Recognizing reporting and avoiding research misconduct
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 34

Recognizing, Reporting and Avoiding Research Misconduct PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 58 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Recognizing, Reporting and Avoiding Research Misconduct. . Beth H. Israel, Associate Vice President for Research Debra Murphy, Director Office of Research Integrity and Assurance May 7, 2009. Objectives. Definitions Description of the Process Case Studies Resources. What is Misconduct.

Download Presentation

Recognizing, Reporting and Avoiding 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Recognizing reporting and avoiding research misconduct

Recognizing, Reporting and Avoiding Research Misconduct

.

Beth H. Israel, Associate Vice President for Research

Debra Murphy, Director

Office of Research Integrity and Assurance

May 7, 2009


Objectives

Objectives

Definitions

Description of the Process

Case Studies

Resources


What is misconduct

What is Misconduct

  • Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

  • Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

  • Plagiarism means appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.


Case studies in research misconduct

Case Studies in Research Misconduct

John Darsee - An Overly Ambitious Researcher

  • Medical Researcher at Harvard (previous positions at Notre Dame, Indiana University and Emory University)

  • First author on 7 publications in very good scientific journals with 5 major papers in 15 months – offered faculty position at Harvard in 1981


Case studies in research misconduct1

Case Studies in Research Misconduct

John Darsee - An Overly Ambitious Researcher

  • Colleagues became concerned about the accuracy of results reported by Darsee.

  • Concerns were reported to lab director and investigated by the head of the lab and the lab manager.

  • The internal lab investigation found that Darsee had been altering dates in lab notes to make a few hours work appear to be several weeks of data.


Case studies in research misconduct2

Case Studies in Research Misconduct

  • Darsee’s fellowship was terminated.

  • NIH – ORI investigated in 1981 and found that Darsee had committed wide-range scientific misconduct (fabrication of large amounts of data that was never conducted.)

  • Over time more research by Darsee came under fire. Investigations revealed that data was falsified between 1966-1970.


Case studies in research misconduct3

Case Studies in Research Misconduct

Outcomes

  • Harvard University retracted 30 of Darsee’s published papers and abstracts in 1983

  • Emory University retracted an additional 52 papers and abstracts published during his tenure there

  • Harvard drew criticism for lax supervision and for creating a hurried pace emphasizing productivity and limited interaction with senior scientists that contributed to the ease with which the data was fabricated.

  • Coauthors were criticized for their unfamiliarity with the work and lack of awareness that misconduct was occurring.


Case studies in research misconduct4

Case Studies in Research Misconduct

  • Aftermath

  • Darsee maintained that he had "no recollection" of committing research fraud.He issued an apology which was printed in the New England Journal of Medicine, writing: "I am deeply sorry for allowing these inaccuracies and falsehoods to be published in the Journal and apologize to the editorial board and readers." Darsee asked "forgiveness for whatever I have done wrong."

  • Darsee subsequently entered a clinical fellowship at Ellis Hospital in Schenectady, NY where he did not perform research.


Plagiarism

Plagiarism

“While it is acceptable to copy

one’s genes, it is not acceptable to

copy a colleague’s work”.

Sheila Garrity, J.D. M.P.H. M.B.A

Director, Research Integrity

John Hopkins University

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/1797416/Getty-Images-News


Research record

Research Record


Research record1

Research Record

Laptops


Research misconduct what it is not

Research MisconductWhat it is Not

Research Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.


Research misconduct reporting

Research Misconduct Reporting

If you suspect misconduct or simply want to

discuss what you feel are questionable

research practices – who do you call?

University policy states that allegations can be

reported anonymously and that whistleblowers

will be protected. Reports can be made by

email to the OVPREA, ORIA or to the University

hotline at: http://uabf.asu.edu/asu_hotline.


An allegation has been made now what

An Allegation Has Been MadeNow What?

  • Assessment

  • Inquiry

  • Investigation

  • Adjudication


Assessment

Assessment

An assessment is what can be called a ‘smell

test’. It is an initial review of the allegation to

determine if it has merit and is completed

before opening an inquiry. Beside ORIA

the Associate VP for Research and possibly the

Unit Supervisor may be involved.

If it is determined at the assessment stage

that the allegation does have merit, we move

into the next phase, inquiry.


Assessment1

Assessment

If no merit is found the process ends at the

assessment stage.

If it is determined at the assessment stage

that the allegation does have merit, we move

into the next phase, inquiry.


Inquiry

Inquiry

Inquiry is typically handled by a subcommittee

of the University Senate with assistance from

the OVPREA and ORIA. Federal regulations

call for the sequestration of evidence before or

when an inquiry is opened. That is when we

would show up at your lab or office to collect

evidence needed to go forward.


