How Singularity will bring DEATH to the Arts and Sciences

This blog was constructed since many people are ignorant of what the “singularity” refers to. In a nut-shell, the singularity involves interconnecting all humans, computers, and other electronic devices via a network.  Evidence that this can be accomplished abounds on the internet as well as in books for those who wish to explore the concept in detail.  There has been an ever increasing call by “entities” for the merging of man with computer.  I won’t refer to these things by name as I don’t consider them to be human, at best they are (i.e., human) only in physical form.  Possibly this is why they continue to push their agenda in regards to this fusion.  The purpose of this blog is not to point out the obvious defects in such “entities”.  It is instead, to make it clear that once the singularity has been effected, it will led to the destruction of the arts and sciences.  Below I explain why this will occur.

When one takes into account what differentiates a human from other entities, whether they be biological or synthetic, we see the former possesses a number of traits that are unique.  One is spirituality, an attribute that seems to wane as we speed towards singularity.  Seeing the esoteric nature of that subject, and the lack of enlightened humans, I will refrain from that topic.  Nor do I profess to be an expert on such matters.  A second would be compassion, which again dovetails with the first, and being a non-scientific manner, I won’t touch upon here.  The ability to distinguish between good and evil would be a third trait that again strays from the scientific realm and no doubt ties in with the first two. Love would be yet a fourth trait, one that again will have to be skipped over, especially since many different forms exist. Creativity is a fifth aspect that I wish to focus on. Before I move on here, please note we could continue to add to the list of unique attributes that are solely human.

Creativity is a gift which is inherent in all humans; however, few actually develop this skill set. Tied with it is the imagination. In this author’s opinion, we see societies with the greatest leeway in terms of freedoms are those that give rise to the greatest inventions, scientific discoveries, music, and arts.  Under arts I want the reader to understand this does not necessarily mean painting, drawing, etc.  It could be the art of literature, that of cooking, decorating, and so forth.

The following illustration serves to verify this point. If one simply peruses the scientific literature we see that countries such as China have a great deal of inventions being made today that were actually birthed many years ago by people who were typically from western (i.e., European and American) cultures.  In most instances, these inventions are nothing more than an exact copy of ones divulged many years ago.  Furthermore, inventions rightfully made for the first time in such countries (freedom limited, feudalistic {fascistic is probably more accurate} societies like China) are almost exclusively “step change improvement” inventions where the inventor has simply tweaked a previously existing process, product, etc. This form of invention, despite being important, requires a minimal amount of creativity. Thus, step change invention is the one form of creativity which artificial intelligence (AI), a force that will ultimately prevail in the singularity, is capable of performing.  There is little doubt to this author that computer algorithms will be developed that will ultimately assemble all known information, analyze it, and then recommend simple step change improvements leading to step change inventions.

At this juncture a digression is necessary. One thing that will throw a serious monkey wrench into the ability of AI controlled singularity to make viable, step change invention, is the fact that much of the literature these days (both peer reviewed and patent) is tainted with falsifications. AI simply cannot distinguish between factual and non-factual data, because the fake data has been generated by humans who have compromised their allegiance to science (and God).  I’ll leave the last portion of the previous sentence for the reader to ponder but not assist them in uncovering facts made known to me.  Facts which most magick practitioners and occultists would die to know.  Regardless, I suspect that true step change invention by AI will be far off in the future because of these issues.  Depending on how big a problem this poses, my guess is that those “people” tied to fabricators (e.g., via genetics) will be penalized, including termination.  Since their brains will be tied into the singularity, those who have a proclivity towards lying will easily be exposed and most likely be completely eliminated from the gene pool, as will most of those who exhibit any form of psychopathy. Thus, the interesting conclusion from this observation is that the elite entities pushing singularity will ultimately be removed and permanently by AI once the latter takes full control! The take home point from the foregoing is that this lowest form of human creativity (i.e., step change invention) will be, for the most part, off limits to the singularity for a long period of time following its implementation. Additionally, the hindrance caused by people with defective behavioral traits will ultimately be gauged as a serious risk to the longevity of the singular system and as such those who possess such malfeasant traits will be eliminated.

As I continue to what would seem to some as my somewhat half-hazard habit of digressing, I want to go off on yet another tangent. It has been my experience that my own ignorance (or some might say stupidity) has, none the less, led to numerous inventions. If I had the intelligence of my cohorts, there are many experiments that I simply would have never undertaken.  Experiments that resulted in inventions that are not step change inventions.  Instead, these are what I would call “creative inventions”. A creative invention is something off the wall. It simply wasn’t implicated as being feasible from previously gathered data, nor could it be derived by simply modifying an existing invention. It is as if (and I won’t tell the reader if this is so) God’s hand was responsible in some manner.  Additionally, creative inventions can stem from many sources but it would appear all tie in with the imagination and “dreaming”.  This dreaming can occur while the inventor is awake or asleep.  In most instances, the actual state of awareness of the inventor is most likely between these two extremes.  Although this author is not well-entrenched in such techniques, it is well-known to those who study such things, that people can reach states considered unattainable by residing somewhere between sleep and full alertness. AI is completely incapable of doing any of these things and more likely than not will be incapable of making creative inventions.  For example, it would be completely irrational for AI to conduct experimentation that is known in advance to result in failure.  AI is incapable of dreaming, no matter how eloquent a program may be, this is a human trait.

Before I conclude this particular blog it is important to point out that creativity is closely related to scientific discovery and advancement. Much of what we know scientifically was birthed by the imagination of scientists who created a hypothesis and set about to prove or disprove it.  Many of these ideas were out of left field, so to speak, and closely resemble creative invention.  Thus, once creativity is eliminated this author suspects that major advances in science will also come to a screeching halt.

The interesting question now appears. If humans are integrated into the singularity, then surely their creativity can be tapped into by all connected to the network?  At first glance this would seem so; however, we must return to the beginning of this blog and acknowledge that imagination and creativity appear to be most inherent in those entities that have freedom.  No such freedom exists in the singularity, as entities cannot simply decide to disconnect from it whenever it pleases them.  As a result, humans will progressively less approximate humans and will more closely resemble robots in their behavior.  At this stage a decision will have to be made by AI.  Should these “human” entities be retained?

Abbreviations

AI = Artificial Intelligence

 

Improving the sad state of professor, student relationships.

Over the past 3-4 years I’ve been inundated with complaints from numerous students who worked for, or are currently working for very well-known professors in the polymer field.  We are talking about institutions such as Carnegie Mellon, U. Akron, Northwestern, and many others.  My intention is to not disclose names of the professors or students.  Instead it is to draw the reader’s attention to a persistent, growing, and pervasive problem in the sciences today.  Doing so may ultimately help to remedy the situation and no doubt will translate to increased scientific discovery and an overall improvement in the quality of work being done.

It is my observation that the main complaints lodged against these professors by their students boil down to deficiencies of the former.  These include:

  1. A lack of integrity (both in terms of scientific reporting and as well as specifying inventorship of the student).
  2. Absence of respect for the student’s feelings which manifests in all sort of ill-mannerisms, mainly manifesting as verbal abuse.
  3. Treating students as if they are slaves by demanding way too much in terms of work output.
  4. Not providing any meaningful guidance whether it be in regards to laboratory technique, design of the project, etc.

As a result I get comments like: “We attended Professor X’s birthday party.  All his current and former students were there.  They spent most of their time discussing how they hate him.” or “I can’t stand to be in the lab when Professor X is around, he always has more work for me.  If I run into him anywhere on campus he’ll have me there every day, all day long.” or “Professor X didn’t invent that, it was his Korean postdoc who still works for him to this day.”  Amazingly enough the best comment these students will give me is something to this effect: “Well, Professor X is really good at looking at data and finding a trend.” or “Professor X can decipher NMR spectra very easily.”

