Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 2003Fabrication: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly fabricated research data included in an NICHD, NIH, grant application. The questioned research involved molecular biological underlying nerve development in the mammalian brain. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that while fabrication of research data may have occurred, scientific misconduct could not be determined for any specific individual. ORI concurred with the institution’s conclusion and did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Fabrication: The respondent, a patient recruiter for a clinical study, allegedly fabricated recruitment questionnaire records for more than 50 subjects in a study of a hereditary blood disorder. The questioned research was supported by a National Institute for Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, contract. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that based on a preponderance of the evidence, the respondent had fabricated questionnaires for numerous subjects. ORI accepted the institution’s report. However, after assessing the evidence supporting the alleged fabrication, ORI determined that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a PHS finding of research misconduct against the respondent. Nonetheless, ORI recognized the authority of the institution to establish and implement its own institutional standards for integrity in science. Falsification: The respondent, a research scientist, allegedly falsified scientific data by altering subjects’ diagnoses so that subjects who did not meet the study eligibility requirements would be eligible for a study involving depression. The questioned research was part of a multi-site collaborative study supported by a National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), NIH, grant. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that a preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding of research misconduct in this case. ORI accepted the institution’s determination and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: The respondent, a research associate, allegedly falsified data reported in a manuscript submitted to a journal for publication. The research in question was supported by an NHLBI, NIH, grant. The research involved coronary blood flow in diabetic rats. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that the preponderance of the evidence in this case did not support a finding of research misconduct, but rather serious errors, precipitated by negligence and sloppiness, had occurred. ORI accepted the institution’s determination and did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondent, an adjunct associate professor or research professor, allegedly misrepresented key study personnel, falsified his credentials, falsified the numbers of enrolled subjects, and falsified or fabricated data for pilot studies in research involving behavioral interventions on the risk of HIV/AIDS. The questioned research was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism (NIAAA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and NICHD, NIH, grants. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution could not find records to support the claims for pilot research studies and concluded that a falsified number for subjects had been reported in a progress report. The institution also determined that the respondent, as principal investigator, had neglected his responsibilities, including those to obtain proper informed consent from research subjects and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for research projects, which represented serious deviations from the standards for the conduct of research expected at the institution. ORI accepted the institution’s report, but ORI declined to propose PHS findings of research misconduct on any of the issues in this case. Nonetheless, ORI recognized the authority of the institution to establish and implement its own institutional standards for integrity in science and to make findings on issues that include and go beyond those considered by ORI in this matter. Falsification: The respondent, a research assistant professor, allegedly falsified data included in a National Institute of Aging (NIA), NIH, career development award application. The research involved the potential role of cell cycle regulatory proteins in different degenerative diseases of neural tissues, including an animal model of Alzheimer’s Disease. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. The institution concluded that honest errors had been made by two members of the research group and that further investigation was unwarranted. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination and did not make a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly misrepresented study data, procedures, and results from a clinical trial in a publication on a medical syndrome. The research was supported by an NIH National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) General Clinical Research Centers (GCRC) Program grant. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that numerous misrepresentations had been made in the questioned publication and that the respondent had the opportunity to avoid these misrepresentations but failed to do so. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the institution found that the respondent had committed research misconduct in reporting study results in the questioned publication. ORI accepted the institution’s report, but, given the evidence, ORI declined to propose PHS findings of research misconduct on any of the issues in this case. Nonetheless, ORI recognized the authority of the institution to establish and implement its own institutional standards for integrity in science and to make findings on issues that include and go beyond those considered by ORI in this matter. Falsification: The respondents, an associate professor and an assistant professor, allegedly falsified data presented in a manuscript supported by two National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, grants. The questioned research involved a 2D sinogram restoration filter for PET reconstruction. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. The institution determined that there was no basis to proceed further with an investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination that there was insufficient evidence that this allegation involved research misconduct to warrant an investigation. Falsification: The respondent, a technician, allegedly falsified results in a study involving examination of the effects of growth factors on cells. The questioned results were included in two abstracts and the progress reports of two NHLBI, NIH, grants. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. Based on the respondent’s admission that she did not follow the protocol relating to the research project, the institution concluded the respondent had committed misconduct. ORI accepted the institution’s report. However, after assessing the evidence supporting the alleged falsification, the minimal role these experiments played in the overall focus of the research, and the respondent’s statements, ORI determined that appropriate institutional actions had been taken and did not recommend any further PHS action, thus declining to propose a PHS finding of research misconduct. Nonetheless, ORI recognized the authority of the institution to establish and implement its own institutional standards for integrity in science and to make findings on issues that include and go beyond those considered by ORI in this matter. Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified research results included in a poster presentation and published abstract. The research involved neurotrophins and an animal model of fibromyalgia. The research in question was supported by a National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), NIH, grant. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. The institution concluded that the misunderstandings and mistrust that had evolved between two researchers did not constitute misconduct nor warrant further inquiry or investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Plagiarism: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly plagiarized scientific ideas from a grant application and allegedly included the plagiarized ideas in a published paper. The research in question involved the study of the basic biology of urologic tissue. The paper in question cited support from an NCI, NIH, grant and a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and determined that there was no basis that would support a finding that the grant application had been a source for the published paper in question. Thus, the institution concluded that an investigation of this matter was not warranted. ORI accepted the institution’s determination that no further investigation was warranted. Plagiarism: The respondent, a medical consultant, allegedly plagiarized published materials from uncited sources in material prepared for National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) and National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), NIH, grant applications. The research involved development of new synthetic biomaterials for use in bone grafting. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that plagiarized materials had been presented in the background sections of the questioned grant applications, but it could not be determined who was responsible for the inclusion of the plagiarized materials. Further, the institution concluded that the plagiarized materials were in the background sections only and were of relatively small significance to the evaluation of the grant applications. Therefore, the institution did not make a finding of research misconduct. ORI accepted the institution’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of plagiarism in the insertion of the questioned material into NIH grant applications by a specific person, and ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct. Fabrication/Falsification: The respondent, a research assistant, allegedly fabricated or falsified demographic data for control subjects in a research study involving cognitive symptoms of a debilitating disease. The questioned research was supported by an NICHD, NIH, grant. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution found that the respondent had committed misconduct of a minor nature that did not affect the results of the study. ORI accepted the institution’s report but declined to pursue a finding of research misconduct in this case. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondents, a professor and/or coauthors, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data and results presented in a published paper. The questioned research involved the effect of abnormalities in catalase import into peroxisomes. The research was supported by an NINDS, NIH, grant. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter. The institution determined that there was not sufficient evidence available to conduct a research misconduct investigation. ORI accepted the institution’s conclusion that, based on the available evidence and given the absence of other relevant evidence that could be pursued, no further investigation was warranted. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a former study coordinator, allegedly falsified or fabricated pill count forms and symptom checklists in a breast cancer prevention trial supported by an NCI, NIH, cooperative agreement. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that the respondent had engaged in falsification or fabrication on two pill count forms and symptom checklists. However, ORI declined to pursue a PHS finding of scientific misconduct after consideration of the significance of the misconduct, the weight of the evidence, and the allocation of Federal resources, among other considerations. Plagiarism, Falsification, and Fabrication: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly plagiarized, falsified, and fabricated data in a grant application submitted to the NHLBI, NIH. The research involved signals for cell survival in endothelial tissues. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter. The institution concluded that while there was some evidence that plagiarism had occurred, there was no evidence that the respondent had been knowingly involved. ORI accepted the institution’s determination and did not make a finding of research misconduct against the respondent in this case. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
