find some reason that would hold up in an employment tribunal. Is it too late to hope that this shameful decision can be reversed? I would like to see the two men swap places.

Falsifying personal details for financial gain (in this case a research grant) is extremely serious and if proven would lead to dismissal in most walks of life. I hope that the University of Glamorgan investigates this thoroughly and openly and puts right any previous wrongs.

To Theagingfanboy: I've read most of the press coverage on this story, and I'd have to say that I disagree that there are increasingly personal attacks in the articles. In fact, where are the attacks in the above?! I think the only reason that it's being covered more in the press is because people can't believe what sort of nonsense went on in the University of Glamorgan, with seemingly this man at the centre of it, and it makes very interesting reading for the general public. Just because it's been reported in more than one paper, it doesn't mean that it's turning into a 'tabloid' type story - it means it's interesting, and considered to be something that the public would quite rightly want to know about.

To Theagingfanboy: I've read most of the press coverage on this story, and I'd have to say that I disagree that there are increasingly personal attacks in the articles. In fact, where are the attacks in the above?! I think the only reason that it's being covered more in the press is because people can't believe what sort of nonsense went on in the University of Glamorgan, with seemingly this man at the centre of it, and it makes very interesting reading for the general public. Just because it's been reported in more than one paper, it doesn't mean that it's turning into a 'tabloid' type story - it means it's interesting, and considered to be something that the public would quite rightly want to know about.

Brake's actions are more than just misconduct. Misrepresenting one's qualifications in an attempt to gain money is, broadly speaking, a criminal act and, given the sums involved, I am surprised that there has been no apparent criminal investigation of the matter.

Independent Academic raises in important point. It appears from the story that the University of Glamorgan accepts that Professor Brake falsified his credentials in an attempt to win this contract. I would have thought that when informed of this fact they should have reported it to the police. They appear not to have done so. Presumably the Times Higher has documentary evidence to support the allegations. Since there is more than a suggestion of criminal wrongdoing, I call upon the Times Higher now to refer this matter to the Police.

Thanks to Paul Roche and Martin Griffiths who put in serious effort to keep this degree program on track!

The university claims that this was an isolated case... Funny then that "Dr Mark Brake" from Glamorgan turns up in quite a few places, including BBC news articles (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Dr+Mark+Brake%22+Glamorgan&start=20&sa=N). Granted, some journalists will often assume a title but many explicitly check with the person first. There are no relevant hits for a google search for "Mr Mark Brake". Something smells rotten.

Honesty (and the assumption of honesty) are at the heart of scientific research. *Any* falsification calls into question the whole body of work a scientist may have produced and, by extension, affects the reputations of those associated with that scientist. It is something that is *never* done by anyone worthy of the title researcher. It is far better for someone to fail in a grant application or not get published than to blacken his/her own name and those around them. Glamorgan have got to do a lot more than just sweep this under the carpet. This is a problem which demands more than just the improvement of internal routines regarding the checking of grant applications. I would (quite rightly) expect to be sacked or severely disciplined if I had behaved in the way Brake has done.

Some of these libelous posts are in clear violation of THE's policy. Why hasn't THE stepped in? And what, I wonder, do these readers propose to do about the HEIs who falsified information on their RAE submissions and for considerably more financial gain (and detriment to the taxpayer)? Call out the police and shut down the HEIs in question? That will never happen because the investigative panels of the quangos are stacked with senior academics from the same HEIs. Fraud in HEIs is more widespread than anyone wants to acknowledge, and a good deal more serious than whatever this guy has allegedly done. I'm curious to know why he has suddenly become a target of this particular mob if his alleged infractions have been known for some time.

It isn't libellous if its true. Read the statement from Glamorgan - there is no denial that the falsification took place. In fact they pretty much admit that he is guilty. They refer to it as an "isolated case". Furthermore, what is described as a scanned copy of the piece of his application in which he claimed to have a Ph.D. can be found here: http://telescoper.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/brake.jpg?w=450&h=337. In addition, I also linked to a number of public web sites in which he is described as Dr Brake - there are quite a lot of them. Its therefore perfectly reasonable to ask if this was indeed an isolated case. As for the issue of misleading information on RAE submissions, yes this is also a disgrace. However, this is irrelevant in the discussion of the conduct of the individual we're discussing here. The "just because deceit goes on elsewhere its ok to do it" is a very weak argument - in fact its not an argument at all really. I would certainly think again if he made a simple denial to what are public allegations backed with evidence + effective admission from his institution. However, he seems to be keeping his head down (unless he's also posting on discussion sites). In summary, at present there is a lot to indicate he's guilty and nothing to suggest he's innocent. Therefore, my comments about his disreputable behaviour stand. He's a disgrace to academia.

Skeptic: If these posts are libelous then nothing in them is more damaging than the original article; will Brake sue the THE, and if not, why not?

This is how the 2006 Fraud Act defines "Fraud by False Representation". I'd like to know why this should not apply to Mark Brake. Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of— (a) the person making the representation, or (b) any other person. (4) A representation may be express or implied. (5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

This is a good point. It seems that its pure convention that we tend not to regard this type of behaviour to be fraud, even though it certainly is. It would set a necessary example to the rest of academia as well. Somebody should make an official police complaint.

Let's concentrate on U. Glamorgan rather than Brake. If this article is accurate then they need to behave consistent with their statement that "the academic credibility of staff is something of which the university is very proud, and allegations to the contrary are taken seriously." That would mean sacking Brake and probably (more facts needed) reinstating the whistleblower, who should not be forgotten. Let taxpayers ask U. Glamorgan whether the action of Brake's "line manager" was "appropriate" in being consistent with the university's statement of pride in its standards. I also hope (supposing the article is accurate) that funding bodies will knock Brake's salary off U. Glamorgan's funding while he remains there and that no project involving him will be funded.

Interesting that no one has yet answered the question: 'I'm curious to know why he has suddenly become a target of this particular mob if his alleged infractions have been known for some time'. It is of note that some of the same mob posting here have been attacking this guy with gusto for about 10 days at the following website: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/its-a-phd-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it/ I would venture a guess that some of these individuals tipped off THE, given the belated reporting of the story in THE. The original story appeared in Wales Online on 19 October: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/10/19/cardiff-scientist-with-nasa-links-falsely-claimed-phd-91466-24960138/ It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or an astronomer) to see that the people responding here have a tacit political agenda that likely extends well beyond the infraction in question which took place in 2006. A search on Google and also Google Scholar for Anton Garrett PhD, for example, yields nothing at all except his posts here and on the website above, and an isolated acknowledgement for proofreading an astronomony manuscript published in 2002. Dominic Guzman is a pseudonym using the name of the historical founder of the Dominican order who is also patron saint of astronomers. So it is of interest that at least two astronomy-affiliated individuals are aggressively attacking Brake not only here but on other websites. Perhaps they could come clean to THE readers as to their own vested interests in this particular person.

Skeptic: I am Anthony Garrett (known informally as Anton), and I got a PhD in physics from the University of Cambridge in 1984 and then did postdoctoral research in the physics departments of the universities of Cambridge, Sydney and Glasgow. Who are you? My motivation is simply to maintain the good name of scientists.

Sceptik - the answer to your question is that I only became aware of his actions yesterday. A google search brought me to the site to which you refer. Since you're fond of google I'm sure you can see that I've posted here for a while with no apparent connection with the individual or institution involved. Indeed my stance here is similar to my position in a recent discussion concerning another case of academic misconduct. I'm quite sure that there is a lot of bad feeling towards Brake, given the difficult relationships he has had with his colleagues. However, to try to turn this thread into a discussion on the mobbing on a poor innocent scientist is not a little ridiculous. I am genuinely outraged that he is still in employment. Of course, I could be wrong on the whole matter. In fact, a simple denial from him would be enough to shut me up and make me reconsider my stance. The evidence looks overwhelming and merits a response. How do you interpret the Glamorgan statement btw ? Can you interpret it in any way which implies that he is innocent of fabrication ? The best way to put a stop to what you perceive as mobbing is to demonstrate the flaws in the reasoning behind our statements that he is guilty of severe misconduct. Rather than throwing stones at posters (ironic since you accuse others of doing this) please explain why we posters + THE have all misinterpreted everything ?

Skeptic, The answer to your question is obvious. I didn't know anything about this affair until the news story appeared. Why it has taken so long to become public is a question I can't answer and which would perhaps be better directed to the University of Glamorgan.

Skeptic - we've all answered your question so please answer mine.

I guess I really don't see that it is severe misconduct. If the documents posted by Wales Online are accurate, he hasn't put a date on the alleged PhD. Surely he was a PhD candidate, even if perennial, and technically still holds that status if it was not conferred. OK, so he failed to write 'PhD (in progress)' on the app, but it is not as if he put a firm date against the PhD, which would in fact be a fraudulent claim to a degree conferred, and in which case that would be reprehensible and yes, worthy of serious misconduct. When I think of the haste in which I have submitted some of my own applications to meet deadlines, I guess I believe it really could have been a one-off slip. Further, I don't think anyone doubts this guy's credentials as a renowned astronomer. And if he made this slip on a single application, I don't understand what the problem is, esp since he did not make an actual claim to have had a PhD degree conferred with a firm date. If more applications emerge in which he did consistently put 'PhD', then I would also feel differently. If he had given a firm degree date, or if he has chronically done this throughout his career, I would understand the hysteria. Further, there are plenty of accomplished, and even renowned, non-PhDs teaching in universities. Certain universities allow staff who never finished their PhDs to be granted one from their employer, on the basis of *research in lieu*. There are academics without PhDs supervising PhD dissertations in violation of their own university statutes. Everyone turns a blind eye and grants that they clearly have the expertise and qualifications *in lieu*. It seems a bit of a storm in a teacup, as suggested by the ad hominem attacks and demonising tone to much of this discussion. That is what I find suspect, and I am skeptical as to whether this is really being motivated by genuine moral outrage, or something else. I don't mean to impugn anyone's motives but given how much else is seriously wrong in universities these days, I don't quite get it.

