1 Why does responsible conduct of research matter? Bernard Lo, M.D. August 21, 2008
BREAD
4 Darsee case Fellow in premier cardiology department
5 Darsee case 109 papers as a fellow Fabricated data in view of colleagues Patients and collaborators did not exist
8 Slutsky case Faculty member in radiology Fellow in cardiology Resident in nuclear medicine
9 Slutsky case 137 papers while a resident and fellow One paper every ten days Two studies had same mean and SD for different populations
10 Questions raised Role of coauthors Supervision by chief Investigation by institution
11 Lessons When self-regulation fails, government will step in NIH Requirement for ethics training Conflict of interest disclosures when submit grant
12
15 South Korean cloning scandal Fabricated data High medical risks in oocyte donors Recruited staff and trainees as donors Lied about number of oocytes, payments
16 Lessons Hard to detect misconduct Responsibilities on interdisciplinary team Not see raw data Implications for Roadmap collaborations
17 Social science research
Scholar Sets Off Gastronomic False Alarm The New York Times
19 NY restaurant study Response to consumer complaints Anniversary dinner, nasty GI complaints
20 NY restaurant study “This could be the kiss of death for a restaurant.”
21 NY restaurant study “Some people could have gotten in trouble, with screaming and yelling and people with sharp knives.”
22 NY restaurant study No specifics, no reservations, no credit card records
23 NY restaurant study Never reviewed by IRB Researcher had to send personal letters of apology
24
25 What would you do? You are asked to review paper on small prevention trial for cancer. Accrual extremely rapid. Point estimate not vary across sites. Confidence interval very narrow.
26 How you will encounter misconduct? Review manuscript or grant Looks too familiar Cannot replicate or verify previous work
27 How you will encounter misconduct? Progress faster than expected Enrollment at site >> other sites Data are too good to be true Discrepancy from other sites Variation too small Warning signs are not specific
28 How you will encounter misconduct? Challenges to your work by others Serve on investigation panel
29
30 Federal definition of research misconduct Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism Must be intentional
31 Why is research misconduct problematic? Question validity of data Question conclusions of study Unmerited rewards Undermines public trust and support
33 Congressman Dingle “Every time a researcher takes taxpayer money and publishes fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized findings, the taxpayer has in effect been swindled. Furthermore, given our budget deficit, there is never enough money to go around.”
34 Research misconduct excludes Unintentional “honest” error Sloppiness, incompetence, laziness Differences of opinion or interpretation
35 Research misconduct excludes other ethical problems Lack of IRB approval Lack of informed consent These handled by IRB
36 Research misconduct excludes other bad actions Financial mismanagement Discrimination Poor mentoring
37 Federal definition of misconduct Legal requirements set a minimum standard Ethical and professional standards may be higher
38 Institutional response to alleged misconduct Inquiry Is a full investigation warranted? Investigation Is there misconduct?
39 Responses to allegations I didn’t know it was wrong Course precludes this defense It’s just a personal vendetta This is just creative science
40 Problems with institutional inquiry Underestimate problems Self-interest Can be unconscious Assumption of trust
41 Institutional responses to allegations of misconduct Both whistleblower and accused have rights No retaliation Written charges Accused may respond to charges Right to have lawyer
42 Consequences of research misconduct Suspension of federal grant Debarment from future grants Institutional penalties Termination of employment Civil and criminal liability
43 Take home points Misconduct a serious offense, with grave consequences Address allegations of misconduct
44
45
47