Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations - 2007

Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data in figures included in a grant application submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The research involved the mechanism of action of the p53 tumore suppressor protein. P53 is important because it is implicated in the development of the majority of human tumors. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation and determined that the respondent’s actions did not constitute scientific misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution’s determination and did not make a finding of misconduct in this case.

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.

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 respondent, an assistant professor, allegedly falsified data included in two publications and in a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant application. The objective of the questioned research was to elucidate the mechanisms involved in blood pressure regulation and sodium transport in obesity-induced hypertension in rats. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that misconduct had occurred. ORI accepted the institution’s report. However, ORI did not find the evidence sufficient to warrant PHS action and noted that administrative actions were taken by the institution. 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: The respondent, a graduate student, allegedly falsified data in a draft article that was to be part of her Ph.D. dissertation. The questioned research involved electrophysiological studies designed to identify the key sequence of the calcium-release channel in skeletal muscle. The research was supported by a National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of research misconduct. ORI concurred with the finding of the institution that it was not possible to prove that the respondent intentionally or knowingly falsified or fabricated data and concurred with the institution’s recommendation that the allegation be dismissed.

Falsification: The respondent, a postdoctoral research fellow, allegedly falsified data in figures that were included in a grant application submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The research was supported by a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, grant. The research involved the role of Rac GTPases in mediating cell proliferation and apoptosis in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and their potential role as novel therapeutic targets for CML. The institution conducted an investigation and concluded that misconduct had occurred. ORI accepted the institution’s report. However, ORI declined to propose PHS findings of 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: The respondents, a professor and a research coordinator, allegedly falsified patient data in a clinical trial. The questioned research was supported by a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, cooperative agreement. The research involved a comparison of initial treatments of coronary artery disease. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation. The institution concluded that serious scientific errors had occurred, but research misconduct was not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. ORI accepted the institution’s report for the purpose of closing its oversight review. ORI determined that the question of whether the respondents had committed research misconduct could not be resolved.

Falsification: The respondent, a postdoctoral fellow, allegedly falsified data in research supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The research concerned biochemical and cell biological studies of vesicle trafficking in the Golgi apparatus of yeast, specifically a protein termed kes1p that was thought to bind to the snare proteins T1g1p, T1g2p, and gos1p and thus affect vesicular traffic. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation and determined that the respondent acted unprofessionally and violated the institution’s policies on ethics in research. However, the institution further concluded that the respondent did not act with an intent to mislead or deceive; thus, the respondent’s behavior did not rise to the level of research misconduct. ORI accepted the factual findings of the institution’s investigation but concluded that the allegations of research misconduct were not resolvable due to the lack of evidence in the form of research records.

Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified data in research supported by a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The research involved flow cytometry analysis to identify characteristics of specific cells from murine bone marrow. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined that there was not sufficient evidence of misconduct on the part of the respondent to warrant further investigation. ORI concurred with the institution’s report and conclusion that the evidence does not warrant proceeding to an investigation.

Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a research assistant professor, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data in research supported by a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), contract. The research involved studies of Myobacterium tuberculosis. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation and determined that the respondent had committed scientific misconduct by fabricating data. ORI completed a careful oversight review of the institution’s investigation and findings but decided to close this matter without further action or pursuit of the institution’s misconduct findings.

Falsification/Fabrication: The respondents, a principal investigator and a postdoctoral fellow, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data in a publication. The research was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The research involved ultra structured studies of dynein and its binding to both its protein cargo and to microtubules. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined that no further investigation was warranted. ORI concurred with the institution’s conclusion that the evidence did not warrant proceeding to an investigation.

Falsification/Fabrication: The respondents, a professor and a postdoctoral fellow, allegedly falsified a figure in research supported by a National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant, and a National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke (NINDS), NIH, contract. The research involved the isolation and characterization of a small double stranded RNA that was shown to bind to a transcription factor complex known to repress various neuronal genes. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined that no further investigation was warranted. ORI concurred with the institution’s conclusion that a formal investigation was not warranted.

Falsification/Fabrication: The respondents, both professors, allegedly falsified clinical data in annual Progress Reports submitted to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The research involved efforts to identify non-invasive methods of assessing liver damage caused by the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and to follow disease progression in HCV infected children and adults. The institution conducted an inquiry and determined that research misconduct had not occurred and that the allegations appeared to have been made in bad faith. ORI concurred with the institution’s conclusions and determined that a formal investigation was not warranted.

Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, a graduate student, allegedly falsified and/or fabricated data in research supported by a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant. The research involved a genetic analysis of the non-ribosomal synthesis of beta lactam antibiotic. The institution conducted an investigation and determined that there was no direct evidence that the respondent had committed research misconduct. ORI concurred that in the absence of relevant research records, the matter was unresolvable and that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of research misconduct.

Falsification/Fabrication: The respondent, an assistant professor, submitted several grant applications representing in listings of key personnel and in biosketches that he had earned the M.D. degree. The respondent acknowledged that he had earned only the Ph.D. degree. The institution conducted an inquiry and an investigation. This case was closed administratively because the misrepresentation of credentials was not a misrepresentation of qualifications or ability to perform the research proposed in the applications. Further, the institution documented the integrity of the respondent’s published research.