Sceptic: When you write something, what counts is what you think it will be taken to mean by its recipient. What do you think the RCPO would have taken "PhD (Wales)" to mean in Brake's grant application to them? That he had a PhD or not? According to Prof. Michael Disney in the THE, Brake should have written "PhD (failed)," but that doesn't look so good on grant applications. You asked me what was my vested interest, and I told you: None, I simply want to keep science clean. But you ducked my question, so I repeat it: Who are you, and what is your vested interest?

"skeptic", that is an astonishingly weak argument. Really? We're supposed to believe he *didn't* falsely claim to have a PhD merely because he didn't put a year next to the letters PhD? If that's the best you can do...

When I was a Ph.D. candidate I *never* wrote anything which implied I had a Ph.D. I'm sure this is in common with the vast majority of Ph.D. holders. That argument is extremely weak. If this is the best defence available for him then God help what remains of his reputation. As to your other point, yes, there are lots of things wrong with universities and I'm annoyed by all of them.. However, that's no reason not to condemn the gross academic misconduct committed by Brake.

The article mentions that there have been other allegations of misconduct by Mark Brake made by Dr Paul Roche. I hope that these are brought to the public's attention and not covered up. They are in the public domain and were used as evidence for a formal grievance against Mr Brake. It is very sad for Mr Brake to lie in this way, since he his role in UoG was to inspire people to take an interest in science (and misdirection is very definitely against the scientific method and spirit).

Skeptic - your reasoning is truly bizarre. According to the website to which you refer above (http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/its-a-phd-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it) Brake listed the PGCE and MSc that he has got and the PhD he hasn't got in exactly the same format (none of them with dates). The implication is clear that these are all qualifications that he possessed. Whether he put a date on them or not seems to me to be completely immaterial. And, by the way, with regard his credentials as a "renowned astronomer" please could you tell me what they are? I'd really love to know.

Skeptic: Nobody here is claiming that the problem lies with Brake's lack of PhD. Indeed, you make a valid point that there are plenty of excellent academics that enjoy successful careers without the need for a doctorate. The issue here is his continued deceit about his qualifications, almost certainly because of his complete lack of self-esteem. This is not the only time this has happened and it is interesting that his profile on the Glamorgan web site is one of the few that do not list their qualification. This either suggests he is covering up his qualifications because the fraud claims are accurate or because of a crushing lack of self-esteem about not having a doctorate. Mike Disney makes it clear in his letter that his PhD studies were well and truly over some time ago. He is most certainly not a renowned astronomer, not by any stretch and cannot fathom what gave you that idea, but he has done some valid work in the field of science communication. None of this is about turning a blind eye. Prof. Brake interprets much of the backlash as some sort of personal vendetta when it is the general shady attitude of Brake and the institution he still (unbelievably) works for that is causing increasingly concern throughout academia in the South Wales region.

Sorry, I will point out that the last post under Frank is not the same Frank that posted earlier!!!! My apologies!

I am mainly interested in (writing about) the phenomenon of mobbing generally and academic mobbing in particular. I have been taken aback by the viciousness with which some academics seem to attack publicly on THE. Perhaps Blake deserves it; perhaps not. I personally think it's unseemly at best. From where I sit, some of the remarks here seem unduly personal and self-interested and the rhetoric highly charged. Red flags go up. Even Frank (no. 2) seems to have personal knowledge of Brake's alleged 'insecurity' about not having a PhD. I never heard of the guy before today. But he appears to be a renowned *academic* (sorry I had typed 'astronomer' several times earlier) doing (from an outsider's point of view) quite fascinating interdisciplinary work and reaching a broader audience (itself a cause for dispargement to some academics, I gather). If this is a serial fraudster, that is one thing; if it was a fluke perpetrated in haste on an isolated grant application, I'm inclined to give benefit of doubt. And he didn't get the grant in any case, did he in which case who exactly was harmed by the alleged fraud? The notion that the 'police' should be brought into (or would be remotely interested in) something like this is utterly risible.

"And he didn't get the grant in any case, did he in which case who exactly was harmed by the alleged fraud?" It undermines the reputation and credibility of those who work or who have worked with him, I should imagine. It certainly undermines the reputation of the institution and those who work hard within it. Further, I would hasten to argue that just because the perpetrator fails to successfully accomplish his/her crime, doesn't mean the intent should be ignored. Nobody ignores failed bombing attempts, robbery or even fraudulent mortgage applications - none of which I am saying are the same as this, I hasten to add. But you see my point? But, no, I freely admit I have no knowledge of his 'insecurity'. I merely hypothesise as to why this situation might have arisen in the first place - as are you. He is, indeed, an academic and has done much good and insightful work, it would seem. Hence his reputation should stand on those achievements alone.

Skeptic: You say you are inclined to give Brake "the benefit of the doubt" - but doubt about what? How can you state by accident that you have a PhD if you don't? It's not a small thing. It seems that you don't realise the seriousness of stating that you have a PhD on a grant application when you don't. The PhD is the principal qualification for admittance to the academic community of research scholars. Research *presumes* good faith and could not operate without it, which is why the breaking of that faith is intolerable. Because of specialisation the research community must police itself in order to maintain its good name; you are free to call it mobbing if you wish, but that is the reason for what you see here. I nevertheless agree with you that there is no point in insulting Brake (although many people here are simply expressing their shock). The point is to press U Glamorgan to take appropriate action to maintain their reputation.

Skeptic: I really don't see any "mobbing" here. What you have is a few individuals genuinely concerned at what appears to have been an act of gross misconduct. What is this "viciousness" of which you speak? Nothing in the comments is anything but the understandable reaction any objective individual would feel at what appears to be a clear case of fraud that has gone unpunished. What I find remarkable about the comments here is that you seem intent on defending this individual despite the evidence against him and in the face of all logic. That leads me to ask the following direct question: are you Mark Brake?

I see no mobbing at all here. My opinions on Brake are based on his gross misconduct and the strong case against him. Its important to state such opinions clearly and openly since falsification in research must not be tolerated. Furthermore, as was mentioned, this is far from a "victimless" case of attempted fraud. A lot of hard working people associated with Brake and Glamorgan will be damaged by this man's actions and the university management's inactions. I hope THE don't let this whole issue die. Perhaps a special feature on academic misconduct could be written. Sadly, it seems a rather topical issue these days.

It speaks volumes about the blinkered and procrustean mind-sets of certain posters on here that it would appear to them *unthinkable* that anyone *other than Mark Brake himself* could hold a point of view remotely divergent from their own. No, I am categorically not Mark Brake. It is fascinating to observe the solipsistic, self-righteous indignation of individual academics fueling the vilification of Mr Brake on here, whilst the entire British academy seems incapable of seeing, much less mustering a nanogram of collective moral outrage at, the bonafied international scandal and utter disgrace to British higher education in the sacking of Professor Nutt by the Home Secretary.

Don't fret, dear skeptic -- I'm quite sure I'm not alone in feeling even more outrage about Nutt. Of course, one expects people like Johnson, being politicians, to lack integrity -- it's not a surprise (though it's still outrageous). But when academics get caught playing porkies, it rather goes against the notion that we are (not to be grandiose about it) engaged in the pursuit of truth. I'm in a different country and a different field entirely and have no personal stake in this -- but I agree wholeheartedly that there might be grounds for a police investigation of fraud here. And I think Glamorgan's handling of the matter -- from the information that can be accessed by outsiders, at any rate -- doesn't exactly contribute to the impression of being a first-rate university.

Skep[tic: I disclosed to you who I was when you questioned my credentials, but you have twice now ducked my question. Who are you and what is *your* vested interest in this story?

Skeptic - it is possible to be outraged about both Nutt's sacking and Mark Brake. It seems to be thrust of your argument that nasty things go on and we should therefore ignore Mark Brake. This argument is preposterous - Mark Brake committed gross academic misconduct without any apparent punishment. This is wrong and should be commented on and condemned regardless of the Nutt affair. Regarding one of your comments, its difficult to see how our remarks about Brake represent vilification. To vilify someone btw means to make vicious and defamatory statements. Nobody wrote anything vicious and it certainly wasn't defamatory - the offence seems rather clear cut even with your fantasy "oversight" explanation. Finally, you should try not to appear so hysterical in your posts. It doesn't add to the strength of your argument (such that it is) - it has rather the opposite effect in fact.

Having just looked at the publications of Mr Brake I wonder how such a mediocre academic managed to get a chair! My guess is the more you dig into this story the more story there will be...

Skeptic: the reason that people here concentrate on Mark Brake rather than Prof Nutt or wrongdoing in RAE submissions is simple: this thread is the response to a THE article about Brake.

Had I considered it "unthinkable" that you might not be Mark Brake, I wouldn't have bothered asking you the question. The sacking of Professor Nutt only happened yesterday and there is already plenty of indignation rightly being expressed by academics and others. You will not succeed, however, in your attempt to use an irrelevant issue as a smokescreen between which to conceal Mark Brake's misconduct and the UoG's apparent connivance in suppressing it. I cannot understand how anyone who looks at this case with any degree of objectivity can form the opinions that you are expressing. nor can I understand your persistent attempts to divert attention away from them. That's why I asked.