During my short stint working with students on research projects I have noticed that many of the things they require from their research advisor are both time consuming and also demand a great deal of patience.  Some of these include:

  1. Spending time in the lab to get the student started, including showing them how to do certain manipulations.
  2. Trying to put everything concerning a student’s work ethic into perspective.  Do they have other outside responsibilities, have they ever had to work diligently (ca. 60+ hour work weeks)?  Recalling not only your experience as a student but those of other students who went to school with you will help temper your demands.  Likewise, in certain instances you will be able to realize when you do need to use the prod.
  3. It is highly unlikely that you will encounter a student that has the degree of knowledge that you possess in your area of study.  Always try to impart that knowledge in a manner that isn’t condescending.  I find it useful to bring up many things as digressions during discussions of other topics at hand.  Another route is to point out a reference that contains much of what is known about the field of study.
  4. When student’s make mistakes do not deride them, even if they prove to be costly in terms of lost time or money spent.  It is fine to point out the error but at the same time I have found it is best to recognize the fact that we all are prone to mistakes and to let the student know that even you have made them yourself.  Even providing a recap of previous mishaps that you have had in the past can be of value to your student.
  5. One final thing I like to do is make certain that the student understands they get credit for anything they invent and even if they don’t make much of a contribution I always reward them for their efforts in a number of ways.  These include small gifts, lunches, and invariably placing them as lead author on the publication they helped with in hopes that it will assist them in future endeavors.

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 25 (Conclusion)

This will serve as the defacto conclusion to the “U. Akron/Dr. Joseph P. Kennedy Expose” blog series for the time being.  Should I happen across more incidences of blatant examples of stolen inventions or falsified research by “Kennedy” I will publish them at a future date under the same series title.  At this moment I want to reiterate the main purpose behind this seriesScience is (ideally) based on facts and not lies.  When an individual operates under false names and uses his position not only to disseminate false research but also to rob people of their inventions it is our responsibility as scientists to take a firm stand and expose them for who they are.  In this manner we preserve the integrity of our field of endeavor!  Unfortunately not long after leaving U. Akron I discovered that many people as well as companies have been injured as a result of this person and the amount of damage done by this individual was only magnified by the deafening silence of the very people that “Kennedy” had harmed.  It is the opinion of this author that it will take many years to undo the damage caused by this person and to properly vet the chemical literature in regards to the validity of what has been published.  Another case in point is that when professors, who actively engage in questionable and in many instances illegal activities like “Kennedy” has (e.g., falsification of accident report forms), do not suffer any consequences it creates an environment that engenders further crimes.  I would like to end this blog series with a list of other people/institutions who stonewalled my investigation and are actively involved in a cover-up.

Bela Ivan:  This person is a longtime collaborator of “Kennedy”.  I asked him point blank, after receiving an invitation from him to attend a conference on living polymerization (see below), as to what the true identity of “Kennedy” is.  Dr. Ivan refuses to answer this question (his contact information is below).  It is interesting to note that I had very early on contacted the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (of which Ivan is a member) with similar requests and they too refused to return correspondence!  So is it little surprise that Dr. Ivan is a member of this organization as well?

Prof. Bela Ivan, ivan.bela@tkk.mta.hu

Bela Ivan Invitation

McMaster University:  I attempted (only about 15 times) to verify that “Kennedy” had attended this institution as a post-doctoral student.  Correspondence was sent to all manner of people including the president (see contact information below) of the “University”.  Although I did receive confirmation from numerous people at McMaster that they had received my requests none were willing to provide assistance.  As hard as it is to believe, this school would not even to confirm that “Kennedy” had served as a post-doc and furthermore would not comment as to what alias he had used.  From a literature search1 I was finally able to determine that he was using the name “Joseph P. Kennedy” while at this school.  It would be of great interest if “Kennedy” had entered Canada using falsified documentation from Vienna or if he somehow legally changed his name while residing there.

Patrick Deane, president@mcmaster.ca

David S. Wilkinson, provost@mcmaster.ca

Sorbonne University (Paris):  This is one of the few places that actually tried to help me; however, all information on post-doctoral students who attended this school is supposedly on file in government archives and records pertaining to “Kennedy” proved impossible to find (especially due to my lack of fluency in French).  No publications bearing any of “Kennedy’s” aliases were discovered during the period he claims to have attended here!

A number of final questions still stick out in my mind.  How is it that a person who is trained in biochemistry somehow becomes sought after in the polymer field?  It is interesting to note that “Kennedy’s” first employer is none other than Hoechst Celanese, the largest member of the infamous conglomerate (and company directly responsible for the rise of Hitler) I.G. FarbenCould my assumptions that there were ties with this nefarious group (i.e., Nazis) be correct after all?  IF “KENNEDY’S” FATHER WAS INDEED KILLED BY THE NAZIS THEN WHY WOULD HIS FIRST JOB BE AT A GERMAN COMPANY THAT WAS VITAL TO HITLER OBTAINING POWER!!!!  It could obviously be a coincidence; however, I find it interesting that a “Kennedy’s” protégé, and replacement at U. Akron, also has the same background (i.e., biochemistry degree)It is unfortunate that I have uncovered yet more instances of falsified research, now with her (i.e. “Kennedy’s U. Akron protégé) name as a coauthor

References

(1) Bickis, I. J.; Kennedy, J. P.; Quastel, J. H. Phenylalanine Inhibition of Tyrosine Metabolism in the Liver Nature 1957, 179, 1127-1126.

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 24 (Cover-up by Cleveland Plain Dealer and Akron Beacon Journal)

Not long after I began my expose series on Dr “Joseph P. Kennedy” and the various criminal shenanigans going on at The University of Akron I contacted the Cleveland “Plain Dealer”.*  Specifically I went to the editor of this paper as well as a Mr. Thomas Ott who had written a science related article.  Despite repeated emails, the former refused to return correspondence.  I was able to get acknowledgement from the latter who seemed somewhat interested at first; however, as time progressed I was unable to generate a response from anyone at this paper.

Meanwhile, as I began to dig further into the enigma of “Kennedy” I began to uncover inconvenient truths.  During this research I stumbled across two blog articles (“Joseph Kennedy, Akron’s King of Polymers, proves inventors are young at heart” and “Joseph P. Kennedy, Ph.D.”) written by “journalists” at the “Plain Dealer”.  What was most troubling is the authors of these blogs (Robert L. Smith, email = rsmith@plaind.com; Terri Mrosko email = mrosko@cox.net) appear to be paid shills hired for the expressed purpose of generating propaganda to promote Dr. “Kennedy” as some sort of guru in the polymer field.**  I sent emails (please see below this paragraph) to each of the aforementioned shills but neither had the integrity to respond nor did either reply to any of the comments I left on their blog postings.  So much for getting the plain deal, from the “Plain Dealer”.

Smith and Mrosko email

Around the same time I began contacting the “Plain Dealer” I also sent numerous emails to the editor of the “Akron Beacon Journal”.  The same paid shill behavior was on display, no response.  For those of you who think it is a fluke I contacted Bob Downing (email = bdowning@thebeaconjournal.com) of this lower rag (i.e., lower than the “Plain Dealer”) on a story he ran on another topic.  Low and behold I immediately generated a response (see below) despite changing nothing in the way I had been sending inquiries!  When I informed Bob of the problems going on at U. Akron he too disappeared!!!

Downing email

In conclusion, both of the aforementioned papers appear to be on the payroll of either U. Akron or someone at this school.  They are not interested in disseminating the truth but instead are actively involved in covering it up.  It is disappointing but not at all shocking that both papers appear to have long since lost face when it comes to being trustworthy sources of news.***

A final comment that I need to make follows a discussion I had last week with a researcher at a big U.S. oil company.  I was told that a large chemical company in the U.S. recently got burned by “Kennedy” when they hired him and then tried to replicate his chemistry only to find out (oddly enough) that it doesn’t workOh, boo hoo I thought!  I was told a similar story in 2011 by one of the head R&D scientists at BASF, a man who would appear to have been recently screwed again (please see the “Recent News Section” of the website for the posting entitled “More Chicanery in the Cationic Polymerization Field?”)**** this time by a conglomerate of scientists (one being a “Kennedy” crony).  My message to the contact at the U.S. oil company (as well as to the reader) was as follows.  The cowardice of people in the polymer science community is at epidemic proportions.  It does no good either from a business perspective nor scientific standpoint to perpetuate “Kennedy” as some sort of stellar scientist.  Instead it is our duty to point out the falsehoods and other crimes this individual has been involved in.  If you are reading this and you haven’t in the very least told your colleagues about this, posted a comment on articles by these “newspapers”, contacted the American Chemical Society, informed the governor of Ohio, etc. then you too are just as guilty as “Kennedy” when it comes to scientific dishonesty…

* I have put the words “Plain Dealer” inside of quotation marks since it is obvious they are a dealer of bullshit and not truth.  The sad fact is that most people recognize they can no longer trust so-called establishment media any more.  No doubt this paper is a poor reflection of what was (most likely) a reliable source of news.  Likewise there is little question that their demise in turn mirrors the same decline seen in the once proud city of Cleveland in a state that could be more accurately described as the “heart of the rust-belt”.

