Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 1996Falsification: A research professor was accused by two students in his laboratory of falsifying the unpublished results of an experiment they were conducting under his supervision. The students claimed that the researcher modified the initial experiments, performing duplicate experiments rather that triplicate, and fabricated results. The researcher was also accused of falsifying the results of another experiment that the student claimed could not possibly be true, as she had prepared the materials for the experiment incorrectly. An institutional inquiry determined that an investigation was warranted. During the investigation, the respondent answered that his decision to modify the initial experiment was sound, and the investigation committee agreed, noting that the students did not have the same understanding of the experiment as the respondent, and they may have misinterpreted his actions. Regarding the second experiment, the investigation committee was not able to substantiate the experiment the student claimed to have conducted; there were no written records of the experiment in the students’ notebook, the students’ recollection of the experimental process was inconsistent with other facts, and the respondent claimed never to have been involved in the purported experiment. The investigation committee was not able to resolve this issue, based on the lack of documentation to support the students’ claim. The investigation committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that research misconduct had occurred, and ORI concurred with this decision. Falsification: Co-authors were accused of falsifying data on subjects and measurements presented in a table in their published paper by another researcher who was familiar with the reported experiments. An institutional investigating committee concluded that research misconduct had occurred because the co-authors offered no credible explanation for the discrepancies that existed between the data presented in the published article and the data presented in draft versions. However, the committee was unable to assign responsibility for the misconduct to any particular individual because the primary data were not retained, contradictory testimony could not be resolved, a key witness died, an author left the country, and considerable time had expired between the conduct of the research and the institutional investigation that led to a finding of research misconduct. The committee recommended withdrawal of the article and implementation of a publication policy designed to prevent such problems. ORI concluded that while falsification of data may have occurred, it was not possible to assign responsibility. Accordingly, ORI accepted the institutional report, and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: The respondent was accused of falsifying research data in her dissertation by a research associate. The respondent denied altering the data and asserted that the whistleblower with whom she had an acrimonious relationship was responsible for the altered data because he was the only other person who knew enough about her study to alter the data. The whistleblower claimed that the copies of the scintillation counter printouts from the respondent’s experiments he had been secretly monitoring did not show the positive results the respondent was reporting. The respondent had discarded the original printouts after her dissertation was accepted and she was told to clean out her office for the next student. Institutional officials unsuccessfully attempted to recover potentially deleted/altered files of scintillation counter data stored on the computer hard disk. The investigation committee concluded that the data were falsified and that both the respondent and the whistleblower had the opportunity to do so. The committee also concluded that the respondent had a motive to change the data because she was having difficulty in demonstrating a positive antagonist effect which was a fundamental requirement for acceptance of her dissertation. In addition, the investigation committee identified other important errors in the respondent’s investigations and dissertation research which favorably influenced her results. The committee made a finding of research misconduct against the respondent. During its oversight review, ORI noticed that the respondent had told the investigation committee that she could not recalculate her data because the software program used in her research was missing from the laboratory computer. In responding to an ORI query, the institution reported that the whistleblower had downloaded the software to prevent the respondent from making further alterations in the data. The respondent claimed the format of the restored software had been altered, suggesting that the source code governing the program operation had been changed. ORI concluded that the downloading of the software had compromised the only tangible evidence available in the case. ORI determined that insufficient tangible evidence existed to assign responsibility for the falsified data and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: A researcher was accused by lab members of falsifying results presented in a graph in a progress report to a private foundation for research that was jointly sponsored by a NIH grant. An inquiry committee was convened and discovered an additional issue involving possible falsification of a letter submitted to the NIH in support of a grant application. The investigation committee learned that the respondent directed a student to cut and paste new text into a pre-existing letter of support regarding the use of animal subjects in proposed research. The researcher admitted that changes were made to the letter of support, but said they were made because the writer of the support letter was not available to provide a revised letter. The researcher contacted the author of the support letter to discuss the changes to the letter and the author concurred with the changes the researcher had made. The second instance of alleged falsification pertained to data points in a graph for a progress report submitted to the foundation and the NIH. The respondent admitted to exaggerating the data but stated that an opportunity to explain the variance of data to the investigation committee was not afforded. The institution