Ok, Skeptic, but imagine how you would feel if you worked with him, authored papers or books with him. How wonderful to have his reputation go before you! If I were a graduate of one of his courses and applying for work or a post-grad position, I wouldn't be feeling too happy either. What about the institution, especially the astronomy department? I should imagine his name is mud right now. What if they want to apply for funding? Seriously, as an academic (who happens to be not Mark Brake) *surely* you can see the ramifications of this?! How can students at Glamorgan learn good academic practice and ethics if they are not being led by example?

I'm sure that most people have a few skeletons in their cupboards. And it appears that with time and the right motivation, these skeletons have been unearthed. You honestly never know what you might find once you start digging....

In Mr Brake's case, one suspects a few skeletons may emerge. The fact a disgruntled ex-colleague may have leaked this is irrelevant. His conduct (and that of his employer) is shameful. Yes, we all skeletons but falsification is rarely one of them.

How do you know?

You're right, I don't. However, not falsifying is a bit of a golden rule in academia. Therefore, if there are more Brakes out there they should be similarly exposed . On another note, it would be nice to read Brake's "defence". There is a good chance that he is reading the online reports on his academic misconduct. I wonder how he resists the temptation (maybe by assuming a false name, it would somehow be appropriate) to start posting against those who have rightly condemned his behaviour. The only "defence"-lines which have so far been put forward is that there are other miscreants out there and that he somehow overlooked the fact that he never got a Ph.D. when writing the application. Neither are credible - maybe he could offer another explanation. He could also use the opportunity to apologise to the various colleagues and students who will now suffer from associaion with him.

Many hardworking academics have neither the time or the inlination to rake over documents with a fine tooth comb in the hope of finding evidence of a past misdemeanor.

As I mentioned above this Brake is rather mediocre in terms of publications and it would be interesting to know if he falsified his cv in order to get the chair at Glamorgan!

DM - you fail to realise that nobody cares how the information came to be made public. The important thing is that it has been exposed. Furthermore, to call it a "past mismedmeanor" is a little misleading - it is gross academic misconduct. Dr W - I agree. I'm amazed that he manages to be described as a "leading scientist" in the press. He failed to get his Ph.D. (he was described as the "phantom student" in his dept.) and his current "research" consists of popularising other people's work.

ps DM - you seem to know a fair bit about how the information became public. Are you a very close associate of Brake ?

True, most academics don't have the time to go raking over documents to find evidence of "gross academic misconduct" either. They might though,if they'd been sacked for gross misconduct themselves. Especially if the misconduct was harassment. The profile of the workplace bully is an interesting one. http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/index.htm

Bullying is extremely serious and should be punished whenever it occurs. Indeed, in the case of Mark Brake his ex-colleague was punished with dismissal. This makes quite a contrast with Mark Brake's act of gross academic misconduct which was simply swept under the carpet.

As mentioned earlier, you seem to know a lot about this case. Are you a very close associate of Mark Brake ?

DM: The aggressive undertone of your posts (that might be further enhanced with an evil mwha ha ha) would lead most readers to surmise that you are either Mark Brake or have a close affiliation with the person.

On Brake's wikipedia page, a person with the username Rosit has been doing some heavy hitting on his behalf (with some recent strikeouts, however). There's an interesting affinity between that name and one of Brake's close associates: http://www.glam.ac.uk/roccoto/people.php

My only interest is to contribute to the dicussion in a balanced and grounded way.

I don't see how it matters who brought this matter to light. What matters is that it appears to be gross misconduct and that the UoG hasn't done anything about it. I still think they should have referred this matter to the Police as it seems to be covered by the 2006 Fraud Act I quoted above.

But DM . you have knowledge that wasn't publicly available. For example, that another academic went hunting through past applications to find evidence of gross academic misconduct. Are you a close associate of Mark Brake ? I notice you didn't quite answer the question and I have already politely asked it twice ? Herbert - I also looked at the page. It is indeed a very striking coincidence.

So now everyone who suggests a divergent viewpoint must necessarily be either Mark Brake or have a close afilliation with him? Now we have two independent posters being accused of being either 'hysterical' and/or 'aggressive' and/or impersonating Brake. The next predictable suggestion will likely be that I and DM are one and the same. Unthinkable, of course, that *two* different people could see through the classic bullying scenario going on here, not least in the accusatory and intimidatory rhetoric towards posters voicing a different view. The website mentioned by DM is worth a visit, as is www.bulliedacademics.blogspot.com. And if the issue here is truly principled integrity in British higher education, I wonder why this thread has nearly 60 posts, from the same incensed individuals, whilst the Professor Nutt thread which has just 16.

Skeptic: I don't know who you are, but I would like to, and readers of this thread will now notice that you have ducked my question three times: Who are you, and what is *your* vested interest in this story?

The answer to your final question, dear skeptic, is that no-one is defending Johnson in the comments section of the Nutt article, apart from someone with a long history of bizarre anti-semitic and misogynist behaviour in other places. The notion that Johnson has behaved disgracefully is essentially a matter of consensus. You, on the other hand, keep offering amusingly preposterous defences of Brake. The wheel keeps squeaking!

Skeptic - I'm not prepared to make the assumption that you/DM/Mark Brake are not linked.I'm usually willing to accept that people I debate with are arguing with good faith, even I wholly disagree with them - see just all of the posts I've made on this site. In this case, I'm afraid not. Indeed, the wikipedia editing of Brake's page also suggests someone close to him likes to defend him in hyperspace. Furthermore, there have been too many posts which resemble diversionary tactics rather than debate. Even your last post comparing the number of posts on Nutt and this thread is laughably weak as a debating point. Nutt's dismissal is another issue altogether. We don't stop worrying about gross academic misconduct simply the government behaves in an appalling but not unexpected way. Fraud is not excused because other people behave badly.

Skeptic: Once again you are trying to deflect attention from the matter under discussion. The more you try to generate a smokescreen, the more transparent it is that you have a vested interest of some sort in this matter. I can't accept your accusation of "bullying" either. I don't see any aggression, just incomprehension that you appear to be condoning a clear case of academic fraud.

Did I say I knew that? when?! Who is this other "academic"?

@Anton Garrett: I have stated my sole vested interest above, if you can read. I am writing about the phenomenon of mobbing, in various manifestations, of which I find the comments pages of THE excellent fodder for research. It is somewhat rare to see the kind of venom academics spew forth about other academics, and this is not the only example. I wonder why? Perhaps, as it is said, because the stakes are so small. I have no interest in naming myself as it would mean nothing in any case. @Frank (1). The point of posting to the Nutt thread would, in my view, be to demonstrate solidarity with Professor Nutt, and decry the scandal of what Johnson has done, not to defend Johnson. Good grief. I see very little evidence on that thread expressing any kind of moral outrage and condemnation from academics except Dr Fredrics, who has rightly drawn attention to the affair as representing the demise of academic freedom and, specifically 'scientific truth', as it was once known the British academy. Considering that so many posters are inflamed by the alleged 'untruths' perpetrated by a scientist, it is rather remarkable that not one of you is standing up for Professor Nutt, a scientist who spoke 'the truth', to his own detriment.

Skeptic, you are causing me to lose faith in the ability of Brits to perceive irony. I don't see any posts from *you* on the Nutt page. Nonono -- you're far more concerned to post *here* in defence of Brake. Now why would that be, exactly?

Skeptic: Your identity is the gold standard that you are telling the truth. I disclosed myself to you for that reason, but you have declined to identify yourself four times now. You are free to remain anonymous, but people on this thread will wonder why...

Do you have thoeries as to why Skeptic is choosing to remain anonymous?

Do you have any evidence in the slightest that anyone here is likely to go and seek him out in person or even send him an e-mail ? If you read through the various mails you'll see no hysterical outbursts from any of Brake's critics. His proponents, however, have tended to get a little excited.

DB - do *you* have any theories as to why Mark Brake did what he did ?

It should also be remembered that Dr Garrett explained who he was precisely because Skeptic accused him of hiding behind anonymity. Its a little ironic that he should be castigated for requesting (not demanding) someone reveal his/her identity to establish their credibility. You can castigate me all you want for being anonymous if you like but I've never asked for a poster's name.

Are you prepared to tell us who this other academic was who went hunting through appilications to find evidence of gross academic misconduct?

@Danse Macabre: None that I care to air publicly; let's see whether skeptic has what it takes to go public. @Roger: it's not about finding out where people live, it's about the fact that people are more constrained by honesty when they write under their name rather than anonymously. I am not accusing skeptic of untruthfulness but I would like to exclude some suspicions, and knowing skeptic's identity is the most effective way to do that.

What are your suspicions Anton?

@Danse Macabre: I'll answer that after skeptic goes public. One further question that might be of general interest, and upon which some readers might be able to shed light: How did Mark Brake get a Chair without a PhD?

Anton - I'm sure that if some readers are unable to shed an informative light on this question, they will, in any case, be very willing to express their opinion on the matter

My dear Dr Garrett, I believe you are the only person on this thread who has posted his real identity. How then did you 'disclose yourself' (yikes) to me. And if 'your identity is the gold standard that you are telling the truth' (says who?), why are you not also badgering --four times, as you count--the equally anonymous individuals *who happen to agree with you*? Or is that because you already know who they are? @Frank (1). Good point re Prof Nutt thread, to which I would have posted by now had the discussion not been derailed by the tiresome attacks on Michael Pyshnov; useful material there, to be sure, but not nearly as rich in high-octane vitriol as the maniacal thread clamouring for Brake's head.

@Skeptic: Intelligent people will be able to infer the answers to the questions you have just put to me, but there is one thing they will will not be able to infer which is of obvious interest: Who are you?

Okay, the "identities" bit is getting tiresome. Let's get back on track: who here is planning on approaching the police to make a complaint?