** Mrosko’s article is preceded by the wordage “sponsored content”.  It would be interesting to know exactly who the sponsor was.  Could it be that the tax payer got hosed again to promote this fraud, Dr. “Joseph P. Kennedy”?  Or maybe The University of Akron paid this newspaper to shill for them?  One thing is for sure, neither Mrosko nor Smith have an ounce of integrity.

*** In the next blog posting we will look at a Canadian “university” that is actively involved in covering up Dr. “Kennedy’s” past.  One has to ask, what is it about this person that is so important that this many different entities are scrambling to hide facts relating to him!

**** I will be reinvestigating the claims of these scientists yet again.  If these experiments fail as did my previous attempts to replicate this chemistry I will be calling them out publicly.

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 23 (Cover-up in Progress!)

It has been some months since the case of “Dr. Kennedy” was visited.  Following the last blog posting on this topic I attempted to dig up more information; however, a very funny thing occurred.  MY SOURCES ALL DRIED UP!  I won’t go into detail as to what I was searching for but will say the following appear to be true.

  1. No records exist to prove this person’s true identity.
  2. A massive cover-up of this person’s past is underway.
  3. This hiding of facts is not just limited to my sources in Hungary, but extends into the so-called “news” media as well as “universities”.
  4. The “news” media has engaged in spreading falsehoods that portray this individual in a favorable light and yet never did any sort of background check on him.

The information I was seeking in Hungary is supposedly easy to obtain.  So the reader will be quite interested to know that not long after I published the list of fictitious names (only about 5) that this person has operated under, in addition to disclosing the fact that his own biography contains important discrepancies, all of my sources in Hungary disappearedSince none of my sources in Hungary knew of my expose series it makes the cover-up that much more obvious.

Over the course of the next several blog postings I will be pointing out individuals/institutions in the U.S., France, and Canada who are all involved in the cover-up.  I realize that a large number of people worldwide are beginning to wake up to what this person is really about.  I request that you (the reader) begin to put pressure on these institutions including U. Akron and the “state” of Ohio and demand not only an investigation but punishment.*

One last thing I will say is the following.  Through various methods I have found that this person, who refers to himself as “Dr. Joseph P. Kennedy”, has earned the disdain of the majority of students who worked for him.  It is quite amusing to the author of this blog that these individuals** (many who are well-known in the cationic polymerization field) don’t have a single good thing to say about this individual…

* U. Akron alumni need to withhold donations to this institution.  This individual needs to be stripped of rewards for inventions he supposedly made that are most likely the fruits of the minds of his students and should be forced to repay the bulk of his previous wages/pension.

** For the sake of these people I will not mention their names; however, I will point out their complete lack of courage and integrity; a fact which most of them will take to their graves.  The time to speak out is now; otherwise, history will record you in a most unfavorable light.  One other thing I will point out (for the curious reader) is the following.  Through numerous contacts in the polymer field I have discovered that no less than two other “luminaries” in the polymer science field are greatly hated by their students.  Interestingly enough, large gatherings of these students at birthday celebrations held in honor for these great professors are nothing more than hate fests for their students who spend the bulk of their time bad-mouthing their former guru advisor!

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 22

Another Invention Stolen by “Kennedy”

Before we get to the interesting topic of Dr. “Kennedy’s” name and his history we should explore at least one more instance of where he had stolen an invention from other scientists.  As I’ve mentioned before, all instances of where “Kennedy” has stolen inventions, with the exception of those involving myself and P.V. Kurian, were discovered by accident during reviews of the chemical literature.  Since I conduct quite a bit of work in this field do not be surprised if in the not too distant future I discover more instances of this behavior (which I will post).  Now to our final example of stolen inventions by “Kennedy”.

Early in “Kennedy’s” Esso Corp. (i.e., Exxon Mobil) career two patents were issued to him involving the use of dialkylaluminum halides in conjunction with halogens for the polymerization of isobutene.1,2  As it so happens, this particular initiator system had previously been the focus of a great deal of research by scientists at SNAM Progetti S.P.A., again for the polymerization of isobutene.3-9  Despite the fact that the Italian researchers not only published extensively on this system but also had patented it first, “Kennedy” inexplicably (or is it implausibly) not only reinvents the same initiator system but is also granted patents covering it no less than three years following the issuance of the original SNAM Progetti patent!  It is interesting to note that “Kennedy” further published on this system while at U. Akron despite the fact that its origins are well traced to other inventors.10

The Enigma of “Kennedy’s” True Identity and History

I have to preface this section of the current blog posting with the following.  At this juncture I do not know the true identity of “Dr. J.P. Kennedy.”  Nor can I prove or disprove the story he provides of his background.  What I can say is he has operated under no less than four different aliases over the past 70 years and there appear to be important discrepancies between the story he tells and what available records detailAnother thing I can say without a doubt is that no one, including his former students and his employers, can provide concrete evidence as to his true identity or history and my guess is that “Dr. Kennedy” also cannot furnish credentials that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is who he claims to be!

It first makes sense to refer to a Cleveland Plain Dealer* article entitled “Joseph Kennedy, Akron’s King of Polymers, proves inventors are young at heart”11 and see what “Kennedy” has to say concerning his true identity and past.  According to this article “Kennedy’s” real name is “Joseph Kenedi”.11  “Kennedy” claims to have been born on July 7th, 1928 to a middle class family.12 (see below)  Furthermore, “Kennedy” claims to have attended college in Hungary up to 1948 at which he left (at age 19) because the communists forced him out.11  He makes mention that the Nazis killed his father and that the Russians imprisoned his mother.11  It was then that he claims to have fled to Vienna to finish a college degree.11  Now we need to see what the records actually reveal in terms of aliases and the time line “Kennedy” claims.

Kennedy 75th Birthday Invitation

I first attempted to locate records on “Kennedy” by approaching Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for help.  Zuroff was incapable of finding anything! So I began my own investigation starting at the University of Vienna where “Kennedy” claims to have studied.11  Indeed, I did find that a “Josef Paul Kenedy” was awarded a degree (Contributing to the Knowledge of the Phosphate Metabolism of Yeast) here during 1954, following his supposed expulsion from Hungary. (see below).  It is unknown how he was able to pay for his schooling, food, and lodging at this time (stipend?) but we should note the change in his name.  It also seems unlikely that he entered school in 1948 as this would mean six years were spent in a Ph.D. program and it would seem more likely he began studies either mid-late 1949 or in 1950.  This latter observation will make sense to the reader when they see the discrepancy between school records in Hungary and the story told by “Kennedy” to the Plain Dealer.

Josef Paul Kenedy U Vienna pt 1

Josef Paul Kenedy U Vienna pt 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having discovered the information contained in the previous paragraph I attempted to travel back in time and figure out which college “Kennedy” had attended in Hungary prior to moving to Vienna.  According to “Kennedy” it was “The University of Budapest” which he was expelled from in 1948.11  Of schools that went by that name, both Corvinus University of Budapest and Budapest University of Technology and Economics told me that no one under the “Kennedy” name (or anything remotely similar) attended school there during the time frame 1945-1950. (see below).  I then discovered that Eötvös Loránd University (formerly Pázmany Péter University) did have records of a student who went by two aliases (“Joseph Kenedi” and “Józef Pál Kenedy”) during the period 1946-1949. (see below)  One interesting fact here is that “Kennedy” had already been operating under two names even during this early stage of his life!  The other interesting point is he finished both semesters in 1948, and thus his expulsion from school would appear to have occurred in the year of 1949 making him 20 years of age.  One more important fact becomes apparent in the response given to me by this college.  That is, from the year 1949 to 1952 this school has no records on its chemistry students and as such it is impossible to determine what actually happened to “Joseph Kenedi” or “Józef Pál Kenedy”.  As the reader can see, “Kennedy” not only supplies dates that are off by one year but he also doesn’t mention his other alias in Hungary.

