|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 2000
Fabrication: The respondent, a professor, allegedly fabricated
linkage data on a human disease for a figure in a published paper.
The questioned research was supported by grants from the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Center for Research
Resources (NCRR), and National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR),
of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The institution conducted
an inquiry into the matter and determined that this case involved
a dispute between two collaborators involving a third party, with
no evidence found of misrepresentation of results. The institution
concluded that no further investigation was warranted. ORI accepted
the institution's conclusion.
Falsification: A reviewer of a Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) grant application to the NIH alleged that the application,
which contained two pages of theory-equations and text marked "proprietary,"
was plagiarized from a conference proceedings paper by other investigators.
As the respondent was the president of the small business, ORI arranged
for another local institution to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry
committee found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further
investigation. The committee accepted as plausible the respondent's
claims: (1) that he had been given the questioned, unattributed text
by a postdoctoral fellow who wanted to work with him, but left the
country and could not be located, and that the respondent used the
material without knowing that it came from another source; and (2)
that the material had been accidently copied onto pages marked "proprietary" by outside staff in a rush to meet the submission deadline, and other
related applications did not contain this error. In its oversight
review, ORI found that the copied text was background/methods material
lacking much significance for the research proposed in the SBIR application.
Furthermore, upon being informed, the applicant immediately submitted
to NIH alternative text with appropriate citations for his pending
applications. Therefore, ORI concurred with the inquiry committee's
conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further
investigation.
Falsification: The respondent, a staff investigator, allegedly
falsified the results of experiments in a publication involving research
on human and animal viruses. The research was supported by three grants
from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),
NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and determined
that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.
However, the institution recommended that the authors of the questioned
publication submit an erratum to correct errors in the publication
and that the respondent be counseled about improving data management
practices. ORI accepted the institution's conclusion that there was
insufficient evidence available to warrant further investigation.
Falsification: The respondents allegedly falsified and/or
fabricated the results in three published papers on the development
of virus-induced disease in animal ears. The research was supported
by three grants from the National Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders (NIDCD), NIH. The institution conducted an
inquiry into the matter and determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant further investigation. The authors had acknowledged
in the paper that mechanical damage had occurred in the viral-injection
process. ORI considered this adequate notice that data from these
damaged ears were included in the paper and found there was sufficient
scientific justification for inclusion of the data, thus refuting
the alleged falsification. ORI concurred with the institution's determination
in this case.
Falsification: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly
falsified the publication status of manuscripts listed in his biographical
sketch in two NIH grant applications. The institution conducted an
inquiry into the matter. The institution found it plausible that the
respondent's inconsistencies in listing papers had resulted from errors
in cutting and pasting from previous documents, from typographical
errors (getting the wrong journal name and year), and from errors
in judgment in preparing the biographical sketches, rather than an
intent to deceive the reviewers. ORI accepted the institution's inquiry
report, and ORI concluded that there was insufficient evidence on
the part of the respondent to warrant further investigation.
Falsification: The complainant alleged that the three respondents
had included falsified data in a table of a published paper on the
effects of transplants on recovery from spinal cord injury in rats
since the complainant's experiments gave different results. The work
was supported by an NIH grant. The institution conducted an inquiry
into the matter and concluded that the complainant had not documented
his experiments to permit a comparison with the published data, so
no further examination of the data was necessary. Two of the respondents
and another witness expressed confidence in the published results.
ORI concurred with the institution that there was insufficient evidence
of research misconduct to warrant further investigation.
Falsification: The respondent, an associate professor at two
institutions, allegedly falsified data in two publications on the
three-dimensional structure of a protein and the cloning of its gene
that were supported by NIH grants. The institution conducted an inquiry
into the matter and concluded that, based on the evidence of experiments
performed at a new institution by the respondent, there was insufficient
evidence to warrant further investigation. ORI concurred with the
institution's conclusion.
Falsification: The institution conducted an inquiry into whether
the respondent, a research assistant, had falsified patient interview
data for a pilot study of drug effects on human beings and entered
the allegedly false data into a computer system. The research was
sponsored by an NIH cooperative agreement. Because the contractor
had erased the computer files before the inquiry began, the complainant
refused to be interviewed, and the inquiry did not identify any additional
reliable evidence to confirm the allegation, the inquiry committee
determined that there was insufficient evidence to support moving
to an investigation. However, because of concerns for the accuracy
of the questioned data, the institution and the contractor did not
include that data in the study's final conclusion and analysis. ORI's
oversight concluded that further investigation was unlikely to produce
additional credible evidence of falsification. Therefore, ORI concurred
with the institution's conclusion that a formal investigation was
not warranted.
Falsification: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly
falsified data in a published paper and in an NIH grant application.
The questioned research involved the cloning of genes in the regulation
of signal transduction. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined
that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.
The institution concluded that the complainant may have misunderstood
the nature of the previously isolated clones and the reason that the
complainant had been requested to isolate new clones. ORI concurred
with the institution's determination in this matter.
