1, Contrary to appearance, the faculty chairs of the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment (UCEC) and the Investigatory and the Hearing panels of the CAFT, which conducted the initial inquiry, the protracted investigation and the final quasi-judicial hearing, were strong supporters of the Administration and friends of Vice President for Research Michael Cusanovich, who initiated the preliminary probe against Professor Kay. The chairs had almost unlimited discretionary authority in making crucial decisions throughout the inquiry, the investigation and the hearing. In addition, approximately half of the members of the two CAFT panels were not elected but appointed by the chairs.

2, The four University committees, Institutional Biosafety, Radiation Control, Human Subjects and Animal Care and Use, which were instructed by Vice President for Research Cusanovich to undertake special inspection of Professor Kay's laboratories, all report administratively to Vice President Cusanovich,

3. During the 6-day hearing, nearly all the rulings made by the chair of the Hearing panel were in favor of the Administration. The most egregious Include allowing Jeffrey Poulin, one of the two key Administration witnesses, to provide his testimony after his adamant refusal to be sworn in (CAFT Hearing transcript, Volume 2, P. 105) but disallowing many sworn testimonies, both written and on video tape, of Professor Kay's professional peers with national and international reputation. Equally egregious was permitting the chair of the Investigatory panel, who served as the prosecutor at the hearing, to pose leading questions to Administration witnesses in order to extract desired answers,

4. The general counsel for the Administration and its officials also serve as legal counsel to the Investigatory panel of the CAFT, which spent more than a year compiling "evidence" against Professor Kay.

5. Based on 1, 2, 3 and 4, it is apparent that the extensive and pervasive conflict of interests effectively undermined the procedural due process requirement supposedly accorded to Professor Kay throughout the proceeding undertaken against her.

6. In his unsworn testimony on March 31, 1998, Jeffrey Poulin stated that he was contacted and interviewed by Dr. Cetas (chair of the Investigatory panel), Dr. Kidwell (appointed
panel member) and Dr, Tolbert (appointed panel member) if he had any data regarding allegations and ethical conduct against Professor Kay and was told by the three panel members in "early, early months of 1997" that "all lab notes were missing, all computer files were missing" and "everything was gone" (CAFT Hearing transcript, Volume 2, Pages 146 and 107). The records show that officially the CAFT Investigatory panel should not have been in existence in the "early, early months of 1997."

7. Until Professor Kay's latest experience, the time-honored practice of peer review has always been the accepted norm In the final phase of a scientific endeavour. However, the U of Arizona decided to revise the procedure by instituting its own post peer-review review by choosing its own reviewers who had little or no expertise in the specialized area of medical research of Professor Kay. The CAFT had rejected nearly all the candidates submitted by Professor Kay but appointed among others Drs. Tolbert and Kidwell, both of whom were associated with the Arizona Research Laboratories headed by Vice President Cusanovich. Dr. Tolbert and Dr. Kidwell were assigned the task by Dr. Cetas to re-review the three chosen and already peer-reviewed publications, Subsequently, it was this re-review by Dr. Tolbert and Dr. Kidwell that provided the alleged "proof' of scientific misconduct against Professor Kay based on alleged data manipulation.

8. Jeffrey Poulin was the lead author of the 1996 Proceedings of National Academy of Science (PNAS) paper. It is inconceivable that Poulin could simply disavow the alleged deficiencies in the paper in an attempt to shift the entire responsibility for all the flaws in the publication onto Professor Kay, Mr. Dalton's reference in his report of the NAS member as "an 87-year-old retired professor who sent the article to PNAS and whom Poulin had never met" was not particularly relevant,

9. Finally, the information and evidence presented in the 6 volumes of the CAFT Hearing transcript contradict the reported statement in the Nature article that the investigation discovered that lab notebooks had disappeared and computer bard drives had been erased. With the exception of a few lab notebooks belonging to a laboratory employee other than Mr, Poulin, none of the lab notebooks were missing and none of the hard drives were erased as suggested by Reporter Rex Dalton.