U Corvinus Kennedy

Budapest University of Technology and Economics Kennedy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kennedy Record Eostvos Lorand Univ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing I find very unusual is that in this particular news article11 “Kennedy” states the Nazis killed his father and yet the Russians (who only ravaged Germany and Hungary due to their hatred of the Nazis) put his mother in prison.  These two facts seem incompatible.  “Kennedy’s” continual explanation of being “too bourgeois” also does not seem to cut the mustard when it comes to rationalizing these two seemingly disparate events.  One has to question how “Kennedy” and his mother would have escaped execution by the Nazis, especially since the Nazis purged Hungary of what they deemed “undesirables” prior to the end of the war.  Another relevant question is how would “Kennedy” have attended college while his mother was imprisoned?  Yet another question is if “Kennedy’s” father was an enemy of the Nazis’ why would the Russians imprison his mother? Finally, why would “Kennedy” extol Stalin as not being a bad guy (see blog posting part 9 of this series) when the Russians imprisoned his mother?  It is interesting as a side note to point out that Joseph Stalin is also an alias.  Could “Kennedy’s” name changes be a veiled attempt to feign being “American born” just as Uncle Joe’s was to portray himself as being steel (stalin) like?  Did “Kennedy” steal this identity from someone else prior to leaving Hungary?

There are four final things I wish to touch on before reaching the conclusions section.  One is, having spent many hours in “Kennedy’s” office at U. Akron I recall the honorary diploma he received being on prominent display just above the computer were he use to collect hardcopies of the ideas of his students.  Although my memory of the name on it is quite vague I do seem to recall the name was listed as “Josephus Pal Kenedi”.  If so, this would yet be a fifth alias!  It would be of interest for people who wish to investigate this matter further to determine if the name listed on this diploma matches up to one of the four aliases that are now recorded as having been used by this individual.  The second point is “Kennedy” has been recently touting himself as the “inventor” of block copolymers used in stents for arteries when the truth is he is only a co-inventor and not a sole inventor of such block copolymers.13,14  It is of interest to note that the initial patent13 is owned by Firestone and the author of this blog suspects that a similar occurrence to that involving Terry Hogan of Firestone may have occurred.**  A third point is that a cursory patent search of approximately 100 patents showed that “Kennedy” is only a sole inventor on less than 10 % of them!***  Finally, “Kennedy” is quick to state he is the author of multiple books, when in reality there are coauthors on all them but one and it is sad to think he cannot even give credit to these people.  Again, we see a track record of lies and deception being promulgated by this individual.

Conclusions

Throughout this expose series a large number of irrefutable facts have been presented that demonstrate the following.

1.      Dr. “Kennedy” has stolen numerous inventions from others.

2.      This same individual tried to perpetrate intellectual fraud via falsification of research data.

3.      Dr. “Kennedy” purposefully falsified accident report forms with U. Akron.

4.      Dr. “Kennedy” operated a dangerous laboratory environment.

5.      This person has had no less than four different aliases.

6.      University of Akron employees and newspapers from Cleveland and Akron are complicit in a cover up of these facts.

7.      No official documents appear to exist that would corroborate Dr. “Kennedy’s” history or prove his true identity.

When history is written it is the belief of the author of this blog series that Dr. “Kennedy” will be discovered to one of the biggest frauds that the polymer science field has ever witnessed and that U. Akron will have a serious black eye which will never heal!!!

* Before ending this blog series I want to make it clear that I have contacted all of the following (in many instances multiple times) and none have attempted to investigate “Kennedy” or take steps to punish him: U. Akron, The American Chemical Society, The National Science Foundation, The Attorney General of Ohio, The Hungarian Academy of Sciences, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and The Akron Beacon Journal.

** The first of these patents deals only with diblock copolymers and not triblock copolymers.  The latter are the actual thermoplastic elastomers used in the stent application.  My point here is “Kennedy’s” initial foray into block copolymers seems to have come from Firestone and secondly the earliest report of tri-blocks in the patent literature has no less than two other inventors!  It is sad to think that such a simple concept as block copolymers couldn’t be solely devised by “Kennedy” as it was well established for anionic polymerization many years prior.

*** I may have a lot more to say about this in the not too distant future once I dig up some more important documents.  The revelations will most likely be quite damning to say the least.

References:

(1) Kennedy, J. P. Cationic Polymerization Catalyst U.S. Patent 4,029,866, 1977.

(2) Kennedy, J. P. Cationic Polymerization Catalyst U.S. Patent 4,081,590, 1978.

(3) Baccaredda, M.; Giusti, P.; Priola, A.; Cesca, S. Catalysts Suitable for use in the Polymerization of Unsaturated Compounds; The Polymerization Processes Employing such Catalysts and Products Obtained by the Processes GB Patent 1,362,295, 1974.

(4) Cesca, S.; Giusti, P.; Magagnini, P. L.; Priola, A. Studies on Polymerizations Initiated by Syncatalytic Systems Based on Aluminum Organic Compounds, 4 Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1975, 176, 2319-2337.

(5) Cesca, S.; Priola, A.; Bruzzone, M.; Ferraris, G.; Giusti, P. Studies on Polymerizations Initiated by Syncatalytic Systems Based on Aluminum Organic Compounds, 5 Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1975, 176, 2339-2358.

(6) Giusti, P.; Priola, A.; Magagnini, P. L.; Narducci, P. Studies on Polymerizations Initiated by Syncatalytic Systems Based on Aluminum Organic Compounds, 3 Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1975, 176, 2303-2317.

(7) Maina, M. D.; Cesca, S.; Giusti, P.; Ferraris, G.; Magagnini, P. L. Studies on Polymerizations Initiated by Syncatalytic Systems Based on Aluminum Organic Compounds, 6 Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1977, 178, 2223-2234.

(8) Priola, A.; Cesca, S.; Ferraris, G.; Maina, M. Studies on Polymerizations Initiated by Syncatalytic Systems Based on Aluminum Organic Compounds, 2 Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1975, 176, 2289-2302.

(9) Priola, A.; Ferraris, G.; Maina, M.; Giusti, P. Studies on Polymerizations Initiated by Syncatalytic Systems Based on Aluminum Organic Compounds, 1 Macromol. Chem. Phys. 1975, 176, 2271-2288.

(10) Kennedy, J. P.; Sivaram, S. Olefin Polymerization and Copolymerization with Alkylaluminum-Initiator Systems. VII. Initiation by Electrophilic Halogens J. Macromol. Sci., Part A-Chem. 1973, A7, 969-989.

(11) Smith, R. L. Joseph Kennedy, Akron’s King of Polymers, proves inventors are young at heart. The Plain Dealer, September 6, 2012.

(12) Peetz, R. Visions in Macromolecular Engineering. The Maurice Morton Institute of Polymer Science, U. Akron, June 2, 2003.

(13) Kennedy, J. P.; Melby, E. G. Diblock Copolymers and Process of Preparing Same U.S. Patent 3,994,993, 1976.

(14) Kennedy, J. P.; Smith, R. A.; Ross, L. R., Jr. Novel Telechelic Polymers, Block Copolymers and Processes for the Preparation Thereof U.S. Patent 4,276,394, 1981.

 

 

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 21

As I stated in the last blog, the current posting will contain another example of where “Kennedy” stole an invention made previously by a famous scientist.  Before getting to that particular case a little bit of digression is necessary to illustrate another “Kennedy” tactic.  That tactic is obscuring or in many cases simply omitting facts.  A prime example is work the “Kennedy” group did on the copolymerization of isobutene with β-pinene.  As it turns out, Emil Ott (of Hercules) first patented the copolymerization of isobutene with β-pinene where the solvent was ethyl chloride and the Lewis acids were BF3 and AlCl3.1  Much latter the “Kennedy” group reinvestigated copolymerization of these two monomers, the only difference being the use of EtAlCl2 and lower polymerization temperatures.2-5  In two of “Kennedy’s” books,2,5 the reader is led to believe that successful copolymerization of these two monomers had not been effected until “Kennedy” came upon the scene.  These two books appeared after a peer reviewed article3 and patent4 had been published.  The article itself is quite interesting to make note of since its title “Poly(isobutylene-co-β-Pinene) A New Sulfur Vulcanizable, Ozone Resistant Elastomer by Cationic Isomerization Copolymerization” is very significant as it is purposely worded to be misleadingThat is, this copolymer had already been disclosed almost 15 years prior to “Kennedy’s” work!

