Individual | Institutional
|
|
Promoting Integrity in Research
Individual | Institutional |
|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 1997Fabrication: The respondent allegedly fabricated data obtained from subjects in a nationwide health survey study. The institutional investigation concluded that errors in data entry could have occurred and that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of research misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution’s finding.Falsification: A researcher was charged with allegedly falsifying research results in three versions of an unpublished manuscript. Both the institution and ORI found a number of discrepancies that lent credence to the allegation of data falsification. However, because the discrepancies between the representations of the parties cannot be resolved due to the age of the research and the absence of the original histology slides upon which the complainant and respondent reportedly based their analyses, ORI does not find that there is sufficient substantive evidence to make a finding of research misconduct on the part of the respondent in this case. Falsification: The respondents were charged with possible falsification of research accomplishments by publishing the same research results in multiple papers and possible falsification of figures in three publications. For the issue of possible falsification of research accomplishments, the institutional investigation panel concluded that the practice of duplicate publication is unacceptable in reporting research within the scientific community and found that the respondents had committed research misconduct. However, ORI generally does not consider such duplication in publications (which amounts to "self-plagiarism" of results) to constitute "plagiarism" under the PHS definition of research misconduct. ORI further concluded that this is a matter that involves standards for scholarship and that adherence to these standards is appropriately handled by the institution. Regarding the possible falsification of figures in three publications, ORI concurs with the institution’s conclusions that insufficient evidence exists to determine intent, identify responsibility, or assess the significance of any misrepresentation, or to make a finding of research misconduct. Thus, ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct under the PHS definition in this case. Falsification: A co-worker alleged that the respondent had falsified data in a published paper and for continuing research supported by PHS funds. ORI conducted an investigation into the matter. ORI found that bias in data selection may have occurred, but there was insufficient evidence to determine a deliberate intent to deceive on the part of the respondent. Further, ORI identified a lack of formal training of the research staff in the research area and weaknesses in the study design and implementation that may have contributed to any data selection bias. Thus, ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification: The respondent allegedly falsified the status of three manuscripts as "submitted" in a fellowship application to NIH. The institution determined that the respondent had committed "academic misconduct." ORI accepted the facts developed in the institution’s report as final investigative findings and concurred with the institution’s findings that the citations were inaccurate and the respondent’s actions were inappropriate. However, in this instance, ORI did not find the deviations from accepted practices sufficiently serious to make a finding of research misconduct under the PHS definition. Falsification: The respondent was charged with falsely representing rat or mouse muscle fibers as chicken embryo muscle fibers in a published paper. The institution’s investigation concluded that (1) misrepresentation did occur in one figure in the paper; (2) the source and preparation of the tissue in the electronmicrographs in question should have been accurately described; and (3) the misrepresentation should be corrected in the literature. Based on ORI’s review of the institution’s investigation report and accompanying material as well as additional material obtained from the institution and from the respondent, ORI accepts the institution’s report. However, because of the minor nature of the apparent misrepresentation and evidence that the body of the research on which the paper was based was not in doubt, ORI did not believe the matter warranted PHS action and did not make a finding of research misconduct under the PHS definition. Falsification: A co-worker alleged that the respondent had falsified data reported in a published paper and in two contract proposals. The institutional investigation concluded that inadequate record keeping and a lack of standardized and consistent methods for evaluating patient data led to data discrepancies. The institution determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of research misconduct but recommended that corrective measures be taken and that the journal editor be notified about the errors and inconsistencies in the published paper. ORI concurred with the institution’s finding and recommendations. Falsification: The respondent allegedly falsified statements about the extent of his research on gene expression in cultured cells in an abstract submitted for publication and oral presentation at a professional society meeting. The institution determined that the respondent’s actions were wrong but not serious enough to warrant a finding of research misconduct given the junior status of the respondent, his immediate acknowledgment of his error in judgment, and the limited impact of an abstract that had been printed but withdrawn prior to presentation. ORI accepted the institution’s conclusion and did not make a finding of research misconduct. Fabrication/Falsification: The respondents allegedly had fabricated and falsified data involving the expression of antigens on animal cells, using antigenized antibodies and related immunological techniques. The institutional investigation determined that falsification or fabrication had occurred. ORI accepted the institution’s factual findings and conclusion. However, ORI was unable to determine who was responsible and, therefore, did not make a finding of research misconduct. Falsification/Fabrication: It was alleged that the respondents knowingly reported falsified or fabricated data in a series of manuscripts and publications. The data in question was related to subjects made eligible for the relevant studies by intentional falsifications and fabrications on the part of one of the participating physicians in a number of multicenter trials. ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct in this matter. Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent allegedly falsified or fabricated the records of telephone call attempts to collect data from new mothers in conjunction with a federally funded program to determine risk factors for new mothers and babies. The institution conducted an investigation into the matter and determined that there was not sufficient evidence of falsification or fabrication on the part of the respondent or his staff to warrant a finding of research misconduct. Although the evidence indicated that there was an unusually large number of calls without subject contact and there were discrepancies between the official records and the worksheets, there was no clear evidence of a monetary incentive for fabricated phone calls. Furthermore, there was a possible explanation for the discrepancies between the official records and phone worksheets. Therefore, ORI accepted the institution’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of research misconduct. Plagiarism: A colleague alleged that the respondent had plagiarized material from a grant application and had included the plagiarized material without attribution in another grant application. The institutional investigation determined that the respondent had copied portions of the complainant’s grant application. However, the institution concluded that a preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the respondent had intentionally used the material without appropriate permission or attribution. The institution also noted that considerable differences of opinion exist regarding the standards for permission, citation, and acknowledgment of other people’s contributions to grant applications, as opposed to publications, and that there was a perception among the departmental faculty that applications were communally owned and their content commonly shared. Thus, the institution did not find sufficient evidence of intent to deceive to make a finding of research misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution’s finding. Plagiarism: The respondent was charged with plagiarizing background material from a clinical protocol and using the plagiarized material in an appendix to a grant application. The institution made a finding of research misconduct against the respondent. ORI accepted the institution’s finding that the respondent committed plagiarism under the institution’s standards. However, because the plagiarism was limited to background material, and because additional information submitted to ORI suggested the copying of text may have resulted from a misunderstanding rather than an intent to deceive, ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct under the PHS definition. Finally, because the institution has taken adequate actions to protect PHS-supported research and research applications, ORI will not take any further action in this matter. Fabrication/Falsification/Plagiarism: The respondent allegedly deviated from Federal policies, the University’s policies, and established standards of conduct in connection with the production, distribution, and clinical testing of investigational drugs for a number of years. Specifically, the respondent allegedly (1) administered investigational drugs without the patients’ informed consent and the University’s Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) approval; (2) failed to monitor and report serious adverse events related to administering the investigational drugs; (3) used investigational drugs to treat patients not entered on investigational protocols; and (4) falsified a colleague’s credentials in a National Institute of Health (NIH) grant application. For the first three issues, the University concluded that the respondent had committed research misconduct by seriously deviating from practices commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Office of Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) took action related to these findings under their relevant regulations. ORI reviewed the available evidence and determined that consistent with 42 C.F.R. ยง 50.101 and prior NIH policy, no further action was required by ORI, and ORI did not make a finding of research misconduct under the PHS definition. This conclusion did not affect the University’s findings that the respondent committed academic misconduct as defined in the University policies and procedures or the actions taken by FDA and OPRR. For the fourth issue, the University determined that the allegation could not be substantiated by the evidence and did not make a finding of research misconduct. ORI accepted this finding. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
