1. Preventing Misconduct In Research
Candyce Lindsay, Assistant Director
Debra Murphy, Director
Office of Research Integrity and Assurance
February 4, 2012

2. Objectives
Definitions Case Study Description of the Process Resources

3. What is Misconduct
Misconduct is fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
Instances of honest error and honest differences of opinion or judgments of data are not considered misconduct.

4. Misconduct Definitions
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification means 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.
Plagiarism means appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Other deviations may include action, such as performing research without obtaining the appropriate approvals.

5. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
Marc Hauser – Harvard says: Guilty of Scientific Misconduct Psychologist Marc Hauser — a well-known scientist and author of the book “Moral Minds’’ — has been found guilty after a lengthy internal investigation by Harvard University found evidence of scientific misconduct in his laboratory.

6. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
Various outlets of the press reported in that it was one experiment, in particular, that led members of Dr. Hauser's lab to Become suspicious of his research and, in the end, to report their concerns about the professor to Harvard administrators.

7. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
The experiment tested the ability of cotton-top tamarins to recognize sound patterns. Researchers played a series of three speech syllables1 over a sound system and recorded the responses.
1Original text corrected based on questions posed by M. Hauser, 2/20/2012.

8. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
Researchers watched videotapes of the experiments and "coded" the results, meaning that they wrote down how the monkeys reacted. Two researchers independently coded the results so that their findings could later be compared to eliminate errors or bias. The purpose of dual coding is to obtain inter-observer reliabilities & show that the response measure is reliable2. 2Detail on purpose provided by M. Hauser 2/20/2012.

9. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
Research assistants concerned with the reporting of results independently reviewed the data themselves, without Dr. Hauser's permission.1
Some versions from the press indicate that the student interpretation of the results concluded that the experiment had failed.
It was also reported in the press that a review of Dr. Hauser's coding revealed that what Hauser had recorded bore little relation to what they had actually observed on the videotapes.

10. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
Evidence was taken to the University, setting in motion an investigation that would lead to Dr. Hauser's lab being raided by the University in August of 2007 to collect evidence.
It wasn't until much, however, that the investigation was completed.

11. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
Dean's letter to Harvard faculty of August 20, 2010 confirmed the allegations of scientific misconduct against Marc Hauser. The Boston Globe reports that Hauser is on leave for the current Academic year. …..to be continued

12. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification
The findings have resulted in the retraction of the results of 2 studies that he led and brought 3 publications into question. Dr. Hauser accepted responsibility for the error in the study on whether monkeys learn rules, which was published in 2002 in the journal, “Cognition.” Information of note is that of the 3 studies reviewed the results of 2 have been replicated.

13. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Falsification, Fabrication, & Plagiarism
Bengu Sezen, Ph.D., Columbia University
Office of Research Integrity (ORI), found that Bengu Sezen, former graduate student, Department of Chemistry, CU, engaged in misconduct in science research funded by
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS).
Twenty-one (21) findings of scientific misconduct against Dr. Sezen based on evidence that she knowingly and intentionally falsified, fabricated and, in one instance, plagiarized data reported in three (3) papers* and her doctoral thesis.

14. Case Study in Research Misconduct-Falsification
Consequence for Sezen included:
Dr. Sezen is debarred from eligibility for contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in any non-procurement programs of the United States Government
Dr. Sezen is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

15. Case Study in Research Misconduct – Fabrication and Falsification
Hung-Shu Chang, Washington State University
Based on a report of an investigation conducted by Washington State University (WSU) and additional analysis by ORI in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Hung-Shu Chang, PhD, former postdoctoral fellow, WSU, engaged in research misconduct in research by fabricating and falsifying data in Figure 3 of a paper published in “Endocrinology”

16. Case Study in Research Misconduct-Falsification
Consequence: (1) to exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; (2) that any institution which submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent's participation is proposed or that uses him in any capacity on PHS-support research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which the Respondent is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for supervision of the Respondent's duties to the funding agency for approval.

17. Case Study in Misconduct in Research Fabrication and Falsification
Recent case of misconduct under discussion:
News&zone=health&site=cbc.health.ca&clipid=
Final outcome for Dr. Wakefield hasn’t been determined.