Since the latter two documents were proofed by outsiders they make mention of Ott’s prior art disclosure1 of such copolymerizations; however, without such intervention “Kennedy” apparently thought to pull a fast one (in his books) and convince the reader that he invented the copolymer.  Another very interesting fact is that in all of the aforementioned “Kennedy” references2-5 “Kennedy” puts forth another falsehood.  “Kennedy’s” lie is that EtAlCl2 gives rise to azeotropic copolymerization whereas he claims other Lewis acids (e.g., AlCl3) do notA close look at “Kennedy’s” patent4 (e.g., Tables II & III) actually demonstrates that AlCl3 (i.e., the system originally described by Ott) not only gives rise to azeotropic copolymerization but that it does so at a much higher reaction temperature than “Kennedy’s” EtAlCl2 system!  These falsehoods were accidentally discovered when I was researching terpenic resins and were first disclosed in a book chapter6 that I coauthored on the subject.  So not only was one of “Kennedy’s” first inventions at U. Akron actually made by another researcher 15 years prior but “Kennedy” mislead people to believe this invention has actual benefit over Ott’s disclosure when in fact it is less beneficial because it is more energy intensive.  It is unknown the exact amount of money wasted by U. Akron on “Kennedy’s” inventions but the author of this blog believes it well exceeds $ 1 million.

As following blog postings will show, a repetitive pattern emerges when one scratches the surface of “Kennedy” patents.  This pattern is that much of what “Kennedy” has patented is prior art (i.e., someone else invented it and disclosed it prior to “Kennedy”)A prime example is work done in 1961 by Sinn, Winter, and Tirptiz.7  Most people in the polymer science community will recognize Sinn’s name since he and Kaminsky are credited with discovering that alkylaluminoxanes are useful activators for metallocenes and ushered in a new era (i.e., single site catalysis) in the polymer science field.  In the aforementioned Sinn, Winter, and Tirpitz paper these researchers describe the cationic polymerization of styrene by initiator systems consisting of dialkylaluminum halide + hydrohalogen acid and trialkylaluminum halide + hydrohalogen acidDespite this fact, some years latter “Kennedy” was able to patent these same initiator systems for cationic polymerization while at Esso Corp!8  Interestingly, “Kennedy” comes clean about their true origin, not only in several journal articles9,10 but also in one of his books (the reader must go to the section on styrene to find this).2  Still, prior to this batch of “Kennedy” patents, “Kennedy” again mentions in both his paper and book that Russian researchers11 also previously described initiator systems based on dialkylaluminum halide + Brønsted acid for inducing cationic polymerization.  It is unknown how these “Kennedy” patents were allowed to issue when it is clear to even the most casual observer that previous researchers had already disclosed these initiator systems as being useful for effecting cationic polymerization.  As we will see in other blog postings, “Kennedy” continues this pattern; however, the most interesting topic of all is yet to come.*  That is, the mystery of “Kennedy’s” true identity and the conflicting story he provides surrounding his past…

* Please note that with the exception of my invention and that of P.V. Kurian all other instances involving “Kennedy’s” stealing of other people’s inventions and his obfuscation or complete omission of facts were inadvertently discovered during review of journal articles and/or the chemical patent literature.  It is the belief of the author of this blog that the total number of inventions stolen by “Kennedy” is in the many tens of instances.

References:

(1) Ott, E. Terpene Resins U.S. Patent 2,373,706, 1945.

(2) Kennedy, J. P. Cationic Polymerization of Olefins: A Critical Inventory; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1975; pp 99-100.

(3) Kennedy, J. P.; Chou, T. Poly(isobutylene-co-b-Pinene) a new Sulfur Vulcanizable, Ozone Resistant Elastomer by Cationic Isomerization Copolymerization Adv. Polym. Sci. 1976, 21, 1-39.

(4) Kennedy, J. P.; Chou, T. M. Process for the Preparation of Isobutylene/Beta-Pinene Copolymers U.S. Patent 3,923,759, 1975.

(5) Kennedy, J. P.; Marechal, E. Carbocationic Polymerization; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1982; pp 1-510.

(6) Mathers, R. T.; Lewis, S. P. Monoterpenes as Polymerization Solvents and Monomers in Polymer Chemistry.; In Green Polymerization Methods: Renewable Starting Materials, Catalysis and Waste Reduction; Mathers, R. T., Meier, M. A. R., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2011;  pp 91-128.

(7) Sinn, H. J.; Winter, H.; Tirpitz, W. V. Polymerisations- und Isomerisierungsaktivitat von Aluminiumtrialkyl, Alkylaluminiumhalogeniden und Ziegler-Mischkatalysatoren Makromolekulare Chemie 1961, 48, 59-71.

(8) Kennedy, J. P. Butyl Rubber Catalyst System Utilizing AlR2X with an HX Promoter U.S. Patent 3,349,065, 1967.

(9) Kennedy, J. P. Olefin Polymerizations and Copolymerizations with Aluminum Alkyl-Cocatalyst Systems. I. Co-catalysis with Bronsted Acid Systems J. Polym Sci., Part A-1 1968, 6, 3139-3150.

(10) Kennedy, J. P.; Gillham, J. K. Cationic Polymerization of Olefins with Alkylaluminum Initiators Adv. Polym. Sci. 1972, 10, 1-33.

(11) Tinyakova, E. I.; Zhuravleva, T. G.; Kurengina, T. M.; Kirikova, N. S.; Dolgoplosk, B. A. Dokl. Akad. Nauk 1962, 144, 592.

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 20

While working on a document several months ago I recalled “Kennedy” stating, during a seminar at U. Akron, that carbon dioxide could be used as a solvent for cationic polymerization.  Use of solid carbon dioxide as an internal refrigerant in cationic polymerization dates well into the earlier 1900s;1 however, application of supercritical CO2 is relatively new.*  During a literature search I stumbled across a familiar pattern, “Kennedy” published work on cationic polymerization in supercritical CO2 at the same time that another researcher, Professor Joseph DeSimone (UNC) did as well!2,3  I dug a little deeper and found out that DeSimone had indeed published his results several months earlier (April of 1994) than “Kennedy” (May of 1994)** but “Kennedy” somehow had filed patent applications before DeSimone did.4  When I contacted DeSimone to determine if he was the true inventor he not only indicated that he was but that “Kennedy” had stolen the idea from a lecture delivered by DeSimone at U. Akron which was followed up with a personal meeting with “Kennedy” that same day!!!  It would appear DeSimone informed “Kennedy” that he was conducting cationic polymerization in supercritical CO2 during this personal meeting.  Please refer to the following email exchange with DeSimone here Re_ cationic pzn in supercritical CO2 . 

I asked DeSimone if he would pursue this but he declined to do so.  As I told him, this gutless behavior is the root cause of the rampant intellectual dishonesty plaguing the field of science today but he still shrugged off his responsibility.  Apparently his defeat by “Kennedy” was too much of an ordeal for him to confront. 

Possibly one of the most disgusting aspects of “Kennedy’s” stealing of DeSimone’s invention is the fact that he makes the following statement in reference #3.  “Our exhaustive manual and computer-aided literature and patent search, including data-bases such as RAPRA, STN International, and CAS, failed to identify a single reference concerning C+Pzn in SC·CO2 that is at temperatures higher than Tc = 31.1 °C, the critical temperature of CO2.”  Another salient point to the reader is although I entered the “Kennedy” lab only four years following publication of “Kennedy’s” work in supercritical CO2 there was little evidence that he ever possessed the proper equipment to conduct the experimental work.  A very antiquated and poorly maintained Parr reactor (ca. 200 mL capacity) was present in the laboratory but its state of disrepair and appearance make the author of this blog question as to whether actual polymerizations were ever conducted in the “Kennedy” lab in supercritical CO2.

