1 / 25

Research Misconduct

Research Misconduct. CIPP 909 Research Ethics February 10, 2010. Some Things to Think About. Which aspects of a given situation constitute Research Misconduct? How does Research Misconduct affect research? The scientific record?

socorro
Download Presentation

Research Misconduct

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research Misconduct CIPP 909 Research Ethics February 10, 2010

  2. Some Things to Think About • Which aspects of a given situation constitute Research Misconduct? • How does Research Misconduct affect research? The scientific record? • How does Research Misconduct affect the scientist as Respondent? As Complainant?

  3. Some More Things to Think About • What regulations apply to Research Misconduct? • How is Research Misconduct routinely managed? • What steps can be taken to avoid Research Misconduct? • How should the effects of Research Misconduct be minimized or eliminated?

  4. [Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)] [Notices] [Page 4201-4202] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Scientific Misconduct AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case:

  5. Luk Van Parijs, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, California Institute of Technology, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Based on the reports of separate investigations conducted by Harvard Medical School (HMS)/Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), California Institute of Technology (CalTech), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Dr. Luk Van Parijs, former Graduate Student, Department of Pathology, HMS, former Research Fellow and Instructor of Pathology, BWH, former Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biology, CalTech, and former Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Center for Cancer Research, MIT, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants U19 AI56900, R21 AI49897, R01 AI42100, P01 AI35297, R37 AI25022, R01 AI32531, National Cancer Institute, NIH, grant R01 CA51462, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), NIH, grant P30 ES02109, and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), NIH, grant R01 GM57931.

  6. PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by including false data in NIAID, NIH, grant applications R01 AI54519- 01A1, R01 AI54973-01, and R01 AI54973-01A1, NCI, NIH, grant application 2P30 CA14051-34, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant application R21 DK69277-01. Specifically, PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by including false data in seven published papers, three submitted papers (with two earlier versions submitted for one of these), one submitted book chapter, and multiple presentations as follows: 1. While at HMS/BWH, Dr. Luk Van Parijs falsified the expression of IFN-[gamma] and KJ-126 in flow cytometry dot plots for the immunized, naive, tolerized and tolerized + IL-12 experimental groups in Figure 4, JEM 186:1119-1128, 1997, by using the same non-stained cell population in the lower left quadrant to falsely represent CD4+ T cells negative for IFN-[gamma] and KJ-126 in each experimental group. 2. That Dr. Luk Van Parijs falsified the expression of different proteins in flow cytometry dot plots in Figure 1, Immunity, 8:265-274, 1998, in Figure 1C, Immunity, 11:281-288, September 1999, and in Figure …

  7. Dr. Van Parijs has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement in which he has voluntarily agreed, for a period of five (5) years, beginning on December 22, 2008: • to exclude himself from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as ``covered transactions'' pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR Part 376 et seq.) of OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government wide Debarment and Suspension (2 CFR, Part 180); and • (2) To exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant. • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Division of Investigative Oversight, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8800. • Dated: January 14, 2009. Chris B. Pascal, Director, Office of Research Integrity. [FR Doc. E9-1453 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

  8. Conscience is the inner voicewhich warns us thatsomeone may be looking. -H L Mencken

  9. Research Integrity Further knowledge Benefit society Responsible science

  10. Responsible Research Research Misconduct Irresponsible Research

  11. Categories of Scientific Misconduct Fabrication: making up experiments, data Falsification: changing results, data without statistical justification Plagiarism: appropriating the words or ideas of another and presenting them as one’s own

  12. What Research Misconduct Is Not Example 1: Simply illegal, improper or unacceptable behavior Example 2: Honest error Example 3: Disagreement based on honest differences of opinion Example 4: Simply authorship disputes Example 5: Arguably unethical behavior Example 6: Sloppy science

  13. Fuzzy Areas Questionable data selection (including image manipulation) “Self-Plagiarism” Failure to correct the scientific record

  14. Pretty Pictures Image Preparation/Manipulation

  15. UMB Definition(academic misconductmisconduct in scholarly work) Means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly work; also includes any form of behavior, including the making of allegations that involve frivolous, mischievous or malicious misrepresentation, whereby one’s work or the work of others is seriously misrepresented; does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

  16. Definitions Allegations Complainant (whistleblower) Respondent

  17. Eric Poehlman University of Vermont (and University of Maryland)

  18. Process Inquiry Investigation Consequences

  19. Whistleblowing Benefits Risks To ensure that the scientific record is correct To comply with regulations To prevent future misconduct To protect one’s own reputation or the reputation of another To punish wrongdoer Allegations are not borne out Time, effort and emotion intensive Retaliation by respondent or respondent’s institution Gain reputation as a trouble-maker

  20. Truth and Consequences After making the difficult decision to turn in their advisor for scientific misconduct, a group of graduate students is trying to recover from the resulting damage to their careers sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5791/1222

  21. How To Avoid Becoming Involved Maintain good records Assess the validity of the results Collaborate with co-investigators Don’t take that first step

  22. Examples(yes, these are true stories)

  23. A Few Good URLs www.ori.dhhs.gov www.iom.edu www.aamc.org http://rcr.ucsd.edu www.umaryland.edu/research_integrity/misconduct/index.html

  24. Research Misconduct Yes, I am available 410-706-1853 jgiff001@umaryland.edu

More Related