18. Plagiarism “While it is acceptable to copy
one’s genes, it is not acceptable
to copy a colleague’s work”.
Sheila Garrity, J.D. M.P.H. M.B.A
Director, Research Integrity
John Hopkins University

19. Your turn
Based on the cases we have discussed, what would you consider to be a bad research behavior that would result in research misconduct…

20. Bad Behaviors Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data
Ignoring or circumventing human-subject requirements
Not properly disclosing financial conflicts of interest
Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit (plagiarism)
Failing to present data that contradict one’s own
Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data
Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source (falsification)

21. Research Record
Laptops

22. Research Record

23. Research Misconduct What it is Not
Research Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

24. Research Misconduct Reporting
If you suspect misconduct or simply want to discuss what you feel are questionable research practices – who do you call? ASU University Policy states that allegations can be reported anonymously and that whistleblowers will be protected. Reports can be made by to the OKED, ORIA or to the University hotline at:

25. An Allegation Has Been Made Now What?
Assessment
Inquiry
Investigation
Adjudication

26. Assessment An Assessment is what can be called a ‘Smell Test’ --
an initial review of the allegation to determine if it has merit and is completed before opening an inquiry.
Beside ORIA, the Associate VP for Research Policy and Assurance and, possibly, the Unit Supervisor may be involved.
At the assessment stage, if it is determined that the allegation does have merit, we move into the next phase, Inquiry.

27. Assessment
If no merit is found, the process ends at the Assessment stage. If it is determined at the Assessment stage that the allegation does have merit, we move into the next phase, Inquiry.

28. Inquiry Inquiry is typically handled by a subcommittee
of the University Senate, with assistance from
OKED and ORIA. Federal Regulations
call for the sequestration of evidence before or
when an Inquiry is Opened.
This is when we would show up at your lab or office to collect evidence needed to go forward.

29. Inquiry Our goal is not to shut down the lab or stop research.
The purpose of the inquiry is not to make a finding.
Inquiry is designed to determine if the complaint can be dismissed as frivolous, unjustified or mistaken.
The inquiry is an initial review of the evidence to determine if the allegation merits further review.

30. Inquiry
If the Inquiry finds that an investigation is not warranted, the process ends at the Inquiry stage.
If the Inquiry finds that an investigation is warranted and federal funds are involved, we may be required to report to the Sponsor and the Office of Research Integrity at ORI if HHS funds are involved. The next stage is Investigation.

31. Investigation
An Investigation Committee is appointed by The Associate VP for Research Policy and Assurance from among senior members of the Misconduct in Research Committee - a subcommittee of the University Senate. Members of the Investigation Committee are generally tenured professors. This is meant to ensure that no faculty member’s promotion can be jeopardized because they played a role in an unpopular finding.

32. Investigation
During an Investigation, a thorough review of the evidence is completed and those involved are interviewed by the Investigation Committee. The interviews may be recorded. Individuals interviewed include the Accuser, the Complainant and, in some cases, Witnesses may be called.

33. Investigation
Results of the Investigation are reported to the University’s Chief Research Officer, who is the Deputy Vice President, OKED. The Deputy VP reviews the Final Report and Recommendations of the Investigation Committee. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the AVPRPA will make a final determination whether to accept the Investigation Report, its findings and recommends institutional actions.

34. Notification
When a final decision on the case has been reached, the AVPRPA will provide written notification to the respondent, appropriate administrative officials, and the complainant. In addition, the AVPRPA, on advice of General Counsel (if necessary), recommends whether law enforcement agencies, Professional Societies, Professional Licensing Boards, Editors of Journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The AVPRPA is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements to notify Sponsors.

35. Appeal
Respondent may Appeal the Findings of Research Misconduct through the Chief Research Officer to the University President.

36. Summary of Process Three tiers of review, each involving an
independent process:
Inquiry
Investigation
Adjudication

37. Research Misconduct at ASU
The number of Research Misconduct Cases referred to OKED remains quite low, but nationally the number of cases continue to rise. There is concern by the Feds that Misconduct is under reported.

38. Avoiding Research Misconduct
Also important for avoiding Misconduct is awareness. We want to publicize our Expectation and Policies and we want to make sure you know Who to Call if you have questions.

39. Additional Resources ASU Policies and Procedures
ORIA Website –
ORI Website
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Publication “Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty”

40. Acknowledgments
Tony Onofrietti, Director of Research Education, University of Utah
Shiela Garrity, Director, Research Integrity, Johns Hopkins University
Online Audio Presentation: Recognizing, Reporting and Avoiding Research Misconduct
University of New Hampshire Responsible Conduct of Research on line
study guide
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Office of Research Integrity, DHHS
University of Sheffield, Department of Marketing & Communication
BBC Homepage Science and Nature: TV & Radio Follow-up

41. Thank you
Please contact ORIA or the OKED if you have questions or would like additional information. We can be reached at: Debra Murphy, Director Office of Research Integrity & Assurance Candyce Lindsay, Assistant Director