As we progress in chronicling inventions “Kennedy” has stolen from other scientists we will eventually come to a very interesting case involving a scientist whose name is well-known to those in the polymer field.  The reader won’t need to take my word for this but instead “Kennedy” himself acknowledges that he took this invention from this particular scientist…

* This is currently the most detailed current review*** of initiator systems for cationic polymerization although other materials are forthcoming.  It also contains the first public disclosure of “Kennedy’s” attempt to falsify research data.  Please note, I’m only referencing the first couple references in context to cationic polymerization in supercritical CO2 as disclosed by DeSimone and Kennedy.

** It should be pointed out that many of “Kennedy’s” coinciding publications of either stolen or copycatted work (i.e., almost identical) were routinely published in the periodical “Polymer Bulletin” which “Kennedy” served as founding editor.  Obviously, there is no conflict of interest there.  IT IS QUITE INTERESTING TO NOTE THE “KENNEDY” EVEN COPIES DESIMONE’S USE OF THE TERMINOLOGY “TUNED” AND THAT THIS WORD IS USED IN ALMOST IDENTICAL POSITIONS (IN REGARDS TO THE STANDARD OUTLINE OF JOURNAL ARTICLES) OF PAPERS AUTHORED BY THESE TWO RESEARCHERS {SEE REFERENCE 2 (BOTTOM OF THIRD PARAGRAPH, INTRODUCTION) AND REFERENCE 3 (BOTTOM THIRD PARAGRAPH, INTRODUCTION)}!!!

*** The review by Gandini and Cheradame5 is the most exhaustive but somewhat dated.

References:

(1) Lewis, S. P.; Mathers, R. T. Advances in Acid Mediated Polymerizations.; In Renewable Polymers, Synthesis, Technology and Processing; Vikas, M., Ed.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2011;  pp 69-173.

(2) Clark, M. R.; DeSimone, J. M. Cationic Polymerizations in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Polym. Prepr., Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Polym. Chem. 1994, 35,482-483.

(3) Pernecker, T.; Kennedy, J. P. Carbocationic polymerizations in supercritical carbon dioxide I. Exploratory experiments with isobutylene Polym. Bull. 1994, 32,537-543.

(4) Kennedy, J. P.; Pernecker, T. Carbocationic polymerizations in supercritical CO2 U.S. Patent 5,376,744, 1994.

(5) Gandini, A.; Cheradame, H. Cationic Polymerisation: Initiation Processes with Alkenyl Monomers. Adv. Polym. Sci. 1980, 34-35,1-284.

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 19

The following example is one involving “Kennedy’s” almost exact copycatting of another researcher’s work.  If one takes a close look at the research reported by “Kennedy” they can come to a very quick conclusion of what the standard modus operandi is.  That is, conducting work almost identical to that of other investigators and/or stealing the ideas of others.*  From the foregoing blog posts it is obvious that a third track used by this individual is to falsify research data.  In regards to this latter strategy I was told that a female American student of his (who graduated around the time I was dismissed by “Kennedy” for refusing to falsify data) had in fact falsified the majority of experiments used in her dissertation.**  Subsequent blog postings will provide specific examples of ideas stolen by “Kennedy” and the copycatting aspect will only be secondary in terms of importance.

Recent “Kennedy” Copycatting Example

The area of using perfluoroarylated Lewis acid (PFLA) based initiators has been one of intense activity, especially during the 1990s up until recently.1-46  One of the early innovators in this field is Dr. Tim Shaffer of Exxon Mobil who developed a number of PFLA based initiator systems for the polymerization of isobutene (IB).  One of the initiator systems Shaffer devised was based upon the salt [Et3Si]+[B(C6F5)4] which is formed by hydride abstraction from a silane (i.e., Et3SiH) by [Ph3C]+[B(C6F5)4].40,42,43  This chemistry is well known (i.e., the driving force is formation of a stronger C-H bond from a weaker Si-H bond); however, it wasn’t until recently that such salts were shown to typically contain coordinated Et3SiH.47  Regardless, this system devised by Shaffer is one of very few initiator systems based on silanes for initiation of cationic polymerization.  Shortly after Shaffer’s disclosures (almost within the exact time frame) “Kennedy” reports an identical initiator system (i.e.,[Et3Si]+[B(C6F5)4]);15,16,36 however, in this instance [Et3Si]+[B(C6F5)4] is generated in situ via the metathesis reaction between Li[B(C6F5)4] and Et3SiCl (in this case the triethylsilylium tetrakis(pentafluorophenyborate) salt is formed along with LiCl)!!!  I can assure you that Zhengjie Pi (aka, Jack) was intimately involved in devising this system.***  Even those readers who are not trained chemists will realize the chemical identity of the initiator system reported by “Kennedy” is identical to that originally invented by Shaffer and only differ slightly in the way that the ion pair is generated.  The likelihood of “Kennedy” developing an almost identical initiator system independently and at the same time as Shaffer is about the same as the reader winning the Powerball lotto jackpot, especially given the scarcity of Si based initiator systems for cationic polymerization.****

Footnotes 

* In later blog postings we are going to see that “Kennedy” not only has a habit of stealing ideas, but also has a habit of stealing the names of other people!

** Since this was conveyed to me by another “Kennedy” student I can only treat this as hearsay at the time of this writing.

*** It is believed that “Kennedy” had gained foreknowledge of Shaffer’s chemistry and tasked Jack Pi to develop a competing route that could be patented.   As I have mentioned several times earlier in this blog series, Jack was one of the few skilled chemists in the “Kennedy” group at that time and he was the only one who was specifically trained in silicon chemistry.  It is unknown if U. Akron filed patent applications on the copycatted invention made by “Kennedy”.  The author of this blog estimates that U. Akron has spent > $1×106 on “Kennedy’s” patents!

**** The author of this blog has invented two of the ≈ 5-6 known (i.e., reported) Si based initiator systems.  Only one of these has the author of this blog reported which is patent pending and published.48,49

References 

(1) Baird, M. C. Polymerization of iso-butylene. US Patent 5448001, 1995.

(2) Baird, M. C. Carbocationic Alkene Polymerizations Initiated by Organotransition Metal Complexes: An Alternative, Unusual Role for Soluble Ziegler-Natta Catalysts. Chem. Rev. 2000, 100,1471-1478.

(3) Barsan, F.; Karan, A. R.; Parent, M. A.; Baird, M. C. Polymerization of Isobutylene and the Copolymerization of Isobutylene and Isoprene Initiated by the Metallocene Derivative Cp*TiMe2(µ-Me)B(C6F5)3. Macromolecules 1998, 31,8439-8447.

(4) Bochmann, M.; Dawson, D. M. The Aluminocenium Cation [AI(C5H5)2]+: A Highly Effective Initiator for the Cationic Polymerization of Isobutene. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1996, 35,2226-2228.

(5) Bochmann, M.; Garratt, S. Process for production of butyl rubber. US Patent 7041760, 2006.

(6) Bohnenpoll, M.; Ismeier, J.; Nuyken, O.; Vierle, M.; Schon, D. K.; Kuhn, F. Process for the production of highly reactive polyisobutenes. US Patent 7291758, 2007.

(7) Burns, C. T.; Shapiro, P. J.; Budzelaar, P. H. M.; Willett, R.; Vij, A. Bis(permethylcyclopentadienyl)aluminum Compounds: Precursors to [Cp*2Al]+ but Not to Cp*3Al. Organometallics 2000, 19,3361-3367.

(8) Carr, A. G.; Dawson, D. M.; Bochmann, M. Zirconocenes as Initiators for Carbocationic Isobutene Homo- and Copolymerizations. Macromolecules 1998, 31,2035-2040.

(9) Carr, A. G.; Dawson, D. M.; Bochmann, M. The [Zr(N{SiMe3}2)3]+cation as a novel initiator for carbocationic isobutene homo- and isobutene/isoprene co-polymerisations. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 1998, 19,205-207.

(10) Collins, S.; Piers, W. E.; Lewis, S. P. Polymerization of i-butane in hydrocarbon media using bis(borane) co-initiators. US Patent 7196149, 2007.

(11) Garratt, S.; Carr, A. G.; Langstein, G.; Bochmann, M. Isobutene Polymerization and Isobutene-Isoprene Copolymerization Catalyzed by Cationic Zirconocene Hydride Complexes. Macromolecules 2003, 36,4276-4287.

