Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 1999Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified research results on monoclonal antibodies in two manuscripts. The research in question was supported by two NIH grants. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that one instance of data falsification had taken place. However, because of several factors, including the University's failure to follow proper procedures in the sequestration, documentation, and handling of the evidence and shortcomings in its review, ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondent, a laboratory assistant, allegedly falsified results on the effect of a neuropeptide in brain slices for a published abstract and a poster presentation. The research in question was supported by three NIH grants. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that falsified data had been included in the poster presentation. However, questions of intent and culpability remained unresolved, and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the respondent had committed scientific misconduct. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, ORI accepted the institution's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondent allegedly falsely claimed in several NIH grant applications that he had been awarded a Ph.D. degree before he had completed the requirements for the degree. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that the respondent had misrepresented his credentials. However, the institution noted that there had been a delay in the awarding of the respondent's degree due to factors beyond his control. Thus, the institution concluded that while the misrepresentation constituted a grave error, it did not rise to the level of research misconduct. ORI noted that the Ph.D. was a second doctoral level degree for the respondent, who already held another qualifying degree. ORI accepted the institution's analysis and did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondents allegedly intentionally mislabeled mouse cage cards to disguise the experimental inoculation of mice with a virus absent appropriate institutional review committee approval. The research in question was supported by NIH grants. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that the respondents had committed misconduct. However, ORI determined that the acts involved, and the institutional findings in this case, were more appropriately considered questions about the use of animals and the safety of employees, which falls outside of the PHS definition of research misconduct. Therefore, ORI accepted the institution's factual findings in this matter but did not make a finding of scientific misconduct under the PHS definition. Plagiarism: The respondent allegedly plagiarized text from another investigator's application for use in his own grant application submitted to the NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined that there was sufficient evidence that the respondent had incorporated text directly from another investigator's application. However, the institution determined that the text did not represent the investigator's original ideas and was not central or extensive in the respondent's grant application. ORI accepted the institution's report and did not make a finding of research misconduct in this matter. Plagiarism: The respondent, a graduate student, allegedly included material plagiarized from another student's thesis, two journal articles, and a textbook chapter in the first draft of a doctoral thesis. The research in question was supported by an NIH grant. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that the respondent had plagiarized the statements of others and included them in the background section of a first draft of a thesis without appropriate citation and attribution. ORI accepted the institution's investigation report but did not make a finding of research misconduct based on the following factors: the material represented background information, most of which was obtained from the respondent's own laboratory; the lack of significance of the background material; the lack of intent to deceive; and the plausibility of an honest but mistaken judgment by the accused scientist. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data on the drug treatment of animals as a human disease model, which were included in a manuscript that was submitted for publication. The research in question was supported by an NIH grant, and the questioned results were included in applications for an NIH cooperative agreement. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that some of the data in one table of the manuscript had been falsified or fabricated. The falsified and fabricated data were also presented in various talks by both the respondent and complainant. However, the institution was not able to determine who had falsified the data and did not make a finding of scientific misconduct. Given that the institution could not determine who was ultimately responsible for the false data, ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct and did not take any further action in this case. Falsification/Fabrication: Falsified or fabricated data and information were allegedly collected and submitted to the coordinating center of a multi-center clinical study involving hormonal and other treatments of normal post-menopausal women. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution determined that the data discrepancies were symptomatic of the overall mismanagement and disorganization of the study at the site in question and were not the result of research misconduct. ORI accepted the institution's conclusion that the discrepancies in the questioned data were not the result of falsification or fabrication but did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification/Plagiarism: The respondent allegedly falsified a figure in a grant application submitted to NIH, and committed plagiarism or seriously deviated from commonly accepted practices for conducting research within the scientific community. The respondent allegedly retained a grant application and an unpublished manuscript that he had obtained as a member of an NIH scientific review committee and used these documents to plan similar experiments. The questioned research involved the characterization of antibodies directed at receptors in cultured cells. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and found that one figure in the grant application was false. However, there was insufficient evidence for ORI to determine who was responsible for the falsification. The institution also determined that the respondent had violated the confidentiality provisions that he had agreed to as a member of an NIH scientific review group by retaining a grant application and unpublished manuscript for use in his own research, which was a serious deviation from commonly accepted practices within the scientific community for conducting research, but was not serious plagiarism. ORI determined that the respondent's abuse of the NIH peer review process should be referred to NIH for handling, but did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case because the respondent's experiment was directed at a different biological specimen and was undertaken after similar experiments were published and then in the public domain. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