Who in particular is it of obvious interest to? Skeptic: I respect your decision to remain anonymous

I'm a little bemused by the tenacity and personalization of many of the comments here. Apparently, a senior academic has falsified his c.v. and claimed a degree he doesn't have. Probably not the first, or the last, but shocking all the same. In my book, show him the door. Hutt was sacked as a government advisor for an opinion which the government didn't want to hear. Probably not the first, or the last, but shocking all the same. In my book, time for any other academics on the team to leave (some have). There is no link at all between these stories. And no reason at all to try to fool around trying to exculpate Brake, if the allegations are founded.

Readers can judge for themselves whether skeptic has a vested interest only if they know who he or she is. Skeptic has the right to remain hidden but everything he or she writes will be evaluated in the light of that, will it not?

Herbert - at first I thought you'd just got a bit carried away with the old Halloween festivities with your earlier comment about the evil laugh etc. But your last comment was just brilliant! why don't you just draw straws out of your clowns hat? Yes lets get back on track - to a sensible, balanced discussion.

Herbert- What makes you think the police haven't already been contacted about this?

Did you contact them Dominic?

Should I have?

Or rather, is there any reason he shouldn't have (if he did)? Does Brace have anything to fear from police attention? (FTR: "evil laugh" was not in any of my comments.)

Apologies - I confused you with Frank2. You have a similar tone. I couldn't comment on whether Brace or indeed Brake have any reason to fear police attention.

My guess is that Brake has told more than a few porkies over the years, but I doubt having looked at his publications that he will be going any further in his career... From the posts above it looks to me that Brake himself is posting and I would ask him to come clean and give an explaination of his behaviour.

This is the strange thing. It just seems so transparent that Brake or someone very close to him is posting. As you point out Dr W., this does give him (or someone close to him) an opportunity to explain things. It would be good if this opportunity were taken.

I'm sure that the THE-IP logs tell an interesting and amusing story regarding the location of various protagonists on this thread. However, quite rightly, they should remain confidential.

Roger - I agree. But if Brake *is* posting here, his comments might be construed as being in furtherance of the original deception. The logs might therefore be of interest to the Police should they happen to investigate...

As mentioned earlier, I'd like THE to do a special feature on academic misconduct. We all need reminding about ethics and, unlike in this case, there sometimes are grey areas which it would be good to discuss. As for this case, next time I'm editing wikipedia I'll make sure to link Brake's page to the page on academic misconduct. Its not pursuing a witch-hunt - bad practice should be exposed just as good practice should be promoted and celebrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech This is an interesting Wikipedia page too. Some posters may benefit from familiarising themselves with the contents of this page.

Ah yes -- I get it -- free speech for the likes of Brake means he ought to be able to say he got a PhD and no-one ought to try to stop or censure him for it. Very enlightening.

Somebody observing that the police may find the logs interesting if they investigate has little relevance to the issue of freedom of speed. Or were you referring to something else ? Its somewhat difficult to discern what aspect of our appalling behaviour you wish to complain about. This is probably because we haven't behaved badly at all and you simply wish to throw stones. All we've done is condemn a documented case of falsification and discussed the possible consequences. For science communicators, various people's communication skills have broken down somewhat. Its rather likely that this thread would have vanished off the top page had it not been for the preposterous attempts to argue that Mark Brake somehow forgot he didn't have a Ph.D. or that worse things happen so we have no right to complain about academic dishonesty.

Brake still waiting for an explaination of your behaviour!

This whole discussion has been very enlightening. And revealing.

@Danse Macabre! I agree, all we need now is the culprit himself to come clean and explain his behaviour.

As much as it pains me to say this, Brake is not likely to offer any explanation here as, from what I've read here (assuming he is Skeptic - it's hard not to), I don't think he would even admit to *himself* that what he has done is wrong. Furthermore, based on what the article says, Prof Brake may have already been through a disciplinary procedure at the time this business came to light (2006?), which would make it very difficult for the University of Glamorgan to change whatever 'punishment' was meted out at the time. He remained in employment after that process so I doubt he has anything to fear. The institution is unlikely to turn around and admit they responded inappropriately. In fact, this must be a nightmare for them. For the sake of the staff there, I hope this dies down quickly and they find a corner for him to amuse himself in, out of harms way.

As much as it pains me to say this, Brake is not likely to offer any explanation here as, from what I've read here (assuming he is Skeptic - it's hard not to), I don't think he would even admit to *himself* that what he has done is wrong. Furthermore, based on what the article says, Prof Brake may have already been through a disciplinary procedure at the time this business came to light (2006?), which would make it very difficult for the University of Glamorgan to change whatever 'punishment' was meted out at the time. He remained in employment after that process so I doubt he has anything to fear. The institution is unlikely to turn around and admit they responded inappropriately. In fact, this must be a nightmare for them. For the sake of the staff there, I hope this dies down quickly and they find a corner for him to amuse himself in, out of harms way.

Roger - what is the freedom of speed?

sorry Roger! couldn't resist that one. I tell you what though, I really wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of you guys.

I think its questionable if further action will be taken. However, the university has given itself an option to take further steps against him (if they want to that is) by nominally looking afresh at the case against the guy who was dismissed. However, I don't see Glamorgan doing much, though the potential drying up of external funding associated with Mark Brake may make them think again. If I was on a funding committee and somebody with a proven record of fraud applied I wouldn't look twice at the application, especially since Brake has made no attempt at an explanation/apology to the community. It probably depends a bit on whether the media/funding councils/governors take a greater interest in the case. In any case, being kown as the academic who falsified can't be a great deal of fun now - whatever bravado he may affect for the benefit of others. He has made himself very well known in certain media. Now he'll be very well known for fraud - there's no hiding from this for the rest of his career.

But it likely depends heavily on some sort of formal finding of misbehaviour. The BBC was perfectly happy to let Raj Persaud carry on presenting All in the Mind -- until the GMC suspended him for plagiarism (and even then the BBC was slow about sending him packing). As long as Brake's misbehaviour is merely a matter of "media speculation", the BBC and other media outlets might take the view that he has never been determined by a "competent authority" to have done anything wrong. Now, maybe Brake doesn't deserve to have his career ruined over this. But the determined effort to get it swept under the carpet doesn't seem right at all.

Since U. Glamorgan don't seem to care about their own reputation, I call on Mark Brake to resign his Chair.

@Geoffrey. What career! This man is a third rate academic, who clearly has no integrity. @Roger. Quite agree.

@ Dr whippet: with greatest respect, it might be best if we refrain from 'insults'. He clearly has no integrity but, at the end of the day, there's no point in calling people 'third rate academics' etc. I can quite understand the anger being directed at Brake, believe me, I'm pretty darn cross myself, but if this degenerates into a slanging match, it'll undermine all the very valid points that have been put forward until now. It's unlikely that Mark Brake will resign his chair as he seems to use his Professor title as some sort of trademark. It appears on EVERYTHING!

The interesting thing is that some people seem to suggest that this was a mistake... that is just silly! Mistake may be writing your date of completion as 2080 when you meant it to be 2008, not writing PhD next to your name when you actually have not been awarded one! @Frank (2): this Brake guy uses Professor because it's the only real thing he's been given. It's either that or Mister :)

It does the raise the interesting question of the professorship criteria. To get mine I had to write a 40 page document describing my plans and achievements, the courses I'd taught, the Ph.D. students I'd supervised, the money I'd brought in and the papers I'd written which were published in international peer reviewed journals. I also had to have a Ph.D. (or a good reason why not - and such reasons certainly exist). I'm not the world's most competent, cleverest or innovative professor. However, I did have to pass a fairly rigorous set of criteria to get the title. I just don't see the criteria that Prof Brake passed. Was it external grants ?? His publications are light weight and he couldn't even complete his own Ph.D. Do they just give the title out at Glamorgan ?

Who ever said Dr. Brake was a one off claim need to do their homework! Look at:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Brake

Yes, it is rather amusing. It seems largely to be a PR page which is not surprising since it was largely written by one of Mark Brake's close colleagues. Judging from the discussion page, that person also put up quite a fight when the fraudulent Ph.D. claim was inserted. This explains why restricted editing applies to the page right now.

But if you look in the references tehre are lots of web pages that have Dr. Brake all over the place!

Get a life will you. You're bunch of pathetic losers. It's not Harvard you're talking about, it's a little college in the valleys. What do you expect. stop ******** in the wind and find something productive to do with your lives. Like washing up or hoovering or something.

Thanks for your kind words Shelley. You will forgive me if I don't take your insult that I'm a loser to heart. You ask what is it that I expect. The answer is academics who don't falsify. One reason why I comment a lot on this thread is because I want to keep it displayed somewhere near the top of the discussion list for as long as possible. An extra day as one of the top discussion topics means an extra day in which the topic of ethics and academic misconduct is highlighted. In a very small way this is a rather productive thing to do. Incidentally, you berate me for apparently not doing anything productive. I'm sure not sure writing random insults late at night on a discussion site is an especially productive thing for you to be doing.

Shelley unwittingly raises an interesting question. If the University of Glamorgan is unwilling or unable to regulate the conduct of its employees, should it forfeit the title of "University"?

I can imagine an extreme case: someone is pregnant with terrific ideas and thinks he has no time for PhD. He puts up a falsification on CV, gets position and grants. He then proves that he is a great researcher. Nothing of it, except the falsification, was the case. He also doesn't comment which would be totally contrary to his interests if he indeed had justifications. It' ridiculous to defend him. And I generally believe that if you don't talk in face of the allegations - you have no case. This is characteristic for persons who have secret and not-so-legally procured backing and count solely on it.

