Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct -2002Falsification: The respondent, a former Master’s degree student, allegedly falsified research in a thesis and in two National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), NIH, grant applications. The research in question involved vaccine development for Haemophilus infuenzae. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that the respondent had falsely claimed that two experiments had been obtained independently. However, ORI declined to pursue a PHS finding of research misconduct after consideration of the significance of the misconduct, the weight of the evidence, and the allocation of Federal resources in case of appeal, among other considerations. Falsification: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly falsified figures in a manuscript submitted to a journal for publication. The questioned research involved antiretroviral therapy. The questioned research was supported by NIAID and National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDR), NIH, grants or contracts. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. The institution concluded that there was not sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct on the part of the respondent with regard to the specific allegations to warrant an investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation in this case. Falsification: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly falsified data by misrepresenting a figure in a grant application submitted to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH. The research involved a mechanism of death of heart muscle cells under certain physiological stress conditions. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and determined that an honest error was made in mislabeling the questioned figure. Thus, the institution concluded that there was no need to proceed to a formal investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Falsification: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly falsified the legend to a figure in a grant application submitted to the NHLBI, NIH. The research involved regulation of genes in certain microorganisms that are human enteric pathogens. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and determined that erroneous statements were made by the investigator in the grant application, which were due to miscommunication with a laboratory staff member, whose research records were poorly documented. The institution concluded that these errors were reported to the funding agency for its reviewers before the review of the application took place and that the errors were inconsequential, given the decision of the agency to fund the research. Thus, the institution found there was no substance to the allegations of research misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of research misconduct to warrant any further investigation. Falsification: The respondents, former clinical trial staff, allegedly falsified research records to enroll and follow ineligible patients in a clinical trial involving breast cancer research. The questioned research was supported by two U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) cooperative agreements. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. The institution determined that while there was some confusion as to the enrollment criteria and a general lack of oversight of the clinical trial process for a brief interval, there was insufficient evidence of falsification to warrant further investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination. Falsification: The respondent, a former laboratory technician, allegedly falsified data on blood-draw sheets and laboratory logs in research using human subjects. The research was supported by a National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), NIH, grant, and an NHLBI, NIH grant. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and found that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the respondent had committed misconduct. However, the institution suggested that the respondent would benefit from extended ethics counseling. ORI concurred with the institution that based on a preponderance of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to make a finding of research misconduct against the respondent. Falsification: The respondent, a research associate, allegedly falsified or fabricated data in research involving the effects of radiation on the survival of cultured cells. Some of this data was included in a grant application submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, and other data was supported by the subsequent grant. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and found that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the respondent had committed misconduct and that there was no cause for further investigation into the matter. Given the weaknesses in the available evidence, ORI concurred with the institution that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. Falsification: The respondent, a technician, allegedly falsified research data included in Excel® spreadsheets in a study involving energy expenditure in humans. The research was supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), NIH, grant. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. Due to such factors as a lack of direct evidence, failing equipment at the time of the alleged incident, the respondent’s huge backlog of work, a lack of training of the respondent, a lack of supervision of the respondent, and the strong possibility that the respondent did not know the consequences of transcribing the data incorrectly, the institution concluded that a preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding of misconduct. ORI accepted the institution’s finding that based on a preponderance of the evidence, there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of scientific misconduct in this case. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondents, two professors, allegedly falsified or fabricated data in research involving the measurement of receptors in the treatment of allergic animals. The allegedly falsified or fabricated graphs were reported in a published paper. The questioned research was supported by an NCI, NIH, grant, two NHLBI, NIH, grants, and was also reported in two NIH small business grant applications. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. Although most of the original research records had been discarded on later moves between institutions, the institution determined that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the experiments were performed as claimed and that the graphs in question were inaccurate due to honest errors made by inexperienced staff in plotting the results. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to warrant any further investigation. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated claims in several publications involving the mechanism of cell death in lymphocytes. The research was supported by an NCI, NIH, grant application, and an NCI, NIH, cooperative agreement. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a sound factual basis for an allegation of research misconduct. Thus, the institution did not recommend any further investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination that there was insufficient evidence of research misconduct to warrant further investigation. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondents, an assistant professor and a project director, allegedly falsified research and/or staff credentials in research involving drug abuse and AIDS. The questioned research was proposed, reported, and/or supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), NIH, grant applications. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that one respondent did not commit research misconduct but that the other respondent did commit misconduct by: (1) misstating credentials of staff, and (2) deceptively reporting findings in published abstracts (considered to be falsification), along with other charges not falling under the PHS definition. However, while acknowledging that the institution is free to make its own findings in accordance with its own policy, ORI found insufficient evidence or impact to warrant a finding of scientific misconduct on the part of either respondent. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a former graduate student researcher, allegedly fabricated and/or falsified interview data for subjects in a study involving factors leading to physical activity in adults. The research was supported by an NICHD, NIH, grant. The institution conducted an Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2002 73 investigation into the matter and determined that while the respondent’s conduct was less than professional, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of research misconduct. ORI accepted the institution’s finding that there was insufficient evidence that the respondent committed scientific misconduct. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly falsified, fabricated, or misrepresented data in cytogenetics research involving two medical conditions or diseases. The questioned data were included in grant applications submitted to NIH and reported in meeting presentations and publications. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that in an effort to obtain extramural funding to maintain his research program, the respondent pushed the limits of acceptable scientific conduct in several areas. The institution recommended several administrative actions, including withdrawal of an NIH grant application and an abstract. ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct on any of the allegations in this case when defined as PHS issues. However, ORI noted that a determination by ORI under the PHS definition of research misconduct does not diminish the authority of the institution to independently set its own standards and to make determinations of when its employees have failed to meet the norms of behavior expected of scientists. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondents, former graduate students, allegedly falsified data included in a publication and fabricated data included in a doctoral thesis. The questioned research focused on the understanding of molecular mechanisms that underlie initiation of cancer growth in certain cells. The research was supported by four NCI, NIH grants. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination. Plagiarism: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly plagiarized words and ideas from a publication by another investigator and included the plagiarized material in a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), grant application. The questioned research involved occupational biomechanical demands. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that there was a breach of research ethics caused more by carelessness than intent and did not make a finding of research misconduct. The institution set forth sanctions intended to be developmental rather than punitive. ORI accepts the institution’s finding that, while there was evidence of plagiarism in the grant application, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of scientific misconduct. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
