Bubblegate Investigation* Timeline
* Including reviews and examinations

Back to Bubblegate Portal


Web page with names and affiliations of key players

2006 Tsoukalas Committee

Feb. 7, 2006 - Tsoukalas creates illegal committee to investigate Taleyarkhan. Investigation is performed outside of C-22 policy.
March 8, 2006 - Allegations from Tsoukalas (to whom Taleyarkhan reported) and Jevremovic, along with allegations from Putterman, Suslick, Naranjo, are published in Nature. Allegations are made without regard for C-22 policy.

Result: Committee disbanded.


2006 DARPA On-Site Review

March 1, 2006 - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency review team carries out on-site review, discussion and observation of several of Taleyarkhan's experiments.
- Putterman insinuates that Taleyarkhan spiked experiments with californium-252.
- No evidence of fraud or falsification is found by any participant during review.
- Suslick later claimed to New York Times that he saw evidence for fraud, but he has not publicly revealed the basis for such accusations. All investigative committees have dismissed Suslick's accusations of fraud.
- Taleyarkhan admonishes Putterman and Suslick to include intervening shielding (ice packs).
- Review team witnesses positive results; observer (Tessien) provides signed affidavit.
March 2, 2006 - On request of Tessien, Taleyarkhan repeats successful demonstration, as shown on Tessien's affidavit.
March 8, 2006 - Nature article publishes UCLA modeling results based on Putterman/Naranjo computer predictions.
- UCLA predictions not performed according to Taleyarkhan et al.'s experimental conditions.
- UCLA computer predictions fail to represent Taleyarkhan et al.'s experiment accurately.
- UCLA computer predictions later empirically disproved by Taleyarkhan group.

Result: DARPA sonofusion program terminated.


2006 Purdue Examination Committee

~March 8, 2006 - Purdue establishes Examination Committee. Investigation performed outside of C-22 guidelines.

June 20, 2006 - Examination committee headed by Rutledge completes work, keeps matter confidential.

Result: Bertadano (Sept. 12), Tsoukalas (Sept. 5) formally accuse Taleyarkhan of misconduct; C-22 inquiry is called.


2006 Purdue C-22 Inquiry Committee

July 11, 2006 - Jamieson establishes Inquiry Committee.
Sept. 5, 2006 - Rutledge solicits allegations.
Sept. 5, 2006 - Tsoukalas makes formal misconduct allegations against Taleyarkhan in letter to Purdue (Dunn).
Sept. 12, 2006 - Bertadano accuses Taleyarkhan of misconduct in Letter to Purdue (Dunn).
Dec. 15, 2006 - Formal Purdue C-22 Inquiry Committee completes inquiry. All allegations (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) are dismissed. Committee finds insufficient reason for recommending the formation of C-22 investigation committee and determines no research misconduct transpired.
Feb. 7, 2007 - Purdue issues press release exonerating Taleyarkhan of research misconduct.

Result: All allegations dismissed. Anonymous accusers prompt congressional investigation. Congress calls investigation.


2007 Congressional Investigation

March 21, 2007 - Miller, in response to anonymous complaints and in association with Office of Naval Research inspector general, initiates congressional investigation.
May 7, 2007 - Miller committee completes report. Report does not make any charges of fraud or misconduct. Report states that Purdue failed to investigate matters properly and fully.

Result: Purdue starts new C-22 inquiry committee.


2007 Purdue C-22 Inquiry Committee

May 10, 2007 - Purdue initiates C-22 Inquiry Committee. Point of contact is Rutledge.

Aug. 27, 2007 - Purdue C-22 Inquiry Committee provides report to Office of Naval Research with 34 allegations. Identifies only 12 allegations that should be examined by Investigation Committee.

Nov. 1, 2007 - Purdue charges C-22 Investigation Committee to conduct investigation of those 12 allegations.

Result: 34 allegations collected, 22 dismissed, 12 forwarded to C-22 investigation committee.


2008 Purdue C-22 Investigation Committee

Nov. 1, 2007, Jamieson, Lechtenberg and Williams select and assign members Investigation Committee.
March 17, 2008 - Taleyarkhan receives copy of draft of C-22 Investigation Committee report and sees that it contains allegations A.2 and B.2. Allegations A.2 and B.2 were not among the 12 allegations that Investigation Committee was charged to consider.

April 18, 2008 - Purdue C-22 Investigation Committee submits report to ONR.

July 17, 2008 - ONR accepts C-22 Investigation Committee report. Purdue completes C-22 investigation. Thirty-day appeal period begins.
July 18, 2008 - Purdue issues press release stating that Taleyarkhan was found guilty on two charges of misconduct based on allegations A.2 and B.2 even though appeal phase had not ended.

Aug. 27, 2008 - Purdue denies appeal by Taleyarkhan, issues sanctions and press release.

Result: Two allegations of research misconduct affirmed by Purdue.


2008 American Physical Society (Physics Review Letters) Review

Sept. 25, 2008 - American Physical Society/Physical Review Letters reviews Purdue sanctions.
Initial draft of response states
that Taleyarkhan "acted to falsify the research record."

APS informs Taleyakhan, "We are obligated to inform readers of the extent that the decision impacts [your group's 2006 PRL paper]."
Oct.-Nov. 2008 - Taleyarkhan group responds to APS.

Dec. 12, 2008 - APS completes review and publishes editorial note regarding Purdue sanctions.

APS publishes editorial note
stating, "A university investigative committee came to a conclusion that questions the validity of the [first] sentence in the opening paragraph [of the Taleyarkhan group's 2006 PRL paper]."

Editorial note says nothing about falsification, fraud or deceit. APS neither demands nor requests retraction from Taleyarkhan group.


2008 UCLA-Purdue Investigation

Oct. 14, 2008 - Peccei and Dunn initiate investigation.

Dec. 2, 2008 - Taleyarkhan provides 830-page report and two boxes of hardware to Dunn (Purdue).