determined that the respondent did commit research misconduct on both accounts. At the request of the institution, the respondent agreed to resign. ORI concluded that, while the support letter was altered, falsification had not occurred because the researcher did not misrepresent the views of the author of the support letter. Secondly, ORI reviewed the data submitted to the NIH and found that there was no evidence of falsification in the PHS grant application. ORI accepted the institutional report, finding that the institution handled the matter appropriately and determined that no further action was necessary. Falsification: A visiting postdoctoral associate and co-author alleged that a researcher falsified experiments and results reported on mice in versions of two manuscripts submitted repeatedly for publication. The inquiry committee determined that several of the concerns raised were differences of opinions and judgements, although further investigation was necessary. The respondent claimed that the discrepancy was due to a co-author’s error, and the respondent had not been informed of the error until the allegation of research misconduct was made. The investigation committee determined that the respondent did not provide a credible explanation as to what he knew about the deaths of the mice, since he gave contradictory explanations at different times. In a related study, another allegation was made that the same respondent falsified methods and failed to describe treatments given to the mice undergoing experimentation. The investigation committee found that the respondent had collapsed data, and concluded that the issue was a matter of scientific judgement, not one of research misconduct. However, the investigation committee also concluded that the respondent had committed research misconduct by falsifying data, failing to include important information, and manipulating data to advance an hypothesis. The committee noted that no papers containing questioned data had been published in peer-reviewed journals. The committee recommended that unless the data could be verified and validated, they should not be published. The respondent refuted the conclusion, noting that the miscoding of mice did not have any meaningful effect upon the results, interpretations or conclusions in the unpublished manuscript. After reviewing the investigation committee’s report, the institutional official concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find misconduct, and ORI concurred with the latter decision because it concluded that the respondent’s explanations were plausible. The respondent was not an expert in the area, and a combination of poor scientific practice, failed communications with his co-authors, sloppiness, negligence, and error could have contributed to the misstatements in the papers. Further, the respondent submitted corrections that were published. Therefore, ORI did not find sufficient evidence to make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: A part-time researcher was accused of fabricating data in a published abstract and in two NIH grant applications. The institutional investigation determined that the respondent was deficient in knowledge of the experimental recording device and in the theory of the experiment, and therefore it was unlikely that he intentionally falsified the data. In its review of the institution’s report, ORI found the investigative committee’s explanations to be credible. ORI concurred with the institution that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: A graduate student was alleged to have falsified research results by deliberately contaminating ("spiking") solutions with sodium and included the falsified data in a publication. The institution conducted an inquiry and investigation and submitted a report to ORI; it concluded that research misconduct had occurred, but was unable to determine who was responsible for the misconduct. In ORI’s oversight, audiotapes and transcripts of the interviews of witnesses were reviewed. ORI observed that if the contaminations were deliberate, the responsible individual(s) would have to have been extremely knowledgeable about the experiments in order to be able to perform two almost-concurrent manipulations. ORI accepted the institution’s conclusion that, although there were discrepancies in the data, there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the graduate student had committed research misconduct. ORI recommended that the institution encourage the journal editor to publish a statement correcting the record regarding the published paper. Falsification: A research professor was accused of falsifying photographic data that was prepared and submitted as supplemental material for a grant application to NIH. In response to a suggestion by the NIH study section that additional photographs would be helpful in the review of his grant, the respondent directed members of his laboratory staff, including the complainant, to prepare a submission to NIH, including a number of photographs, following a handwritten draft he had prepared. Shortly thereafter, the respondent began a trip abroad and was not available to review and approve the final figure for submission to NIH. In his absence, the materials were assembled and sent to NIH; subsequent to the submission, the complainant informed institutional officials that the photographs submitted to NIH were incorrectly labeled. Upon his return, the respondent was questioned by institutional officials regarding the mislabeled photographs, and he provided a written response as requested. Following the submission of his response to the allegations, an inquiry committee was formed to explore the allegations further, and it recommended that an investigation be initiated. At about the same time, the respondent made counter-allegations against the complainant, alleging the complainant had altered data in his laboratory notebook. The investigation committee determined that the photographs submitted to NIH did not match the figure legend, and it concluded that the respondent was guilty of research misconduct by causing the submission of false material to NIH. The Investigation committee also concluded that one of the respondent’s laboratory staff also was guilty of research misconduct for his role in the submission of the questionable materials to NIH. Although the Investigation committee