Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct – 2005Falsification: The respondent, a postdoctoral fellow, allegedly falsified a figure published online prior to publication in a journal. The paper cited support from a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The questioned research involved the biochemistry of reproductive cells. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that the respondent had altered the figure. However, the falsification was corrected prior to print in the journal. ORI accepted the institution’s report as fulfilling its reporting requirements to PHS and accepted many of its factual findings, but ORI declined to pursue a PHS finding of research misconduct. However, ORI recognized that this does not impact on the findings of misconduct made under institutional standards.Falsification: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly falsified images of confocal and fluorescent microscopy in yeast cells. The allegedly falsified data were included in four publications, a book chapter, and two grant applications submitted to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH. The questioned research was supported by an NIDDK, NIH, grant, and a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), NIH, grant. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that the respondent did not commit research or professional misconduct in this case. ORI accepted the institution’s conclusion and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: The respondent, a graduate student, allegedly submitted falsified data to his mentor for inclusion in a publication, in a grant application to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and in his own thesis. The questioned research involved the study of low blood sugar in heart development in animals. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that the respondent had unethically manipulated data. ORI accepted the institution’s report but concluded that, given the absence of primary research records, the allegations of research misconduct were not resolvable. Falsification: The respondent, a postdoctoral fellow, allegedly falsified data in a manuscript involving research on regulation of cell death and treatment of leukemia. The questioned research was supported by a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant and a National Institute of Aging (NIA), NIH, grant. The institution conducted an investigation and did not make a finding of research misconduct. ORI accepted the institution’s conclusion and found that there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of scientific misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondent allegedly falsified data and results in a manuscript submitted to a journal for publication. The paper cited support from a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The questioned research involved assessing the need for exercise programs sponsored by specifically focused social organizations. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation and concluded that the respondent did not knowingly, willingly, or recklessly participate in falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those commonly accepted within the scientific community. However, the institution concluded that poor communication, a poorly functioning system for manuscript management and revision, and a lack of attention to details led to the inappropriate submission of the manuscript that contained altered data. Thus, the institution recommended that the respondent refrain from using the manuscript. ORI accepted the institution’s report and did not make a PHS finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondent, a postdoctoral fellow, allegedly falsified data included in a grant application submitted to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The questioned research involved molecules that play a role in activating resistance responses to pathogens in plants. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that the allegation of research misconduct was not sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. ORI accepted the factual findings from the institution’s investigation, but given the lack of evidence in the form of research records, ORI concluded that the allegations of research misconduct were not resolvable. Falsification: The respondent, a research associate, allegedly falsified data in research involving an in vivo reporter system for imaging gene transfer. The questioned research was supported by a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make a judgment of scientific misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution’s conclusion and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified data included in a progress report of a study supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The questioned research involved the study of a treatment to prevent a serious condition in newborn infants. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that the respondent had reported data to NIH for subjects from another study who were not part of an approved protocol for the grant. The institution determined that the inclusion of these subjects constituted a serious deviation from commonly accepted practices for the conduct and reporting of research. ORI accepted the institution’s report as fulfilling its reporting requirements to PHS and accepted many of its factual findings, but ORI declined to pursue a PHS finding of research misconduct. However, ORI recognized that this does not impact on the findings of misconduct made under institutional standards. Falsification: The respondents, a professor and two research associates, allegedly falsified data included in a published paper and cited in a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant application. The questioned paper cited support from two NHLBI, NIH, grants. The questioned research examined the function of the calcium channel in the heart in a transgenic mouse model. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that no evidence of falsification or fabrication could be found. ORI accepted the institution’s determination that misconduct had not occurred and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: The respondents, an assistant professor and a technologist, allegedly falsified medical records and study forms in a longitudinal study of ocular disorders. The questioned study was supported by a National Eye Institute (NEI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), cooperative agreement. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of intentional, knowing, or reckless falsification or fabrication of research data on the part of either respondent. ORI accepted the institution’s findings and concluded that while there were errors and protocol deviations, there was insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of research misconduct. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly falsified or fabricated data and misrepresented the statistical analysis for a figure in a published paper. The questioned research involved a study of stress in women who had experienced abuse in childhood. The study was supported by a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant, and a General Clinical Research Center, National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), NIH, grant. The institution conducted two inquiries and concluded that there was not sufficient substantive evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant a formal investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data included in a grant application submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The questioned research involved the importance of the apoptotic signaling pathway in understanding how tumor cells evade the death response and grow uncontrollably. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined that the allegations of research misconduct did not warrant further investigation. ORI accepted the institution’s conclusion that the allegations of research misconduct did not warrant further investigation. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data included in published papers. The questioned papers cited support from a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant, a National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), NIH, grant, a National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), NIH, grant, and a National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Skin Diseases (NIAMS), NIH, grant. The questioned research involved the role of antibodies in a debilitating disease. The institution conducted an inquiry and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. ORI accepted the institution’s determination that for all issues, there was not a sufficient basis for proceeding with further investigation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This page last was updated on March 27, 2007
 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity • 1101 Wootton Parkway • Suite 750 • Rockville, MD 20852 Directions to ORI Office Questions/suggestions about this web page? Contact ORI |
 |
 |
 |
Assurance
