Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 2006Falsification: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly fabricated data for research involving the determination of the prevalence and the identification of trematodes. The research was supported by a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The institution conducted an investigation and found that scientific misconduct had occurred. ORI accepted the institution's report as fulfilling its reporting requirements to the U.S. Public Health Service, but concluded that the misconduct did not warrant further PHS action. Thus, ORI did not pursue the institution's misconduct findings.Falsification: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly misrepresented and/or falsified claims made in a published paper. The questioned research involved the study of a bone morphogenic protein inhibitor and its effects on osteoblast differentiation and bone formation, especially during biological aging. The research was supported by two National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants, and two National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS, NIH, grants. The institution conducted an inquiry and concluded that there was no evidence of misconduct to warrant proceeding to an investigation. However, the institution noted that the allegations would never have been brought forth if better laboratory management practices had been followed. Thus, the institution directed the respondent to complete a laboratory management and ethics course. ORI accepted the institution's conclusion that further investigation was not warranted. Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified or misrepresented data in research involving an apparently unique regulatory DNA sequence in a gene thought to play a significant role in human prostate cancer. The questioned research was supported by a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The institution conducted an assessment and concluded that there was insufficient evidence in the record to warrant an inquiry. ORI accepted the institution's report and concurred with its determination in this case. Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified data in a grant application submitted to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The research involved viral vectors used in gene therapy. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the respondent had intentionally falsified data. ORI concurred with the institution and did not make a finding of scientific misconduct in this case. Falsification: The respondents, a research instructor and a division director, allegedly falsified data in a manuscript and other publications. The research was supported by a National Institute of Heart, Lung, and Blood (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant, and three National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grants. The questioned research involved gene regulation through alterations in RNA stability and post-transcriptional processing. The institution conducted an investigation and found that research misconduct had occurred. ORI accepted the institution's report as fulfilling its reporting requirements to the U.S. Public Health Service, but concluded that the allegations of research misconduct were not resolvable. Thus, ORI decided to close this matter without further action and did not pursue the institution's misconduct findings. Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified a figure in a published paper on a human cancer of the blood. The questioned study was supported by a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The institution conducted an inquiry and concluded that there was insufficient credible evidence of research misconduct to warrant further investigation. ORI accepted the factual findings of the institution and concurred that further investigation was not warranted in this case. Falsification: The respondents, a professor and a graduate student, allegedly falsified data in for research involving the molecular causes of cardiac hypertrophy and congestive heart failure. The research was supported by a two National Heart, Lung, and Blood (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants, and a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant. The institution conducted an investigation and did not make a finding of misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution's conclusion. Falsification: The respondent, a postdoctoral associate, allegedly falsified multiple images in manuscripts submitted to two journals for publication. The questioned research involved the molecular characterization of the Akt signaling pathway in human cancers and identification of components in the pathway as potential targets for drug therapies. The research was supported by two National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants. The institution conducted an investigation. The institution determined that while the primary data was not accurately depicted in the paper and the respondent acted carelessly, there was no intent to deceive and the errors did not alter the conclusions drawn in the questioned papers. Thus, the institution did not make a finding of misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution that the respondent's poor record keeping and lack of adequate laboratory notebooks contributed to honest errors. ORI accepted the institution's determination and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: The respondents, an associate professor and a research associate, allegedly falsified data in three figures included in a grant application submitted to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The questioned research involved confocal visualizations for studying mechanisms of resensitization through endocytic recycling of G-protein coupled receptors. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined that while insufficient care was obvious in the preparation of the figures, the experiments in question had been conducted and the results had been achieved as claimed. Thus, the institution concluded that further investigation was not warranted. ORI concurred with the institution's determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Falsification: The respondent, a staff clinician, allegedly falsified data in research supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The questioned research involved the transfection of T-cells with a gene linked to yellow fluorescent protein to study autoimmunity. The institution conducted an inquiry and concluded that no further investigation was warranted. ORI accepted the institution's report as fulfilling the institution's reporting requirement and concurred with the institution that no further investigation was warranted. However, ORI noted that there were several compliance issues in this case and addressed these with the institution. Falsification: The respondent, a senior research associate, allegedly falsified data in research supported by a National Heart, Lung, and Blood (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The questioned research involved the development of novel therapies for patients with Fanconi Anemia. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that the respondent had conducted negligent research that led to Falsification of data. However, while the respondent was negligent in managing the data, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the institution could not conclude that the Falsification was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard of expected standards of the research community. ORI accepted the factual findings of the investigation committee, but the procedural deficiencies and the lack of explicit documentation to establish an intentional Falsification of data were problematic in this case. Thus, ORI was unable to resolve whether research misconduct had occurred. Falsification: The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly falsified data in supplementary information to a grant application submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The questioned research involved a mouse model designed to study genes thought to play an essential role in the development of human uterine cancer. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation and concluded that misconduct had occurred. ORI concurred with the institution's determination that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of research misconduct. However, after a thorough review of all available documentation, ORI determined that no further U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) action was warranted. ORI recognized the institution's authority to establish and implement its own standards for integrity and to make its own determination in this matter. Fabrication: The respondent, a graduate student, allegedly fabricated data to be used in a poster presentation at an external meeting. The questioned research involved the study of the regulation of a "timeless" (TIM) protein important in the control of circadian rhythm in fruit flies. The research was supported by a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes (NINDS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation and concluded that misconduct had occurred. ORI accepted the institution's report and concluded that the allegations of research misconduct were substantiated. However, ORI did not find the misconduct to be significant enough to warrant PHS action and found that the administrative actions taken by the institution in this case were sufficient. ORI recognized the institution's authority to establish and implement its own standards for integrity and to make its own determination in this matter. Fabrication: The respondent, a senior research coordinator, allegedly fabricated research records, including survey instruments, for several patients in a study of emotional writing and cancer. The research was supported by a National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The institution conducted a process after the respondent's limited admission and found that research misconduct had occurred. ORI could not accept the institution's report as fulfilling its reporting requirements to the U.S. Public Health Service and could not pursue the institution's misconduct findings. Fabrication: The respondent, an interviewer, allegedly fabricated interview data for a study that examined, by surveying 1000 young healthy adults, how race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, socio-demographic factors, and exposure to environmental toxicants can lead to racial and socioeconomic disparity in cardiovascular disease. The questioned work was supported by a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The study director concluded that the respondent had fabricated massive amounts of information in 42 interviews. Because of the failure of the institution to conduct an adequate inquiry or investigation, ORI declined to make or propose any PHS findings of scientific misconduct. Fabrication/Falsification: The respondents, an assistant professor and a clinical research coordinator, allegedly fabricated and/or falsified experimental data in a clinical trial supported by a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), contract. The questioned research involved a comparison of the effectiveness and side effects of five different medications for treating people with a psychiatric disorder. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation. The institution determined that the respondents had fabricated and/or falsified experimental data. However, ORI found no evidence of intent or motivation to commit scientific misconduct and found that the factual evidence presented in the institution's investigation is weak, incomplete, ambiguous, and in some cases contradictory. Thus, DIO concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make a PHS finding of scientific misconduct. ORI recognized the institution's authority to establish and implement its own standards for integrity and to make its own determination in this matter. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a postdoctoral fellow, allegedly falsified and fabricated data in research supported by a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The questioned research broadly involved the interactions among the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and dopaminergic systems toward developing an animal model of schizophrenia. The institution conducted an investigation and found that the respondent had falsified and fabricated data. ORI accepted the institution's report as fulfilling its reporting requirements to the U.S. Public Health Service, but decided to close this matter without further action and did not pursue the institution's misconduct findings. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This page last was updated on July 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
