1. Research Misconduct
Chapter 9

4. Federal Laws on Research Misconduct
Public concern over research misconduct initially arose in the early 1980’s.
At the time, research institutions sometimes ignored or covered up potential misconduct problems rather than investigate them.
In December 2000 the Office of Science and Technology Policy adopted a federal policy on research misconduct.

5. Research Misconduct What is it?:
The Department of Health and Human Services defines research misconduct as:
Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research results.
Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them
Falsification: manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting results such that the research is not accurately represented in the record.
Plagiarism: the appropriation of another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving proper credit.
ORI - The Office of Research Integrity

7. ORI 2007 Annual Report
In 2007, ORI opened 14 new cases and closed 28 cases.
Of the 28 cases closed by ORI, 10 cases resulted in sustained findings of research misconduct and/or PHS administrative actions against the respondents.
Debarments were imposed in 7 of the 10 cases that resulted in research misconduct findings: 1 for life, 2 for 5 years, and 4 for 3 years. PHS administrative actions imposed in the remaining cases were one 4-year supervisory period, two 3-year supervisory periods, and a 3-year certification period.
Thirty-five percent of ORI’s closed cases in 2007 resulted in PHS misconduct. There is an historical average of about 33 percent of cases are found to be misconduct.

8. Criteria for Research Misconduct
Represents a significant departure from accepted practices
Has been committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and
Can be proven by a preponderance of evidence
What is NOT MISCONDUCT: honest, unintentional error + =
Research Misconduct

9. SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: How Prevalent Is Fraud
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: How Prevalent Is Fraud? That's a million-Dollar Question Science 1 December 2000: Vol no. 5497, pp
How often does scientific misconduct occur? There seems to be no consensus on the answer, although a range of estimates were presented at a conference called last month by a key federal watchdog agency to announce a $1 million grants program to investigate the prevalence of fraud, data fabrication, plagiarism, and other questionable practices in science. The 9-year-old Office of Research Integrity hopes to support studies gauging the frequency of misconduct and assessing efforts to raise ethical standards.

10. What is it not: Department of Health & Human Services received
267 reports of research misconduct (2004)
50% increase from 2003
35% of closed cases involve research misconduct
What is it not:
Honest error or differences of opinion

11. ORI Recommendations Adopt zero tolerance Protect whistleblowers
Clarify how to report
Train the mentors
Model ethical behavior

12. Top ten “POOR” behaviors
1. Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data
2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements
3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose
products are based on one‘s own research
4. Relationships with students, research subjects or clients
that may be interpreted as questionable
5. Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or
giving due credit (plagiarism)
6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in
connection with one’s own research
7. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own
previous research ????
8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject
requirements

13. Top ten behaviors (continued)
9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable
interpretation of data
10. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in
response to pressure from a funding source (falsification)
Other behaviors
11. Publishing the same data or results in two or more
publications
12. Inappropriately assigning authorship credit
13. Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or
proposals
14. Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs
15. Dropping observations or data points from analyses based
on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate
16. Inadequate record keeping related to research projects

14. Why does misconduct happen?
Publish or Perish Pressure
Desire to “get ahead”
Personal problems
Character issues
Cultural Differences
???

15. How is misconduct identified
Suspected and reported by a colleague
Failure to confirm research results
by own lab or others

16. Investigation Process
Allegations reported to and assessed by RIO
RIO reviews allegations, sequesters research records, and if credible forwards to inquiry committee
Inquiry report is made and if investigation is substantiated records are forwarded to the investigation committee
Initial draft reviewed by RIO and DO (Provost), and final report sent to all parties (respondent, complainent, RIO, DO)
Institutional decision and administrative action

17. Consequences (if misconduct is substantiated)
Withdrawal or correction of all pending and published papers and abstracts affected by the misconduct
Reprimand, removal from project, rank and salary reduction, dismissal
Restitution of funds to the granting agency
Ineligibility to apply for Federal grants for years
I.E. the end of your research career!

18. Case Example - Pat J. Palmer
Fabricated 6 interview records Fabricated claim of Ph.D. (B.S. and M.S. also) Falsified that she was co-author on 10 articles
Did I say I have a Ph.D. in Epidemiology?
Pat Palmer, University of Iowa: engaged in scientific misconduct in research support by NIH grant entitled “Collaborative Linkage Study of Autism” and in grant proposals for the same and “The Genetics of Specific Speech and Language Disorders”.
Fabricated interview records for at least six interviews of autism patient families;
Fabricating her claims for a B.S. from the University of Northern Iowa, a M.S./M.P.H. from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in Epidemiology/Bio-statistics from the University of Iowa in biographical sketches that were submitted to NIH in four grant applications
Fabricating her claim that she obtained a Ph.D. in Epidemiology/Bio-statistics from the University of Iowa in the biographical sketches of a training grant application, so she received salary support from July June 1998 for postdoctoral training under NIH training grant.
Falsified that she was co-author of several published articles, by inserting her name or replacing another name with her name on 10 articles listed in her biographical sketch for four NIH grant applications.

19. Example

21. Nursing Professor at Tennessee State University
James Linn – admitted research misconduct by "knowingly and intentionally falsifying and/or fabricating the data and results of a study in which he purportedly tested the effects of an intervention to reduce sexual risk behaviors in high risk, impaired populations of homeless men with mental illness by reporting false values for variables"
Published in Cellular and Molecular Biology
Funded by National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Debarred for 3 years from contracting/subcontracting with any agency of the U.S. Government
Serving in an advisory capacity to the PHS

22. Researcher Faces Prison for Fraud in NIH Grant Applications and Papers Science 25 March 2005: Vol no. 5717, p. 1851
A researcher formerly at the University of Vermont College of Medicine has admitted in court documents to falsifying data in 15 federal grant applications and numerous published articles. Eric Poehlman, an expert on menopause, aging, and metabolism, faces up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine and has been barred for life from receiving any U.S. research funding. The number and scope of falsifications discovered, along with the stature of the investigator, are quite remarkable. "This is probably one of the biggest misconduct cases ever," Poehlman, 49, first came under suspicion in 2000 when Walter DeNino, then a 24-year-old research assistant, found inconsistencies in spreadsheets used in a longitudinal study on aging. In an effort to portray worsening health in the subjects, DeNino tells Science, "Dr. Poehlman would just switch the data points."

23. Mentor Responsibilities
Mentors have the responsibility to ensure that all trainees (post-docs, grad students, undergrads) are aware of the responsible conduct of research
Define the Relationship
Role of Trainee
Publication/Authorship
Serving as PI or Co-PI
Obligation to report
Good faith report

24. Information Sources
“Fraud and the Role of Intensions” On Being A Scientist, Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989, page 15, ISBN
Martinson, B., Anderson, M.,& de Vries, R., “Scientists behaving badly”. Journal of Nature 435, , June 2005.
Office of Research Integrity
Office of Research Integrity: Case Summary-Pat J. Palmer. Federal Register: February 17, 2004, 69:31,
Steneck, Nicholas H. (2004) ORI: Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.