Falsification: An audit of clinical records suggested that
unknown persons may have falsified patient eligibility data in a cancer
prevention trial. The research was supported by an NIH cooperative
agreement. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and
determined that an investigation into possible falsification of patient
records was not warranted. In one instance, the patient or spouse
may have altered the records to increase the patient's chance of enrollment
in the trial, but the evidence was insufficient to prove this. In
another case, the patient apparently had been registered in error,
given reports of recurrent disease. ORI concurred with the institution's
determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant further
investigation.
Fabrication/Falsification: The respondent, an associate research
scientist, allegedly fabricated or falsified interview data in research
involving treatment of cocaine abusers. The questioned research was
supported by an NIH grant, and the data were presented as results
of a pilot study in an NIH grant application. The institution conducted
an inquiry into the matter and concluded that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant further investigation. ORI accepted the institution's
conclusion.
Fabrication/Falsification: The respondent, a research assistant,
allegedly falsified or fabricated telephone interview data in research
on the effectiveness of various therapeutic interventions for substance
abuse. The research was supported by three grants from the National
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), NIH. The institution conducted an
inquiry and concluded that the inability of four subjects to recall
being interviewed by the respondent was insufficient evidence to warrant
further investigation. Assessment of available telephone logs or the
questioned interview forms themselves was inadequate to provide any
useful independent information. There were also mixed opinions by
the project research staff about the reliability of such recall by
the subjects involved. ORI concurred with the institution's conclusion.
Falsification: The respondent, a research assistant professor, allegedly
falsified information about the treatment of 1 of 20 subjects included
in draft material for an abstract, a publication, and an NIH grant
progress report. The institution originally informed ORI that the
respondent had admitted to acts that constituted research misconduct.
However, on being contacted by ORI, the respondent denied making any
such admission and appealed the institution's initial conclusion.
Subsequently, the institution decided to conduct an investigation
into the matter. Its report concluded that the respondent had believed
the data included were accurate; therefore, the institution did not
make a finding of research misconduct. ORI accepted the institution's
report. However, given the numerous discrepancies in the testimony
of the principals and some of the witnesses, as well as the absence
of documentation for the research materials in question, ORI considers
several significant factual matters in this case to be unresolvable
and does not make a finding of research misconduct.
Falsification: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly
falsified research on genes and enzymes involved in detoxification
of organic compounds in humans. The research was supported by an NIH
grant, and preliminary data from this research was included in an
NIH grant application and two publications. The institutions with
which the respondent was affiliated conducted an investigation into
the matter. The institutions concluded that there was a lack of sufficient
evidence to conclude that the respondent had falsified or fabricated
research. However, the institutions found the respondent's publication
of data, for which there was no longer any record, represented a significant
deviation from commonly accepted scientific practice. ORI conducted
an oversight review and determined that there was insufficient evidence
to determine whether or not the respondent falsified the research.
The institutions had required the respondent to retract the two papers,
and publications from other laboratories had refuted those findings,
so ORI determined that no additional PHS action was warranted. Thus,
there is no PHS finding of research misconduct in this case.
Falsification: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly
falsified results in research involving growth factors in the repair
of damaged tissues and included these results in two publications.
The research was supported by an NIH grant. The institution conducted
an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that the
respondent had been negligent in reporting the results of the research
and had made significant errors, and the institution issued a reprimand.
However, the institution did not find that the respondent committed
research misconduct under the PHS definition. ORI concurred with
the institution's determination and did not make a finding of scientific
misconduct in this case.
Falsification: The respondent, a nurse coordinator, allegedly
falsified dates of patient treatments or procedures on research documents,
including Case Report Forms, in a multicenter clinical trial involving
research on bladder cancer. The clinical trial was supported in part
by an NIH cooperative agreement. The institution conducted an investigation
into the matter and concluded that insufficient evidence existed to
make a finding of research misconduct against the respondent. ORI
concurred with the institution's determination and did not make a
finding of research misconduct in this case.
Fabrication/Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly
falsified or fabricated research results on transgenic mice and included
the questioned results in a table in a published paper. The questioned
research was supported by two grants from the NHLBI, NIH, and was
included in a grant application and a renewal grant application submitted
to the NIAID, NIH. The institution conducted an investigation into
the matter and found research records to support the published results.
The institution concluded that there was no research misconduct on
the part of the respondent. ORI accepted the institution's conclusion
and found insufficient evidence to make a finding of research misconduct
in this case.
Falsification/Plagiarism: The respondent, a professor, allegedly
copied and falsified material from a former student's grant application,
including a portion of a statement about imaging equipment, into his
own grant application submitted to the NIH. The institution conducted
an investigation into the matter, which concluded that the respondent
had committed research misconduct by misrepresenting his ability to
conduct the research outlined in his grant application and falsifying
information in the application. However, ORI did not make a finding
of research misconduct in this case because ORI does not consider
the alleged use of a former collaborator's material to fall under
ORI's definition of plagiarism. As indicated in the institution's
report, whether the misrepresentation was willfully or carelessly
performed could not be determined; ORI found that the evidence of
the respondent's intent to falsify the disputed statement and to deceive
the NIH reviewers was mixed.
|
Assurance