did acknowledge that the complainant also was aware that the respondent intended to submit inaccurate data, it did not investigate the complainant’s conduct because the Inquiry committee had not recommended an investigation of that issue. Furthermore, the Investigation committee did not find evidence to support the respondent’s counter-allegation against the complainant. ORI concluded that, given the breakdown in coordination and communication among the individuals responsible for the preparation of the supplemental information, it was plausible that errors and oversights in the handling of the materials may have occurred, which would constitute honest error, and so ORI determined that there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of misconduct under the PHS definition. Falsification: Two former collaborators alleged that a faculty researcher had knowingly reported results that were obtained by unreliable methods and had concealed some details of those methods in preparing abstracts, papers, and PHS grant applications. Specifically, the researcher was alleged to falsified the description of the methodology in a publication by selectively reporting research methods and reporting methods that he knew did not work. The institution conducted an inquiry and investigation into the matter and the committee found "research dishonesty" on the part of the respondent. However, the institution did not accept this conclusion and found that the respondent’s actions did not constitute research misconduct. ORI reviewed the institution’s report, and the respondent’s poor record keeping, his lack of familiarity with some of the research methods, and his failure to maintain communication about the methods and results with his collaborators. ORI determined that the matter was not sufficiently serious to warrant an ORI finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: ORI reviewed an institution’s report of an investigation into alleged falsified information regarding the isolation and identification of a breast cancer tumor marker and its potential in cancer prognosis. The alleged falsifications occurred in a published article and an unfiled patent application. The investigation committee reviewed the immunohistologic and clinical data and analyses in detail. Of 79 sets of case records examined, the committee found problems with approximately one-third but no bias which favored the authors’ hypothesis. Thus, the committee found numerous errors and mistakes, but no evidence of intentional misrepresentation. Overall, the committee found that the evidence for the clinical utility of the marker was ambiguous but that this was not uncommon in studies of this type. While ORI did not evaluate all technical aspects of the research, it reviewed the record of the investigation and accepted the investigation’s overall conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of intentional misrepresentation to find research misconduct. Falsification: The respondent was accused of falsifying eligibility forms for a multicenter clinical trial on which she was the lead nurse coordinator. The institutional investigation concluded that she had been responsible for one instance of data alteration, which she claimed she had made based on her knowledge about the patient. The committee determined that this one instance had been an error in judgment resulting from inadequate training with regard to data reporting requirements and inadequate supervision. Thus, the institution did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. ORI concurred with the institution and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Fabrication/Falsification: Based on an investigation conducted by the former Office of Scientific Integrity and ORI’s review of that investigation, ORI charged Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari of Tufts University with multiple counts of falsification and fabrication of data in a published paper and NIH grant applications. The research in question was conducted by Dr. Imanishi-Kari while she was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Evidence supporting the charges was based on forensic analysis prepared by the United States Secret Service, expert statistical analysis, expert scientific analysis, and factual testimony. Dr. Imanishi-Kari requested a hearing regarding the ORI findings. The HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) held a lengthy hearing and issued a written decision overturning the ORI findings of research misconduct. The DAB decision found that the published research of Dr. Imanishi-Kari contained many flaws and errors, but that the weight of the evidence did not support the forensic, statistical, and scientific findings of fraud or intentional misrepresentation. Copies of DAB decisions may be obtained by calling the DAB at 202-690-5501 or are available on the Internet at: http://www.os.dhhs.gov/progorg/dab/dab_search.html Fabrication/Falsification: A former fellow was accused of fabrication or falsification of data when the laboratory director and a graduate student were unable to replicate his findings and available relevant data were inconsistent with his reported and unpublished results. The suspected results were published in five articles and presented at seminars. The respondent initially reported that some of his notebooks had been lost during his moves. Other data sources suggested by the respondent were unable to produce any relevant data. An institutional inquiry recommended an investigation. During the investigation, the respondent produced two notebooks which contained data that likely formed the basis for at least some of the published results and a summary report of equipment charges that indicated he had conducted numerous additional experiments that were not included in the institutional database. The respondent also informed the laboratory director and graduate student about the technical difficulties involved in doing this research which may have interfered with the replication of his findings. He called attention to some of these difficulties in a correction that was published to one article before the allegation was made. The committee could neither prove nor disprove the respondent’s claim that the discrepancy between the labeling on plots on a composite slide and the original computer plots was a result of inadequate labeling of the