James - I counted around 22 relevant pages after a google search with the key words "Dr Mark Brake" and "science". A search with the words "Mr Mark Brake" and "science" get no relevant hits. He sure has been careless about ensuring that he is described with a correct title .

Wow Shelley. That was constructive. Yet another outburst of hysteria from Camp Brake.

@Frank(2) I was just stating a fact when refering to Brakes status no insult was intended, if anything I was being quite generous in my remark. @Shelley. Do you work at Glamorgan University? If so maybe you could provide some background to Brakes actions.

Here is another bad sign. Irrespective of other circumstances, when one is caught with falsification of the degree, his duty is to confess, resign and may be ask for forgiveness. Apparently, this was not done.

I'm sure that there are many disgusted academics at U Glamorgan who do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush as Brake's "line manager" (and higher in the hierarchy). Can they unite and get something done?

I would also encourage the staff at Glamorgan to make a stand on this matter, which after all is now tarnishing the reputation of the institution, and petition senior management to take action.

Umm... This sort of behaviour is probably more widespread, but Brake has been found with his hand in the cookie jar!

I suspect Dr Finchlegg is correct, but its not only misconduct that is more widespread than we would like to believe but also the active connivance of managers in concealing it when the culprit is good at bringing money into the institution. I certainly know of one other example of an individual guilty of (possibly criminal) misconduct exonerated after a sham investigation that deliberately ignored all the evidence and declared that it was an "isolated incident", just as the University of Glamorgan did. And that wasn't "a little college in the valleys" either. I suspect if the Times Higher followed Roger's suggestion (above) and did an investigation into the general issue of academic misconduct they would soon discover a host of skeletons in various closets.

I'm sure there are more cases than just Brake. All the more reason to highlight, discuss and condemn this particular incident of gross academic misconduct

The Times Higher should do a follow up story on academic misconduct.

PS. I want to make it clear that I was *not* trying to argue that the general issue of academic misconduct is a justification for ignoring the specific case of Mark Brake.

Indeed the case of Mr Brake needs to be highlighted as an example of gross misconduct.

Does anyone know what action was taken against Brake when this deception came to light? There appears to be plenty of references to Dr Brake on the web so it appears to be far from an isolated incident.

Well it makes you wonder whether it really was an isolated incident, since, according to the article, "Paul Roche who co-founded the Centre for Astronomy and Science Education with Professor Brake, resigned in 2003 in protest over his colleague's management of the centre, its teaching standards and the content of its astronomy BSc". What was so bad in Brake's management of the centre that it led to his co-founder colleague resigning? It can't have just been one thing, so what else have Glamorgan been told about but have swept under the carpet?

£someone - some well targeted freedom of information requests may be useful here.

Roger, please report back if you find out anything useful via freedom of information act. However, papers often get 'lost'.

Part of the University of Glamorgan's statement reads "This particular allegation was brought to the attention of the school in 2006, and the matter was dealt with in the appropriate way by the individual's line manager". I'm not convincing that ignoring it was "appropriate" but in any case the statement does imply (at least to me) that the issues that led to Dr Roche's resignation - whatever they were - were not even investigated.

I don't think I'm the right person to make the request. In this situation one needs to know which questions to ask. One would hope that someone more knowledgeable (or a media outlet such as THE or a Welsh newspaper) would take up the challenge.

I agree Roger, given the interest this story has generated it seems appropriate that the THE should run a follow up story.

What happened to Dr Roche?

I suspect he wants to keep his head down and forget that he ever had an association with a person behind at least one act of gross academic misconduct and an institute which sweeps wrongdoing under the carpet.

This is a shocking story...

Indeed it is John, the problem here is that Brake appears to have made a habit of claiming a qualification he in fact failed. The big question is did he falsify his cv to get the job at Glamorgan in the first place.

Is there any mechanism for an outsider to complain about the conduct about the processes within a university ?

To be honest Roger I think there will probably be a time limit beyond which Glamorgan can take no further action against Brake for the falsified grant application, even if they would want to. So Brake is probably safe for now, however this story has exposed his actions to a large number of people and his reputation, such that it was, has now been damaged. Within his own university he must be a figure of fun now and his position there must be very difficult. Sure he will stick it out at Glamorgan, where else can he go, but he now has a very large question mark next to his name and I am sure people will be watching him closely.

Dr W - I agree its unlikely that something could be done about Mark Brake now. However, should there be a complaints mechanism then it may have the effect of kicking Glamorgan to ensure that it lives up to it's fine words on academic credibility should any future cases arise.

Roger I agree. However, just keeping this story on the first page of this well read site ensures that more and more people learn of Brakes total lack of integrity and dishonest nature. My guess is that he is hoping every day that the story has gone away, how disapointed he must be when he checks (as he must) that the story is still alive and well after a week...

It may not be fruitful to approach the University of Glamorgan about this because their comments in the article suggest they don't regard Mark Brake's misconduct as being of any great consequence. However, the relevant funding agencies (including, in UoG's case, HEFCW) take an active interest in the governance of HE institutions and might be sufficiently alarmed to investigate the matter themselves. Of course, if the police do investigate and Brake is charged with fraud then even the UoG might decide to do something about it.

"Within his own university he must be a figure of fun now and his position there must be very difficult", says Dr whippet. No, absolutely not. It works the other way. The university now realised that Mark Brake has support from someone higher up. The staff is now trying to be friends with Mark Brake.

I don't think its wishful thinking to say I disagree with you Michael. Having an allegation being swept under the carpet doesn't necessarily imply having powerful friends, its more likely to have been the result of a weak university management trying to avoid a scandal and not caring about ethics. Furthermore, it can't be fun to have a documented case of gross academic misconduct known to everybody in your community. Grant awarding bodies will certainly take this into account.

I somehow came to the understanding that the interests of a university are just a pretext. There are only the interests of particular persons, and we never know what is going on under the table. These days such organisation as university simply says: "Trust us. We know better. We investigated. There was no gross academic misconduct. This is just unproven allegations. Documented case? We don't think so." I tell you more - they and their lawyers do have a lot of fun, because there is no one who can come forward and say: "This IS gross academic misconduct." Maximum, someone can say: "I think we need a new investigation". If you haven't seen my case, it's here: http://www.universitytorontofraud.com I say that my former PhD supervisor plagiarised my research. There are documents. But the university says that she did not plagiarise my research, she SALVAGED my research. There are many ways for a university to conceal an obvious fraud.

@Michael Pyshnov. I remember reading about your case on another thread, but I do not think we should confuse these two situations. Glamorgan would of covered for Brake for their own reasons not because he had friends in high places. After all success has many farthers, but failure is an orphan. Further, falsifying a grant application does constitute academic misconduct. A more interesting question is did Brake falsify is cv etc when applying for his position at Glamorgan?

A formal complaint to HEFCW is probably the best way forward.

If nobody else has done so, I'll send a mail.

I can't believe that you're all still on about this. Are your lives really that empty? Can you not think of something else to think bollock on about. Please, get lives.

@Sandy Lane. Some more nonsense from camp Brake.

Roger sounds like a good plan, I might well do the same.

@Dr whippet. You really confused the two cases when you said "After all success has many farthers, but failure is an orphan", you should remember that here there is a success by fraud, and there is failure by being defrauded. In my case, the person who failed me, subsequently plagiarised my discoveries in three papers with three other co-authors. It would be called my failure only by types like Bernie Madoff and Ain Rand.

Michael Pyshnov you appear to have missed by point, no matter. I understand that you have some issues regarding your studies, but these you have expressed before meny times. So please comment on the topic of this thread.

I recomend that everyone contacts HEFCW.

Michael what are you saying?

Still at it boys? No life? Nothing useful to do? I which case I urge you to go and see Mark Brake in person and discuss it with him. No-one at Glamorgan cares, is taking any notice, or is going to do anything about this. It doesn't matter how many times this gets to the top of the list of topics on THE comments - because no-one at Glamorgan cares. (They'd have done something about all this if they did, do you think?). Also @Sandy Lane - how's life in Oxford? Big love from Shelley

I like the use of 'Oxford' for added kudos. Brilliant! Shelly CLEARLY knows what is going on at Glam. They may not have done anything about it because, at this point in time, their hands are tied. But, believe me, they care.

