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

2. 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.

3. Guidelines and Regulations
Financial and administrative responsibilities for grantee:
Grant Proposal Guide (GPG):
Grant Policy Manual (GPM):
Grant General Conditions (GC-1):
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 (False Claims Act)]

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Where To Get More Information
University’s Research Misconduct Policy
NSF OIG’s Homepage:
NSF OIG’s address:
NSF OIG’s Hotline:
OIG: 703/