Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Stephen Erickson, Ph.D. Director, Office for Research Integrity and Compliance Director, Office for Research Protections Boston College March 21, 2015

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct BC Policy: Ethical Conduct of Research and Research Misconduct elements/doc/policies/IV/ pdf

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct What is Research Misconduct? Fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or reporting results, or in the conduct of other academic pursuits. It also includes unethical research involving living research subjects as well as retaliation against those making allegations of research misconduct. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct A finding of research misconduct requires that:  There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and,  The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and,  The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct What is Research Misconduct?  Plagiarism  The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Avoid Plagiarism Through Appropriate Citation Giving credit where credit is due:  Citation.  Quotation.  Failure leads to plagiarism.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Giving Credit Properly  Check the original source  Says what you say it does?  Correct citation?  Study of 4300 citations to a seminal paper in condensed-matter physics concluded 4 of 5 authors did not read original paper because they preserved erroneous citations derived from secondary sources (Reported in Nature 420: December 2002)

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct What is Research Misconduct?  Fabrication of Data.  Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct What is Research Misconduct?  Falsification of Data.  Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct If You Think Misconduct Has Occurred  Review your concerns with someone you trust;  Listen to what that person tells you;  Get a second opinion and take that seriously, too.  If you decide to initiate formal proceedings, seek strength in numbers; cont.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct If You Think Misconduct Has Occurred  Find the right place to file charges; study the procedure;  Report you concerns;  Ask questions; keep notes;  Cultivate patience. Slides 11 and 12 are based on Gunsalus, C.K. “How to Blow the Whistle and Still Have a Career Afterwards.” Science and Engineering Ethics 4:51-64, 1998.

13

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Examples of Research Misconduct  Woo Suk Hwang  Eric T. Poehlman  Curbstoning Other Examples  Tuskeegee  Guatemala If not misconduct, then what are they?

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Woo Suk Hwang Case  2004 – he claimed that his lab had cloned a human embryonic stem cell.  2005 – he said his lab had created 11 such cells. A lab member divulged that they were paying $1,400 to women for their eggs and this raised bioethical questions.  Later in 2005, his lab cloned a dog.  December 2005 – all 112 human “cloned” cells were found to have been and had been faked at Hwang’s direction.  2006 – Hwang was charged with embezzlement and bioethics law violations. He received a two year suspended jail sentence. His lab was shut down. The embezzlement resulted from his using part of $3M of grant funds to purchase gifts for his wife as well as and expensive cars.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Eric Poehlman Case  Faculty members at UVM. He fabricated and falsified data in 10 publications and 17 federal grant applications which resulted in grants valued at over $11M between  UVM uncovered 22 misconduct findings, ORI confirmed 21 of them and them added 35 more. He pled guilty in  Initially turned in by his grad students.  In 2006, he was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for fraud.  Misconduct affected studies related to disease prevention for older men and women, as well as the effects of diet, exercise, menopause, and hormone replacements on disease status. Since the results were published, it is very likely that physicians used the information in treating their patients.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Curbstoning Cases In 2004, two cases took place in Maryland on the same federal grant study the success of HIV risk prevention programs for teenagers. The two interviewers, who were paid by completed interviews, faked going to addresses to conduct survey questionnaires. They faked the data by filling in the questionnaires themselves and then collected the interview fees.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct The Tuskegee Study  NIH investigators studied the progression of untreated syphilis in hundreds of poor black men who thought they were getting medical treatment.  Not only were the patients deceived but they were denied treatment even when Penicillin became available in  Became known in 1972 when an unidentified person leaked the story to the press.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct The Guatemala Study  A syphilis study that took place in Guatemala between Conducted by U.S. Government doctors with the Approval and Cooperation of the Guatemalan Government.  The subjects were soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners, mental patients with syphilis and other STDs. Most were treated with antibiotics, but 83 of the patients died as a result of the study.  A key difference between Tuskegee and Guatemala – in Guatemala, subjects were purposely infected by the doctors.  It was terminated when the doctors and NIH feared that word of the study might become public.  Discovered by chance by Prof. Susan Reverby (Wellesley College in Confirmed by US Gov’t Report in 2011.

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Contact Information: Stephen Erickson, Ph.D Director, Office for Research integrity and Compliance Director, Office for Research Protections