Well Shelley and Sandy Lane – congratulations, you’re the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, as I’d promised myself that I would let the discussion die down and see what the university decided to do, unless some other idiot(s) posted something facetious on here. I don’t know who “Shelley” is, although I guess everyone has their suspicions, but I’m not prepared to sit back any longer while anonymous people make generic and untrue statements about what “Glamorgan” thinks. How can you say that “No-one at Glamorgan cares, is taking any notice, or is going to do anything about this.”? How dare you make statements on behalf of an entire university, the vast majority of whom are probably as outraged about this situation as the people posting here (although I wouldn’t want to make claims on everyone’s behalf, of course…). Now it seems that someone has contacted the South Wales police to ask whether the false PhD claim amounts to fraud, so I think it’s finally time I said something. I have been watching this thread with great interest since it began, as someone who was heavily involved in the origins of this saga, which sadly date way back to 2002/2003. Several people have mentioned my name subsequently in the discussions above, and in the interests of clarity and in order to try and put a stop to the negative comments that have been raised against Glamorgan, I want to say a few things. I am now back at Glamorgan, after leaving there in 2003 to take my projects, funding and team to Cardiff University after I felt the situation had become intolerable for a variety of reasons relating to Prof Brake (some of which are mentioned in the THES article). I subsequently returned to work at Glamorgan in Dec. 2008 on the clear understanding that I would have nothing to do with Prof Brake, and because the management who I had dealt with in 2003 had left. I would not have returned if I did not feel that Glamorgan had the potential to do something exciting and inspirational for school and undergraduate students in science, and I continue to believe that this is the case – it is by no means “a little college in the valleys”, as “Shelley” states on Nov. 3rd, but I’m sure that many people reading this thread will have formed a very poor opinion of the university as a result of this article, and I feel that this is unfair. I want to make it clear that allegations that Prof Brake falsely claimed a PhD played no part in my reasons for resigning, and despite the severity that people have allocated to this in the discussions above, I still do not feel that it rates alongside some of the other issues that I raised in 2003. Unfortunately at that time it was considered that it was a “my word against his” situation, and so I felt that I had no option but to disassociate myself and my projects entirely from Glamorgan, and leave the matter in their hands, to deal with or not as they chose. After leaving Glamorgan I felt that I had washed my hands of the whole affair, and it is sad to see some of these issues re-emerging over 6 years later – having moved on, this is not a period of time that I care to recall, but it is clearly a situation that has shocked many people, and also led to some unfair criticism of the university as it is today. Since 2003 I have successfully avoided contact with Prof Brake apart from three “brief encounters”. At one such chance meeting only a week or so ago, he told me that the line in his CV stating that he had a PhD from Cardiff must have been added after he had submitted it to the PI, and that he was seeking to engage the Carter Ruck legal firm to take out libel actions – I am sure that this would throw ample light on the situation, and really get to the bottom of the matter once and for all, although it might open several other cans of worms in the process. As a current staff member at Glamorgan I feel it is now my duty to stand up for the present management and state that I am certain that they will look into the various issues discussed here, and that a thorough examination of all the matters raised will stop the university’s reputation being questioned in the future. Despite what happened to me back in 2003, and to others subsequently, I support the university’s reputation and I believe that they will investigate all the relevant matters fully and satisfactorily. I would therefore ask that people do not raise this issue any further with the police, research councils or bodies like HEFCW etc., but let the university deal with this. Despite what “Shelley” says, I’m pretty sure that most people at Glamorgan take this matter extremely seriously, as anything that brings the university’s reputation into disrepute is very serious indeed. Thank you Sandy Lane and Shelley, whoever you are - you’ve made me realise quite how bad this is all making Glamorgan look, and I’m not prepared to allow this to go on any longer. Few people know about the full extent of what I and others experienced at Glamorgan in 2003 and subsequently, and I’d appreciate it if you kept your juvenile and snide comments to yourself if you cannot make any useful contributions to this discussion. I have not posted on here without a great deal of thought, but I consider that the sort of statements being made by some people are bringing Glamorgan’s reputation into disrepute, and I won’t stand for that any longer. It is gross misconduct to do so (as a Glamorgan employee), and hiding behind the anonymity of a pseudonym is not a brave or honest thing to do – why not say who you are, and what your interest in this matter is, so we can judge the validity of your arguments? I and others above have done so, in the interests of honest discussion and debate. Time to “put up or shut up”.

p.s. apologies for the solid mass of text above - it was all nicely formatted before I cut-n-pasted it into the Comment box...

Dr Paul Roche - thank you for the illuminating and well thought-out comments. Regarding the formatting, THE has promised to give us the luxury of paragraphs in the future.

Thank you Paul for posting here and clearing a few points up. However, I am not convinced that Glamorgan will deal with Brake in an appropriate manner unless pressure is applied via the police, HEFCW, this blog etc. I will be following Rogers lead today and making a formal complaint to HEFCW regarding this affair and would encourage others to do the same. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You mention your brief encounters with Brake and say 'At one such chance meeting only a week or so ago, he told me that the line in his CV stating that he had a PhD from Cardiff must have been added after he had submitted it to the PI, and that he was seeking to engage the Carter Ruck legal firm to take out libel actions' what a joke. The internet is littered with references to Dr Brake all or most of which would of originated from himself. Further, if the PI had added the infamous lineon the grant application he would of checked with Brake to get the date right wouldn't he?

@shelley: You clearly care...

@Paul Roche: I support your desire to have the name of U Glamorgan clean. There is only one way the institution can do that, of course, and outside or indirect pressure might help. [PARA BREAK] One correspondent above said that details of your break with Brake were "in the public domain" - if that is accurate, where are they please? [PARA BREAK] If Mark Brake thinks that his false PhD was added after the grant application form was submitted, has he any idea of why or by whom? Has he made any complaint to anybody about it? [PARA BREAK] It was not me who called the police BTW.

Some more points. 1) If someone eats a meal in a restaurant and refuses to pay, he can be charged with fraud: obtaining a meal under false pretenses. Obtaining anything under false pretenses is a fraud. 2) I believe that by now this demand for justice has deteriorated into a persecution. No good. In any case, whatever he did, it did not cause harm to any person. 3) There are here charges that no-Dr. Brake is writing under an alias. I believe this is a very serious charge. There is a discussion now about posting under false name. In some cases this can be a criminal offence. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/nyregion/08about.html I said several times on these pages that it's about time to prohibit aliases in any serious academic discussion.

I kind of avoided to give a narrow personal estimate of the situation. I no longer do because I found a portrait and the web page, an OFFICIAL web page of Glamorgan University. I am shocked because it's an official university page. I don't think you can find anything comparable in any other university (O, yaa, there are energy cures!) Please, see http://difference.weblog.glam.ac.uk/archives/2008/7 The big problem, of course, is with the university. I don't know how long it will take them to remove this page, but if this were in US, I think - 6 hours.

@Paul Roche: Anton rises an interesting point, I would also be interested in your reply. I would further be interested to know if you are actually the Paul Roche mentioned earlier in this discussion by a correspondent in reference to Brake or is 'Paul Roche' a nom de Plume?

@Michael Pyshnov: Nice picture of this joker!

@Dr whippet: how would you like me to prove that I am who I say I am? I'm the Paul Roche named in the article, I resigned from Glamorgan in 2003 and my 6 page letter of resignation has been circulated to several people as a result of it being used in the investigation into the whistleblower who was dismissed in 2006. It is therefore not in the "public domain" as such, but unfortunately copies are floating around and I think THES have one - I am not distributing copies, as I thought thinghs had moved on and I am now back at Glamorgan trying to rebuild some of the initiatives I started in 2002/3.

@Paul Roche: Are you in support of action being taken against Brake?

Dr whippet, you wanted to do something about it? So, call Dr. Goldacre, I think I spelled correctly, of Bad Science. The Professor is much smarter than people with whom he worked and smarter than BBC, etc. The good way for him would be to write a book about the people with whom he worked, this is going to be hilarious to read. The thing is about science that he did. And, may be, this is why nobody is willing to touch him; just speculation.

@Michael Pyshnov: I'll check out Goldacre.

Can we summarize the position here, who has so far made a complaint regarding Brakes actions? If so what has been done. I personally have written to HEFCW.

I too have contacted HEFCW, by sending an email to the Chief Executive of HEFCW, Professor Philip Gummett. His email address is philip.gummett@hefcw.ac.uk

@Dr whippet: as a current staff member at Glamorgan, I will trust in the University to carry out a full and thorough investigation, as they promise in their response to the THES article. People who know me are fully aware of what happened in 2003, and know exactly how I feel about what happened at that time, and the consequences, but I can't comment here I'm afraid.

p.s. In answer to an earlier question, a false claim of a PhD in a grant bid is not fraud in this case, as has been implied above. Attempted fraud is an offence in itself (under the Criminal Attempts Act) and the criteria for such an attempt is that it must be 'an act more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence'. However, whether it is considered an attempted fraud would typically depend on the funding organisation. If it said in the form that the applicant *must* have at least a PhD, and state when and where it was obtained etc., then it probably would have been (but again this would be down to the funding organisation to decide). The funding organisation would have had to make the complaint to the police, as they were the target of the attempted deception. They clearly have not done this, and so they must consider that no actuall or attempted criminal offence has taken place. I would ask that, no matter how (morally/professionally) wrong people consider this false claim to be, it should not be referred to as fraud, and no further complaints should be made to the police.

To add to what Dr. Paul Roche has said, my understanding is that also the fraud would be considered to have been committed by the University not Brake as an individual, but as Paul says the only people who could/should refer this to the Police would be the funding body to whom the application was made. However, I think it is unambiguous that Brake is guilty of Gross Misconduct as defined by any reasonable employer.

According to the Fraud Act I quoted above "(1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another". This therefore makes it clear that it is intent that is the issue, not whether there was actual gain. If Brake did not intend to gain by falsely representing his qualifications, why did he do it? Anyway, I understand the Police are investigating the matter so it's up to them to decide whether a fraud or other offence was committed.

PS. To Dr Anwen I would simply say that anyone can report suspicions of criminal misconduct to the police whether or not they are directly involved. In any case this involves taxpayer's money so any taxpayer could justify reporting it. It could even be that the RCPO were unaware of the misrepresentation. I doubt if the University of Glamorgan had gone out of their way to inform them of it!

I would hope that the THE will do a follow up story on this when Glamorgan have finished their investigation, as it would make interesting reading !

Having read the comments I will contact HEFCW as well.

Good point(s) Dominic....

It's worth comparing this case with a recent and unfortunate one at Manchester where a professor in the medical school resigned after it was revealed that she had falsely claimed possession of an MD. These sort of things are always very difficult, but are never improved by discussion in THE.

Well, this discussion has led to (a) the uncovering of over 20 other occasions in which the title was wrongly attributed and (b) several complaints to the relevant governance body requesting an investigation into an act of gross academic misconduct, which was originally covered up. Both of these are positive outcomes in that they show that members the community won't stand for misconduct.

