Ethical Dilemmas and Research Misconduct Aaron Manka, Ph.D. Investigative Scientist Office of Inspector General National Science Foundation at Howard University, 19 Oct 05

National Science Foundation What is the National Science Foundation (NSF)? A Federal science, engineering, and education funding agency. FY05 budget ≈ $5.6 billion. What is an Office of Inspector General? Our Mission We conduct independent and objective audits, investigations, and other reviews to support NSF in its mission by promoting the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and safeguarding the integrity of NSF programs and operations.

Guidelines and Regulations Financial and administrative responsibilities for grantee: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG): http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg Grant Policy Manual (GPM): http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02151/index.jsp Grant General Conditions (GC-1): http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/gc102/gc102.pdf OMB Circulars, particularly A-110* Research approvals (human subject, animal, material). [45 CFR 690; Grantee’s IRB] Merit Review Confidentiality. [FastLane; Form 1230P] Research Misconduct Policies. [45 CFR 689] Grant Fraud. [18 USC 1001, 666, 641; 31 USC 3729-33 (False Claims Act)]

What is Research Misconduct? Charles Babbage, 1830, Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, defined research misconduct as trimming, cooking, and forgery. NSF’s definition (45 CFR 689): Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF. Research Misconduct does not include error or differences of opinion.

Ethical issues when conducting research Data selection, sharing, ownership (HU, NSF, journals) Paraphrasing vs. plagiarism Collaborations Co-authorship vs. acknowledgements; Responsibility Mentor/Advisor problems Conflicts of Interests Merit review for proposals and papers What if you observe wrong-doing?

OIG’s Procedures Inquiry (jurisdiction/misconduct allegation?) Contact Accused? (close or proceed) Substantive? (close {80%} or proceed) Investigation Defer? (to university 88%) Evaluate Report - (close or proceed; accept 3/4) Own Investigation - (close or proceed) Adjudication Report to NSF’s Deputy Director with Recommendations

Plagiarism Excuses It’s only background/introductory material (or It had no technical merit). I didn’t do it. My grad student/undergraduate/postdoc/grant writer/faculty colleague/secretary/Co-PI/AOR/VP of Research/Dean/spouse wrote that section. It’s only a proposal. It’s not like it’s a publication.  The reviewers are smart enough to know what is my work and what is someone else’s.  My [the subject’s] native language does not have a word for plagiarism.  It’s in the public domain. Because of the pressing deadline, the room overheating, and my severe acid reflux, I was carelessness with my citations. It’s not plagiarism; it’s just bad citation. I used the same words, but I meant something different.

Case Study: Misrepresentation of Publications/Fabrication Initial allegation: University received an allegation that a PI misrepresented the status of his publications in a university document (tenure review) by claiming they were “In Press” when they were not.

University Inquiry “In Press” publications also listed in subject’s NSF proposals and Progress Reports. Subject said NSF (PM) knew about publication status and approved listing them that way. Inquiry contacted PM, who did not respond. Because of this, Inquiry conditionally concluded Investigation not warranted, but no tenure for PI.

What next? Interviewed NSF PM; reviewed NSF records. Contacted University; asked for a copy of its Inquiry report. Reviewed subject’s listed publications in NSF proposals. Provided University with requested (“corrected”) information. We deferred while it conducted its Investigation.

University/OIG Investigation Investigation determined that PI’s violation was serious – misconduct in science. New allegation received – fabrication of data. PI leaves University – takes laboratory notebooks. University requests OIG take over Investigation. We contact PI – obtain notebooks; he says graduate student (GS) did expts. & recorded data and administrator submitted proposal w/o PI approval. We ask expert to review notebook, proposals, progress reports, papers; we interview GS, other graduate students, administrator, and PI.

OIG’s Conclusions and Recommendations PI fabricated publications and data; PI’s acts represented a pattern of behavior; PI acted knowingly (culpable intent). NSF should send a letter of reprimand concluding PI committed misconduct in science; NSF should debar PI for 1 year; NSF should require for 3 years that the PI provide an Assurance and his Chair/Dean provide a Certification.

Obligations Of Administrators (and OIG) Keep identities confidential; FOLLOW YOUR POLICY (don’t say, “we’ll do whatever you want”); remember PA, FOIA. Notify us if allegation has substance Accurate and complete report obtained through reasonable procedures Careful documentation To Complainants Identity kept confidential Fair, objective assessment To Subjects, Respondents Confidential review; doesn’t affect proposals Refer misconduct investigations to their institutions Provide investigative report; opportunity for input Informed of case resolution

Some Suggestions Data: Maintain and store raw data safely; Reality check: Preview research results and mss. w/colleagues; present findings at dept meetings; staff meetings to discuss findings and proposals. Collaborations: Adhere to established standards of ethics regarding authorship; data sharing; publishing papers; written agreement best. Properly reference sources: paraphrasing, figures, data—cite source; verbatim words—cite source and use quotation marks.

Where To Get More Information University’s Research Misconduct Policy NSF OIG’s Homepage: http://www.oig.nsf.gov/ NSF OIG’s e-mail address: oig@nsf.gov NSF OIG’s Hotline: 800-428-2189 OIG: 703/292-7100