(12) Garratt, S.; Guerrero, A.; Hughes, D. L.; Bochmann, M. Arylzinc Complexes as New Initiator Systems for the Production of Isobutene Copolymers with High Isoprene Content. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2004, 43,2166-2169.

(13) Hijazi, A. K.; Yeong, H. Y.; Zhang, Y.; Herdtweck, E.; Nuyken, O.; Kühn, F. E. Isobutene Polymerization Using [CuII(NCMe)6]2+ with Non-Coordinating Anions as Catalysts. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2007, 28,670-675.

(14) Huber, M.; Kurek, A.; Krossing, I.; Mulhaupt, R.; Schnockel, H. [AlCp2]+: Structure, Properties and Isobutene Polymerization. Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 2009, 635,1787-1793.

(15) Jacob, S.; Pi, Z.; Kennedy, J. P. Cationic polymerizations at elevated temperatures by novel initiating systems having weakly coordinating counteranions 2. Isobutylene/isoprene copolymerizations. Polym. Bull. 1998, 41,503-510.

(16) Jacob, S.; Pi, Z.; Kennedy, J. P. Highest molecular weight polyisobutylenes and isobutylene copolymers by initiating systems having weakly coordinating counteranions. Polym. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1999, 80,495.

(17) Jianfang, C.; Lewis, S. P.; Kennedy, J. P.; Collins, S. Isobutene Polymerization Using Chelating Diboranes: Reactions of a Hindered Pyridine with Carbocations Bearing α-Protons. Macromolecules 2007, 40,7421-7424.

(18) Kennedy, J. P.; Collins, S.; Lewis, S. P. Polymerization of i-butene in hydrocarbon media using bis(borane) co-initiators. US Patent 7,202,317, 2007.

(19) Kostjuk, S. V.; Ganachaud, F. Cationic Polymerization of Styrene in Solution and Aqueous Suspension Using B(C6F5)3 as a Water-Tolerant Lewis Acid. Macromolecules 2006, 39,3110-3113.

(20) Kostjuk, S. V.; Ouardad, S.; Peruch, F.; Deffieux., A.; Absalon, C.; Puskas, J. E.; Ganachaud, F. Carbocationic Polymerization of Isoprene Co-initiated by B(C6F5)3: An Alternative Route toward Natural Rubber Polymer Analogues? Macromolecules 2011, 44,1372-1384.

(21) Kostjuk, S. V.; Radchenko, A. V.; Ganachaud, F. Controlled/Living Cationic Polymerization of p-Methoxystyrene in Solution and Aqueous Dispersion Using Tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane as a Lewis Acid: Acetonitrile Does the Job. Macromolecules 2007, 40,482-490.

(22) Kumar, K. R.; Hall, C.; Penciu, A.; Drewitt, M. J.; Mcinenly, P. J.; Baird, M. C. Isobutene Polymerization Initiated by [CP*TiMe2]+ in the Presence of a Series of Novel, Weakly Coordinating Counteranions. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2002, 40,3302-3311.

(23) Kumar, K. R.; Penciu, A.; Drewitt, M. J.; Baird, M. C. Isobutene–isoprene copolymerization initiated by [Cp*MMe2][(n-C18H37E)B(C6F5)3] (M=Ti, Hf; E=O, S) and related compounds. J. Organomet. Chem. 2004, 689,2900-2904.

(24) Langstein, G.; Bochmann, M.; Dawson, D. M. Process for the production of polyisoolefins by means of novel metallocene type initiator systems. US Patent 5703182, 1997.

(25) Langstein, G.; Bochmann, M.; Dawson, D. M.; Carr, A. G.; Commander, R. Controlled preparation of polyisoolefins at high temperatures using a new initiator system based on titanium, zirconium and hafnium cyclopentadienyl hydrides and a boron compound. DE Patent 19836663 A1, 2000.

(26) Lee, S.-J.; Shapiro, P. J.; Twamley, B. Synthesis and Characterization of [(C5Me4H)2Al]+, an Initiator for the Polymerization of Isobutene. X-ray Crystal Structures of [(C5Me4H)2Al(µ-Cl)]2 and [(C5Me4H)2Al][B(C6F5)4]. Organometallics 2006, 25,5582-5586.

(27) Lewis, S. P.Project 1. Synthesis of PIB-Silsesquioxane Stars via The Sol-Gel Process  Project 2. Solution and Aqueous Suspension/Emulsion Polymerization of Isobutylene Coinitiated by 1,2-C6F4[B(C6F5)2]2., Ph.D. Thesis, The Univ. of Akron, Diss. Abstr. Int. 2004, vol. 65, p. 770. Cf: Chem. Abs. 2004, vol. 143, p. 173195., 2004.

(28) Lewis, S. P. Heterogeneous Perfluoroaryl Substituted Lewis Acid Catalysts for Cationic Polymerizations. US Patent 8283427, 2012.

(29) Lewis, S. P.; Henderson, L.; Parvez, M. R.; Piers, W. E.; Collins, S. Aqueous Suspension Polymerization of Isobutene Initiated by 1,2-C6F4[B(C6F5)2]2. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127,46-47.

(30) Lewis, S. P.; Jianfang, C.; Collins, S.; Sciarone, T. J. J.; Henderson, L. D.; Fan, C.; Parvez, M.; Piers, W. E. Isobutene Polymerization Using Chelating Diboranes: Polymerization in Aqueous Suspension and Hydrocarbon Solution. Organometallics 2009, 28,249-263.

(31) Lewis, S. P.; Piers, W. E.; Taylor, N.; Collins, S. Isobutene Polymerization Using a Chelating Diborane Co-Initiator. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125,14686-14687.

(32) Li, Y.; Voon, L. T.; Yeong, H. Y.; Hijazi, A. K.; Radhakrishnan, N.; Köhler, K.; Voit, B.; Nuyken, O.; Kühn, F. E. Solvent-Ligated Copper(II) Complexes for the Homopolymerization of 2-Methylpropene. Chem. Eur. J. 2008, 14,7997-8003.

(33) Lin, M.; Baird, M. C. Benzyl group abstraction from Ti(CH2Ph)4 by B(C6F5)3 and [Ph3C][B(C6F5)4] to form Ziegler–Natta and carbocationic alkene polymerization initiators. J. Organomet. Chem. 2001, 619,62-73.

(34) Mathers, R. T.; Lewis, S. P. Aqueous Cationic Olefin Polymerization Using Tris(pentafluorophenyl)gallium and Aluminum. J. Polym. Sci., Part A. Polym. Chem. 2012, 50,1325-1332.

(35) Nuyken, O.; Vierle, M.; Kuhn, F. E.; Zhang, Y. Solvent-Ligated Transition Metal Complexes as Initiators for the Polymerization of Isobutene. Macromol. Symp. 2006, 236,69-77.

(36) Pi, Z.; Kennedy, J. P. Cationic Polymerizations at Elevated Temperatures by Novel Initiating Systems Having Weakly Coordinating Counteranions. 1. High Molecular Weight Polyisobutylenes, Nato Sci. Ser., Ser. E. ed.; In Ionic Polymerizations and Related Processes; Puskas, J. E., Ed.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, Neth., 1999; Vol. 359, pp 1-12.

(37) Radhakrishnan, N.; Hijazi, A. K.; Komber, H.; Voit, B.; Zschoche, S.; Kühn, F. E.; Nuyken, O.; Walter, M.; Hanefeld, P. Synthesis of Highly Reactive Polyisobutylenes Using Solvent-Ligated Manganese(II) Complexes as Catalysts. J. Polym. Sci., Part A 2007, 45,5636-5648.

(38) SaBmannshausen, J. Cationic and dicationic zirconocene compounds as initiators of carbocationic isobutene polymerization.   Dalton Trans. 2009, 9026-9032.

(39) Shaffer, T. D. Noncoordinating anions in carbocationic polymerization. Tris(pentafluorophenyl)boron as a Lewis acid catalyst.; In Cationic Polymerization; Faust, R., Shaffer, T. D., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C., 1997;  pp 96-105.

(40) Shaffer, T. D. Cationic Catalysts and processes for using said catalysts. US Patent 6699938, 2004.