@Dr. Paul Roche: I will take that as a maybe then.

Dr Roche's contribution to this discussion is interesting but should not deflect attention from the role and actions of the University of Glamorgan. "Under new management" and appeals to institutional amnesia are the first refuge of management. The university has only noted that the matter was dealt with under disciplinary proceedures not that Mr Brake was disciplined. Further it was dealt with by a manager. Who and at what level are left unanswered. Finally, it appears that Mr Brake's claim that it was a one-off, mistake made by others seems to be the University line. That said, I doubt the university's directorate look kindly on Dr Roche's intervation.

@focus For a while I thought Dr Roche's contributions were meant to cast petrol on the fire. His principled objections to the treatment of the University of Glamorgan and assertions of confidence in the University's investigation, always seemed to restate details of all this funny business, and often add new ones. So many posts in THE 'comments' are mischief making that sometimes it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Now I realise that I am mistaken, and that his comments are exactly what they are.

Not share what to make of Paul Roches contribution so far.

I take his posts as principled contributions made in good faith. However, given the available evidence made public, I don't share his faith that any internal inquiry would be a fair one.

So Brake believes that someone else ("the PI") added the PhD claim, not he. Well, then surely that person would be willing to do the decent thing: come forward to acknowledge and explain that action.

We had a different explanation from the Brake camp eariler i.e. that Brake "forgot" to write he failed to get his Ph.D. There is, as yet ,no "explanation" for the twenty instances of "Dr Brake" being mentioned in the online media.

Why not just believe what Paul Roche writes? I guess he is trying to get UoG to take appropriate action, and that for him to give more information on this thread would antagonise the people he is dealing with. His actions over several years show him to be a man of integrity. Let's support his desire to keep his institution clean, and remind the UoG hierarchy of the only course of action that would achieve that aim.

I believe in Paul Roche's honesty. Just to clarify, I referred to the explanation given to him, which he mentioned here.

UoG will only take action if it feels there is no alternative, so it is important to keep up the pressure.

Dr. Paul Roche, can you please clarify the statement about Mr. Brake's claim that the false PhD was added by the PI on the proposal. I have heard that Brake was the PI on the proposal, not someone else.

I only broke my silence because of the dismissive and insulting comments posted by a few people above, and my main motivation here is to ensure that the issues under discussion are investigated fully by the >university< (without external pressures diverting/diffusing or confusing the matter). I came back to Glamorgan without any requirement that action be taken in relation to my 2003 resignation, but the re-emergence of some of the issues that resulted in my leaving then has left me convinced that a full investigation is needed, and that is what I hope the university is now planning. I'd like them to be allowed to get on with it, and I'll await the outcomes of that.

Paul a full investigation is certainly needed in this case, but without external pressure I doubt that action will be taken.

So far I and someone else have referred this matter to HEFCW. I sent an email to the Director, Professor Gummett, and got a personal response from him thanking me for drawing the matter to his attention. Has anyone contacted the Police?

Paul Roche claims someone has contacted the police, but no one on this thread has so far claimed responsibility for this action.

I will write to HEFCW, but have not yet done so.

Well this story is still on the top page!

What is the URL for that page?

I understand that the whistleblower who was dismissed went to the Police about this matter back in 2007, and was told they would look into it. They apparently referred the matter over to Glamorgan, who said they would look into it. My understanding is that Mr. Brake denied all wrong-doing.

Dr.Anwen: That is interesting. So at that point the investigation, such that it was, stopped and Brake must of thought he was in the clear. Let us hope that things will be different this time around as Brake clearly has some questions to answer. However, I do not share Paul Roches conviction that Glamorgan will act, so the more pressure that can be applied the better.

Someone in south Wales needs to betake themselves to the police!

I live in Wales so may head to the Police myself.

I live in Wales so may head to the Police myself.

I live in Wales so may head to the Police myself.

Sorry that got posted three times, I did it from my iPhone and the "send" button seemed to be playing up....

I shall be heading to my local Police station Friday to report the matter to the police, armed with a copy of this story and the one in the Western Mail http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/10/19/cardiff-scientist-with-nasa-links-falsely-claimed-phd-91466-24960138/

Having read the above discussions I am mainly left confused that a University woud employ lecturers without PhDs. Surely this is like an A-level graduate teaching GCSEs? Can any old Tom, Dick or Harry invent and teach a degree course? This guy must have serious 'gift of the gab'.

I have heard Layman that indeed Mr. Brake does have the gift of the gab. Maybe he'd be better suited to selling snake oil in the local market than running courses at a university....

If Glamorgan say the matter has been dealt with, perhaps he was investigated and punished at the time of that investigation. Just because he wasn't sacked doesn't mean they didn't reprimand him. It's possible, that despite the dishonesty which has come to light, that he is good at his job. Why else would they keep him on? However, I would not be happy studying under a professor with little more qualification than myself - how can he profess accademic superiority? This man may have dependants - do we need him to be sacked? Do we want public self flagellation? To be honest, I'm fed up with people in the media eye apologising for being caught.

@Layman: Public self-flagellation has a bad name because it is mostly insincere and done as damage limitation by somebody who has been caught out. If Brake knowingly falsified that grant application then it is a sacking offence for the reason I gave above: the PhD is the principal qualification for admittance to the academic community of research scholars. Research *presumes* good faith and could not operate without it, so the breaking of that faith should never be tolerated. (Anybody who has dependants should think doubly hard before misbehaving.) The University of Glamorgan must act consistent with its statement that ""the academic credibility of staff is something of which the university is very proud, and allegations to the contrary are taken seriously." A full professor of astrophysics in the University of Cardiff has made it plain what he thinks about all this on his blog, and it would be good if more prominent people, from the Astronomer Royal downwards, were to make the same points. Meanwhile, Respect to Dr Paul Roche.

Thank you Dr Garrett, I have now read, "Brake Points". Having read the above comments I felt it important that the human questions were asked, to keep perspective. I would like to feel that academics are honest in their research etc but we should all retain the desire to question what we read and hear from others. I understand that research physicists will be concerned for their own credibility and wish to protect this. After all, any dishonesty throws sceptiscm on past or related works. (The number of recent measles cases being an example.) This should be a reminder to those in power that qualifications and CV claims must be checked. Perhaps, Dr Anwen, you will see Mr Brake seeling snake oil at your local market after all.

Layman there is a further question here, did Brake falsified his cv to get the original job at Glamorgan.

In most industries, disciplinaries and competency investigations are carried out in a quiet manner. I should think, if outside agencies remain excluded, the same will happen here. I doubt we'll ever know. Some may rail against this but we'd all like the same treatment if roles were reversed.

As Anton says above, academic honesty is the fairy corner-stone of research. Anyone could falsify their results and make a name for themselves, but we don't because we have to be totally honest as scientists. For Mr. Brake to falsify his qualifications to presumably increase his chances of getting a grant makes one wonder what else he has lied about.

Oops, I don't know how the word "fairy" got into the post above.....

Dr Anwen, have you popped to the cop shop yet? There are cheats and liars in all walks of life. The high ideals of some will never be upheld by all. I don't say this to provide excuses, I wish it were otherwise. Unfortunately even scientists can be morally weak. The general public do not trust science or scientists - perhaps a noisy, public spanking can help [shrug].

@Layman: I agree it is not reasonable for U Glamorgan to provide minutes of its internal procedures. But there is only one action it can take consistent with its statement that ""the academic credibility of staff is something of which the university is very proud, and allegations to the contrary are taken seriously;" and the results of that action would be publicly visible...

To add to the comments, I also wouldn't expect internal minutes. However, I would expect a statement such as "this was dealt with according to the disciplinary procedures described in document xy, which outlines the sanctions which can be expected for acts of gross academic misconduct". Instead, Glamorgan issued a wishy washy statement saying it was an isolated case (what about the news reports on Dr Brake ??) which was dealt with by Mr Brake's line manager.

Well said Anton,

Prof Brake did not lie about having a PhD to obtain his post or his chair at Glamorgan (which he gained when I was there last time around) - he was already a long-established member of faculty there when I arrived in 2002, and no-one was bothered about his lack of a PhD. I'd dispute the statements made above about needing to have a PhD to teach at a university, as I'm sure we've all worked with people who did not have PhDs but were still excellent teachers and even researchers - this was certainly the case when I did geology labs taught by people who didn't have PhDs but who had years of fieldwork experience in industry.

My source at Glamorgan tells me there is a *lot* more to this story that what has come out so far. In particular it is claimed that Mr. Brake had an affair with one of his students, Rosi, whilst she was in his classes. Students and staff made complaints about this, but Brake denied all wrong-doing. I am not sure if any of these complaints were official, but I should point out that my knowledge of employment law is that *any* complaint in writing (i.e. even an email or a scribbled note) should be treated as a *formal* complaint by an employer (this is well established case law). I am not sure if any of the complaints against Brake's purported affair with Rosi (sorry don't know her last name but will find out) were made under that definition of "in writing". I also do not know what action, if any, was taken by Glamorgan on this matter. But Rosi, upon graduation, was then installed in a job created by Brake, and was employed by Glamorgan for 2-3 more years, under Brake's line management. She eventually quit when asked to make weekly reports to her new line manager (not Brake) on what work she was doing, as there appeared to be evidence that whilst "working from home" she was not working but rather looking after her and Brake's young baby.

It's great when a little information can straighten things out. Experience is often under-rated, it's good to be reminded of such a thing.

Oooh, this is like reading the Sun (but with a slightly higher reading age).

@Dr Anwen: If that's accurate then it is the first new information since this story broke. Generally it is not out of order to have an affair with a student provided you disclose it to your superior... and provided the student is not treated preferentially. For obvious reasons I don't wish to comment further without being able to verify what you say; I hope simply that these things are (re-)examined by UoG at the same time as, and together with, the doctorate issue.