original computer plots. The institution concluded there was insufficient evidence to find research misconduct. ORI concurred with the decision. Fabrication/Falsification: Two respondents were charged with falsifying their academic titles and the submission and/or publication status of numerous research manuscripts in numerous grant applications. One of the respondents accepted responsibility for the misstatements and the institutional investigation found that there was a clear pattern of sloppiness and inattention to critical details on the part of that respondent, but no compelling case for finding research misconduct against either respondent. The institution took remedial actions to correct the falsifications. ORI concurred with the institution’s finding and determined that insufficient evidence existed to warrant a PHS finding of research misconduct. Fabrication/Falsification: ORI investigated allegations that research data reported on forms for a multi-site clinical trial contained possibly falsified and fabricated results. Discrepancies in the reporting of research data by one of the sites was reported to ORI by a NIH research integrity officer. Protocol monitors had performed a routine clinic monitoring site visit and found the following discrepancies: (1) consent forms for enrollment that were dated after the date of random treatment assignment for four patients; (2) of the 21 audited records, the audit team was unable to document required meetings of medical specialists with four patients prior to their random treatment assignment; (3) one patient may not have received the complete oncologic evaluation to rule out a particular disease prior to enrollment; and (4) in the case of four follow up examinations for four patients, there were no records that the examinations and procedures reported by the clinic coordinator had taken place. ORI opened a formal investigation approximately a month after it began reviewing the records as part of its inquiry into the allegations. After reviewing the records and interviewing staff at the institution, ORI concluded that the data discrepancies were most likely the result of ignorance, unintentional error, and careless reporting of research data. These conclusions were based on the following: (1) the clinic coordinators did not have a thorough working understanding of the protocol; (2) in many cases, outside physicians filled in the research forms rather than certified staff; (3) outside physicians telephoned the institution with the results of procedures without maintaining the documentation to support the data; (4) equipment malfunctioned; and (5) there was a lack of supervision of the clinic coordinators’ performance. Therefore, ORI did not make a finding of misconduct in this case. Fabrication/Falsification: A faculty researcher was accused by a post-doctoral fellow in his lab of fabricating and falsifying research results. The postdoctoral fellow had reviewed the respondent’s recent program project grant, noting that there was an inconsistency in a figure and the associated text and that the availability of an experimental substance had been misrepresented. Based on a review of these allegations, the Associate Dean initiated an inquiry. The inquiry committee, after interviews with the respondent, complainant, and others, raised additional concerns regarding possible unsubstantiated claims in the respondent’s grant applications, and an investigation was recommended. During the course of the investigation, the respondent acknowledged that he had made an error and transposed the labels on a figure in a grant application. The investigation committee noted that the issue was minor, and that the correct information would have been more impressive in the grant application. Other allegations were found to be without merit by the investigation committee because the complainant apparently was unaware of previous work performed by the respondent and his colleagues, and the complainant did not have adequate knowledge of the properties of some of the experimental materials. Other claims that the respondent made in various grant applications were judged to be either over-interpretations or exaggerations, but did not constitute research misconduct. The Investigation committee acknowledged that the respondent’s project was both experimentally difficult as well as scientifically exciting, and that the lack of experience and expertise on the part of the respondent and the post-doctoral researcher may have contributed to the misinterpretation of experimental results. ORI concurred with the institutional finding that there was insufficient evidence to deceive on the part of the respondent to warrant a finding of research misconduct. Falsification/Plagiarism: The respondent was charged with plagiarizing and falsifying research data included in an unpublished manuscript. The institutional investigation concluded that, although the respondent had used misleading phraseology in the questioned manuscript, a misunderstanding and miscommunication had occurred between two colleagues. Thus, the institution found that insufficient evidence existed to make a finding of research misconduct in this case. ORI concurred with the institution’s report and conclusions and found insufficient evidence to make a finding of research misconduct. Plagiarism/Serious Deviation from Accepted Practices: Five faculty researchers were alleged to have misused the grant review process by plagiarizing several sentences or passages in a grant application submitted to the PHS after one of the researchers served as a reviewer of a different grant application from another institution. ORI brought the allegations to the attention of the institution, and the institution conducted an inquiry and investigation into the matter. In reviewing the institution’s report and the supporting evidence presented, ORI accepted the institution’s finding that incorporation of identical wording about a proposed program from the reviewed application into the text of the application in question was the result of a series of errors and negligence on the part of several individuals, but did not rise to the level of research misconduct. Therefore, ORI did not find research misconduct under the PHS definition on the part of any of the individuals involved in the preparation of the grant application. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