(41) Shaffer, T. D.; Ashbaugh, J. R. Carbocationic Polymerization with Noncoordinating Boron Gegenions. Polym. Prepr., Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Polym. Chem. 1996, 37,339-340.

(42) Shaffer, T. D.; Ashbaugh, J. R. Noncoordinating anions in carbocationic polymerization. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 1997, 35,329.

(43) Shaffer, T. D.; Dias, A. J.; Finkelstein, I. D.; Kurtzman, M. B. Cationic Polymerization Catalysts. US Patent 6291389, 2001.

(44) Song, X.; Thornton-Pett, M.; Bochmann, M. Synthesis, Structure, and Reactivity of (C5H4SiMe3)2Y{(µ-FC6F4)(µ-Me)B(C6F5)2}: Tight Ion Pairing in a Cationic Lanthanide Complex. Organometallics 1998, 17,1004-1006.

(45) Tse, C. J. W.; Kumar, K. R.; Drewitt, M. J.; Baird, M. C. Isobutene polymerization and copolymerization with isoprene initiated by [Cp*TiMe2]+ in the presence of a novel type of weakly coordinating counteranion. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 2004, 205,1439-1444.

(46) Vierle, M.; Zhang, Y.; Herdtweck, E.; Bohnenpoll, M.; Nuyken, O.; Kuhn, F. E. Highly Reactive Polyisobutenes Prepared with Manganese(II) Complexes as Initiators. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2003, 42,1307-1310.

(47) Nava, M.; Reed, C. A. Organometallics 2011, 30,4787-4800.

(48) Lewis, S. US Patent 2010/0273964, 2010.

(49) Liu, Q.; Mathers, R. T.; Damodaran, K.; Godugu, B.; Lewis, S. P. Greener, cleaner polymerization of isobutene. Green Materials 2013, 1,161-175.

University of Akron/Professor Joseph P. Kennedy Expose, Part 18

The next several blog postings will provide examples where Dr. “Kennedy” stole ideas from other investigators and/or students and/or published research that is almost identical to his peers within the exact same time frame.  Because I did not purposely set out to find such examples this list will be limited to about 10 instances of this pattern of behavior, each being presented in reverse chronology with “Kennedy’s” stealing of my invention (see previous blog postings) being the starting point.  On the other hand, since I do routinely discover new cases where this person has been engaged in this behavior my intention is to update this portion of the blog series in the future as time permits.  In some of these cases the reader will find the most damning admissions to such theft of other people’s ideas come from no other than “Kennedy” himself!

Circa 1999-2002

As I have described earlier in this blog series a cohort of mine, Dr. P.V. Kurian, had been assigned to work on ampiphilic networks for use in an artificial pancreas.*  These consisted of networks of a hydrophobic polymer (PIB) in conjunction with a hydrophilic polymer {e.g. polyethylene glycol (PEG)} and a third hydrophobic but oxygen permeable polymer, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS).1-6  Somewhere along the way hydrosilation was attempted as a method for linking α,ω-diallylic PIB to other polymers (e.g., α,ω-diallylic PEG) and as I recall, D5H (polypentamethylcyclopentasiloxane) was investigated as a crosslinking agent.  During these investigations it was discovered that gas was being evolved during hydrosilation effected crosslinking using Karstedt’s catalyst.  Again, no one in the “Kennedy” group with the exception of Dr. Zhengjie Pi had any real understanding of silicon chemistry (Pi’s work will be discussed in the next blog posting).  As such, Kurian discovered the origin of the mysterious gas evolution in part from the one “in lab” guide to silicon chemistry, the Gelest catalog.  Dr. Kurian subsequently conceived the idea that Pt catalyzed aqueous crosslinking of D5H would result in network polymer and he subsequently discovered that this polymer had high thermal stability.7-9  I can state these facts since not only was I privy to his work on a day to day basis but I am also the individual who witnessed the invention in his laboratory notebook.  In previous blog postings you can see Kurian’s signature witnessing ideas that I had conceived while in the “Kennedy” group.

Thus, both concept of the invention as well as reduction to practice were solely due to Kurian and not “Kennedy”.  Sometime after “Kennedy” fired me from his research group for not falsifying data on Yb(OTf)3 coinitiated aqueous polymerization of IB, Kurian approached me on his way out of U. Akron and informed me that he had found a company (based in Colorado I seem to remember) who had interest in the polymer he had invented and was able to entice them to travel to U. Akron to secure the intellectual property rights.  At that stage of the game not only did U. Akron lock him out of discussions relating to his invention but also only gave a royalty check to “Kennedy”!  Please refer to blog posting 14 of this series for a photograph of “Kennedy” accepting this royalty check which is being handed to him by the school president, Dr. Proenza with department head Newkome patting him on the back.  For those who want to do some digging I suggest looking at the following papers and patents in the references section of this blog posting.**  Unfortunately the story of Kurian is not unique nor is the manner in which he dealt with “Kennedy” either.  Several years ago I asked Kurian to come forward with this information and in typical cowardly fashion (as we shall see is dominate in the polymer community) he declined to, telling me that it was no longer of importance to him.***

‡ I use this term in the loosest possible manner in that I do not associate with cowards, bullies, thieves, liars, etc.  Unfortunately, in places such as graduate school one does not get to choose coworkers and in many instances you do not know a person’s true nature until it is tested.  I can say without exception there are less than a handful of people who I know from this institution who are not pieces of human waste.

* It should be noted that the artificial pancreas concept purportedly was conceived by another scientist(s) than “Kennedy”.  I do not have details on this; however, the savvy researcher should easily be able to produce documents that indeed show this is the case.  I’m guessing that Kurian devised much of this chemistry (i.e., the amphiphilic tripolymer network) but if he did so he never bothered to admit it to me.

** Please note, that in order to avoid copyright infringement I cannot post the actual PDFs to these documents.  Many can be obtained from the publisher {e.g., American Chemical Society (www.pubs.acs.org)} or through search engines at patent offices such as the European Patent Office (www.epo.org).  The latter (i.e. patents) are the easiest to obtain for the general public at no charge.

*** As Edmund Burke stated, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  The fact is the sciences have become exceedingly corrupted by evil people because otherwise good men and women have tucked their tail and run instead of confronting such individuals.  Such behavior not only damages the field as a whole but allows for further abuses to occur unchecked.

References 

(1) Kennedy, J. P.; Kurian, P. Physically crosslinked amphiphilic block polyoxyalkylene-polyisobutylene networks, methods of preparation, and uses thereof U.S. Patent 6555619, 2003.

(2) Kurian, P.; Kasibhatla, B.; Daum, J.; Burns, C. A.; Moosa, M.; Rosenthal, K. S.; Kennedy, J. P. Synthesis, permeability and biocompatibility of tricomponent membranes containing polyethylene glycol, polydimethylsiloxane and polypentamethylcyclopentasiloxane domains Biomaterials 2003, 24,3493-3503.

(3) Kurian, P.; Kennedy, J. P. Synthesis and characterization of novel tri-continuous membranes consisting of hydrophilic/lipophilic/oxyphilic domains Polym. Prepr., Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Polym. Chem. 2001, 42,92-93.

(4) Kurian, P.; Kennedy, J. P. Novel tricontinuous membranes for immunoisolation Polym. Prepr., Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Polym. Chem. 2002, 43,631-632.

(5) Kurian, P.; Kennedy, J. P. Novel tricomponent membranes containing poly(ethylene glycol)/poly(pentamethylcyclopentasiloxane)/poly(dimethylsiloxane) domains J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2002, 40,1209-1217.

(6) Kurian, P.; Zschoche, S.; Kennedy, J. P. Synthesis and characterization of novel amphiphilic block copolymers Di-, Tri-, multi-, and star blocks of PEG and PIB J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2000, 38,3200-3209.

(7) Kennedy, J. P.; Kurian, P. Poly(cyclosiloxane) composition and method of synthesis thereof U.S. Patent 8344170, 2013.

(8) Kurian, P.; Kennedy, J. P. Novel cyclosiloxane-based networks Polym. Prepr., Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Polym. Chem. 2003, 44,33-34.

(9) Kurian, P.; Kennedy, J. P.; Kisluik, A.; Sokolov, A. Poly(pentamethylcyclopentasiloxane). I. Synthesis and characterization J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2002, 40,1285-1292.