Maybe Dr. Roche would be able to corroborate some of the Rosi stoy, and supply us with her surname....

Has anyone had some good chocolate from one of those chocolate chain-franchises recently?

@Dr Anwen: Rosi's surname is given in the blog of the astrophysicist Prof. Peter Coles of U Cardiff, in the entry "Brake Points" (Nov 1st) at telescoper dot wordpress dot com (NB this is not preceded by three 'w's)

I am a part-time lecturer on the astronomy program at Glamorgan. Dr. Roche is now overseeing the degree program and Mark Brake is another division. I strongly believe Mark Brake's relationship with Rosi should be left out of this discussion. It is a personal matter and she and their family have absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed in this thread. Regardless of anyone's qualifications or lack thereof (I do not hold a PhD myself) those who are involved in the program remain committed to moving forward and ensuring students are accessing the best academic grounding possible. It should be remembered that institutions like Glamorgan have a strong widening access agenda which often requires a different approach pedagogically speaking but that certainly doesn't imply academic integrity and ethics are being ignored.

@Anton, thanks for that. So her surname is Thornton. Catherine, I do not believe that we should keep Brake's apparently inappropriate relationship with Rosi Thornton out of this discussion, as my source tells me that she *was* being shown preferential treatment by Brake whilst a student of his, and that is the matter about which the students and other staff made their complaints. Brake's denial of there being anything going on between them is another example of the man's apparent inability to tell the truth, and another example along with him lying about his PhD of deception. I don't think many people on this thread are suggesting you need a PhD to be a good lecturer/teacher, in fact our universities are full of people with PhDs coming out of their ears who are very poor at teaching undergraduates. But *lying* about your qualifications is a whole other matter, I'm sure you have never claimed to have better or more A-levels than you have, and if you did do that you would be guilty of misrepresentation and, possibly, fraud if you gained anything from that misrepresentation.

@Catherine: The issue involved in the PhD on the grant application is academic integrity, and If Dr Anwen's allegation about Brake and Rosi is true then it has an obvious bearing on that (although I cannot check the allegation so I won't be commenting further on it). She is still listed as current on the University's website (project RoCoTTO). I support your desire to uphold U Glamorgan's reputation and ask you only to reflect how that can be done.

I'm expecting McCarthy to post to this thread any day now! I hope the young woman in question is not cowering at home whilst her fairy tale crumbles around her. Baying for blood is NOT dignified. Very few people have ALL the answers, everything else is circular speculation. I don't think I was far wrong by comparing this to the Sun - remember the Paediatrician... Let Glamorgan do its thing. Dr Roche trusts them!

Academic integrity is vital and lying about qualifications is, of course, totally unacceptable - I agree. It would be hypocritical of me to stand up in front of a class of students and preach about academic standards if I didn't believe in upholding those myself. I believe that most people at the institution share that view.

@Catherine, lying about a relationship with an undergraduate in your class, who other students and members of staff have complained is getting preferential treatment, is also at the heart of academic integrity. If Brake told his management about the relationship then fine, everything was above board. But my understanding is that he flat out denied it, and then created jobs for her where HE was her line manager. When her line management was changed to someone else that other person discovered she wasn't doing any work (or at least never produced any evidence of doing any work). Obtaining money in such a way could be considered fraud or embezzlement (spelling?)

Dr Anwens comment may have inadvertently revealed how this whole story came about. If the "staff and students made complaints about this" and it appeared that nothing was being done, maybe someone decided to take matters into their own hands and dig around for "evidence of gross academic misconduct" (to quote Roger from an earlier post) Maybe this was the person who was sacked for the harassment of Mark Brake. I am only summising, of course. But it certainly looks, from what I've read since this story broke, that there was plenty of motivation for people to see Glamorgan take against Brake.

Motivation??

I simply can't believe that you're all still at this. not only that, but you're dragging some other poor soul through the mud now. If (and it's a big if) he was at it with one of his students (it does happen, I know) then that's nothing to do with the matter at hand. It's not unusual. There are plenty of cases. Look at Politics in Aberystwyth; Nursing in Swansea; Social Science at Bangor. There's no shortage of unwarranted bonking!

@Danse Macabre: What do you mean by "how this whole story came about"? There would be no story if the grant application had not listed Mark Brake as having a PhD that he didn't have. As for the possibility that some people here are hiding behind aliases: it cuts both ways. I doubt that "Danse Macabre" is on your birth certificate.

Welcome back to the discussion Mark Brake. Oops, I mean Danse Macabre. Is Shelley you or Rosi?

THE needs to close this thread. Now. The first poster was spot on from the start. Too bad he didn't stick around, though who could blame him in the face of the maniacal lynching-mob who have taken it over. In permitting this inanity and insanity to continue for weeks on end, THE has descended to the ignomious ranks of tabloid journalism: a shameless rag for the perpetration of malicious academic gossip and scurrilous, unfounded, defamatory innuendo. The behaviours exhibited on here have been confined to barely a handful of puerile male academics, self-avowedly (and shamelessly) posting over and over again to keep the thread 'at the top', and some of whom are clearly reposting under different names. From where I sit, these self-appointed arbiters of internal institutional matters that are none of their business appear to be driven by profound envy over Prof Brake's success (undeserved in their view) and media celebrity for it does not take a genius (nor a Dr Freud) to see that the profligacy of time and energy devoted to defaming Brake on here would not be wasted on a truly mediocre academic, but only on profoundly threatening one. Dr Leymann would have a great deal to say on that subject, as would Dr Westhues. Worst of all, these posters seem incapable of seeing how utterly inappropriate and unethical *their own behaviour* on here is. Article 6, 2 of the Human Rights Act guarantees to all the right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty and this thread is in egregious breach of it. Brake has not only *not* been charged with any offence, we now know from Dr Paul Roche that that he was not the person responsible for adding the 'PhD' to the 2006 funding application. Dr Roche has further quashed the suggestion floated on this thread (and in clear violation of THE policy) that Brake might 'also' have falsified his CV. Now, deprived of sticks to beat him with, the mob now--unbelievably-- drags his private life onto the thread, and, in the process, an entirely innocent third party whose name they don't even have the common sense to suppress. Seriously, boys, have you no shame? Have all ethical principles and human decency gone completely out the window in the UK? Is it possible for THE to stoop any lower than continuing to permit this to go on? And no, I am not Mark Brake for the umpteenth time, although the notion that I am has given rise to great amusement in my household in recent weeks. In truth, my dear testosterone-driven vigilantes, I am none of the following: a) a scientist; b) a British citizen; nor even c) a man. It is fascinating to me that most of the dissident voices on here appear to be women. Dr Paul Roche should be applauded for his courage and integrity in coming forward and for his ethical conduct in setting the record straight on Professor Brake, despite their prior difficulties. As for the rest of you, get a life, as Shelly says, and stop wasting the taxpayers' money by spending any further time on this thread. That too is an ethical issue. Go back to your sandboxes or, better yet, back to your research labs and start worrying about getting your own personal chairs. I note that most of you--somewhat ironically (and, PhDs notwithstanding)--call yourselves 'Dr' and not 'Professor'.

Um, I don't recall skeptic that Dr Roche said that Mr. Brake was NOT responsible for the deceptive (and possibly fraudulent) PhD claim on the 2006 grant proposal. Where did Dr Roche say that??

I have read Dr Roche's initial piece on this thread and I think I can understand his frustration with the way some people have attacked UoG, maybe due to what seems like lack of action. However, thing is that the university could not simply sack Mr Brake the minute the situation broke out and an investigation must be conducted (I wonder, is Mr Brake suspended pending the outcome of the investigation?). I do think, though, that all the information that keeps circulating informally, both on the web and in conversations here and there, and more importantly details that keep emerging somehow suggest that falsely claiming the PhD is only one of many things that make Mr Brake an antagonistic deceiving figure and maybe the university should have taken a stronger stance before and not let it reach this point (though from Dr Roche's piece, I got the slight impression that past management was maybe part of Team Brake? I hope I haven't misinterpreted that part). I have no idea what happened in 2003 but in regards to the deception at hand, I do think that if it's true that he lied about having a PhD and has done so in the past (as it has been suggested by previous comments here), one is left but to question why the university (who claims to take the academic credibility of staff seriously) did not do anything about this.

@skeptic: Who will take you seriously if you say who you aren't but refuse to say who you are (a question you ducked four times above)? BTW I have not posted under any other name, as the record will show. And I might not have a Chair but at least I have a PhD. Where did Dr Roche say that Brake was not responsible for the PhD claim on the grant application form? All that Dr Roche has said on this thread (on Nov 10th) is that Brake told him so... @Dr Anwen: Please be sure that you can back up all allegations you make, including about identities of posters to this thread; both for your own sake and to keep the moral high ground.

Good point @Anton.... In fact several good points!

@skeptic. You criticise people for their "...profound envy over Prof Brake's success (undeserved in their view) and media celebrity..." I am a biologist with interest in aging and cell senescence. I looked at the project of Mr. Brake here: http://difference.weblog.glam.ac.uk/archives/2008/7 My opinion is that he is making wild scientific claims and is engaged in the profanation of science. My opinion is that his "success" is earned by fooling incompetent people. I would propose that competent people look at this web page.

Brilliant. I just come in from work (bout an hour ago) - looking for stories on aliens and such - search by goodle). Found this thread - read it through from beginning - you guys are F* mad getting this PD guy - keep in coming let's nail him! I'm gonna look again next week and tell mates. What's your jobs then?