Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 2001Falsification: The respondents, a professor and an associate professor, allegedly falsified research data in research involving growth factors and anti-cancer drugs and included the questioned data in a published paper. The questioned research was supported by three grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and determined that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant an investigation under the institution's disciplinary rules. In conducting the inquiry, the committee confirmed the existence of the questioned data. In accepting the institution's conclusion, ORI examined two additional manuscripts that reproduced and extended the results and noted that no evidence was presented that confirmed the allegations. Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified research results that were reported in a published paper on motor control in animals. The questioned paper cited support from the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that the facts of the case did not support the allegation of research misconduct and determined that no further investigation was warranted. ORI concurred with the institution's determination. Falsification: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly used false data for three figures in a research grant application submitted to the NCI, NIH. The questioned research involved the development of a high energy proton beam source and its exploitation to deliver therapeutic doses in radiation oncology. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that the evidence did not warrant an investigation into research misconduct. ORI determined that the evidence indicated that the misrepresentations of the figures in the questioned grant application were consistent with honest errors on the part of the respondent and concurred with the institution's conclusion that an investigation was not warranted. Falsification: The respondent, a research nurse, allegedly falsified screening logs and patient questionnaires and activities records in a clinical research project involving problems of cancer patients. The questioned research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that while there were deficiencies in the screening process and in the data collection methodology, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution's factual findings and determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Falsification: An anonymous complainant alleged that the respondents, who are associate professors, allegedly falsified data in recent publications by inappropriate selection of data, using different doses of radiation from case animals and control animals to ensure statistical significance in their published case-control studies. The questioned research was supported by five NCI, NIH, grants. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded, after an exhaustive review of the primary data and interviews with the respondents, that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. ORI accepted the institution's conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of falsification or fabrication to warrant any further investigation in this case. Fabrication: The respondent, a staff interviewer, allegedly fabricated records for two interviews on one day, in a behavioral research study involving sensitive behaviors, under a cooperative agreement funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The respondent, who claimed to have conducted the interviews, failed to respond during the investigation. The institution concluded the respondent had fabricated the interview records and forged payment receipts for the two subjects. However, ORI concluded that the evidence may be insufficient to sustain a PHS finding of research misconduct. Therefore, ORI accepted the institution's factual findings, but did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondent, a research nurse, allegedly falsified research data for human subjects in a study involving hypertension and kidney disease. The study in question was supported in part by the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that an investigation was warranted for certain issues not resolved by the inquiry. Upon completion of its investigation, the institution determined that the allegations were unfounded and recommended dismissal of the allegations. ORI accepted the institution's findings of fact and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to resolve definitively the allegations of falsification. Falsification: The respondent, a graduate student, allegedly falsified research for a section of his doctoral dissertation in research on brain control of animal movements. The questioned research was supported by two National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, grants. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that an electronic file containing data from the questioned research was copied and represented as data from an independent experimental measurement. However, it was not possible for the institution to determine who was responsible for the file being copied or whether the copying was intentional. Thus, the institution found that since neither the identity nor the intent of the responsible party could be established, no finding of research misconduct could be made. ORI concluded that the evidence was insufficient to determine whether duplication and misrepresentation of computer files represented an intentional and significant falsification of data for the limited set of control experiments in question. Given the inconsistencies in the evidence, ORI concurred with the institution's determination that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the respondent was responsible, and ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a senior scientist and chief nurse, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data on patient interview forms in a study involving surgical treatment of a disease. The study in question received funding from the NHLBI, NIH. The institution conducted an investigation and determined that the respondent had falsified dates on patient interview forms but had not falsified or fabricated any other information. Based on information gained from its extensive oversight review, ORI decided to close the matter without taking further action. Specifically, ORI considered: (1) the time lag of approximately 10 years between the alleged misconduct and the completion of the institutional process (including several appeals by the respondent); (2) the sufficiency of the administrative actions already imposed on the respondent by the institution to protect the integrity of the research record; and (3) the respondent's retirement and lack of current participation in Public Health Service research. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