Inquiry1

Inquiry

  • Our goal is not to shut down the lab or stop research.

  • The purpose of the inquiry is not to make a finding, it is designed to determine if the complaint can be dismissed as frivolous, unjustified or mistaken.

  • The inquiry is an initial review of the evidence to determine if the allegation merits further review.


Inquiry2

Inquiry

  • If the inquiry finds that an investigation is not warranted the process ends at the inquiry stage.

  • If the inquiry finds that an investigation is warranted and federal funds are involved, we may be required to report to the sponsor and the Office of Research Integrity at ORI if HHS funds are involved. The next stage is Investigation.


Investigation

Investigation

The investigation committee is appointed by

The Associate VP for Research from among

senior members of the Misconduct in Research

Committee - a subcommittee of the University

Senate.

Members of the committee are generally

tenured professors. This is meant to ensure

that no faculty member’s promotion can be

jeopardized because they played a role in an

unpopular finding.


Investigation1

Investigation

During an investigation a thorough review of

the evidence is completed and those involved

are interviewed by the Investigation

Committee. The interviews may be recorded.

Individuals interviewed include the accuser,

the complainant and in some cases witnesses

may be called.


Investigation2

Investigation

The results of the investigation are reported to

the Vice President for Research and Economic

Affairs.

The VP reviews the final report and

recommendations of the review committee.

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the

AVPR will make a final determination whether

to accept the investigation report, its findings

and recommends institutional actions.


Notification

Notification

When a final decision on the case has been reached, the AVPR

will provide written notification to the respondent, appropriate

administrative officials, and the complainant.

In addition, the AVPR on advice of General Counsel (if

necessary) recommends whether law enforcement agencies,

Professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of

journals in which falsified reports may have been published,

collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant

parties should be notified of the outcome of the case.

The AVPR is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all

requirements to notify sponsors.


Appeal

Appeal

  • Respondent may appeal the findings of Research Misconduct through the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs to the University President.


Summary of process

Summary of Process

Three tiers of review each involving an

independent process:

Inquiry

Investigation

Adjudication


Research misconduct at asu

Research Misconduct at ASU

  • The number of research misconduct cases referred to the Office of the Vice President for Research remains quite low but nationally the number of cases continue to rise. There is concern by the Feds that misconduct is under reported.


Avoiding research misconduct

Avoiding Research Misconduct

  • Also important for avoiding misconduct is awareness. We want to publicize our expectation and policies and we want to make sure you know who to call if you have questions.


Additional resources

Additional Resources

  • ASU Policies and Procedures

  • ORIA Website – http://researchintegrity.asu.edu

  • ORI Website http://ori.hhs.gov

  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute Publication “Making the Right Moves A Practical guide to Scientific management for Postdocs and New Faculty”. http://www.hhmi.org/resources/labmanagement/moves.html.


Truth or consequences

Truth or Consequences

An allegation of sexual harassment was filed by

a post-doctoral fellow against a junior faculty

member. The two had worked together for 24

months developing a new psychological

assessment scale. The institution investigated

the allegation and determined it to be true.

Is this an example of Research Misconduct?

1. Yes2. No


Truth or consequences1

Truth or Consequences

A faculty member is reviewing data from a series of

experiments in preparation for a publication. Data

from one set of experiments appears to be outliers

and presents statistical significance. The

Investigator decides to eliminate that data from the

analysis with the assumption that there was a

technical problem for that set without explaining.

Is the an example of Research Misconduct?

1. Yes2. No


Truth or consequences2

Truth or Consequences

A graduate student is in the midst of writing her

dissertation discovers that her note taking

over the years has been sloppy and disorganized.

Her notes, including those used in her dissertation

proposal, contain substantial paragraphs of text that

contain important concepts and ideas placed in

quotation marks as well as short unique phrases

conveying important concepts that she knows

intuitively were not her own. Some of notes have a

name written by them and other list a book or article

title with page numbers but many do not.


Truth or consequences3

Truth or Consequences

With the knowledge that she has already used the

material in her proposal and that none of her

committee members raised any issues, the student

reasons that there is no harm in doing the same in

her dissertation. She reasons that, if she paraphrases

the quoted material, it will not be a direct quotation

and therefore she does not need to use quotation

marks or cite the source.

Is the an example of Research Misconduct?

1. Yes2. No


Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

Tony Onofrietti, Director of Research Education

University of Utah www.education.reseach.utah.edu

Shiela Garrity, Director, Research Integrity, Johns Hopkins University

Online Audio Presentation: Recognizing, Reporting and

Avoiding Research Misconduct

University of New Hampshire Responsible Conduct of Research on line

study guide http://www.unh.edu/rcr/

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University of Sheffield, Department of Marketing & Communication

BBC Homepage Science and Nature: TV & Radio Follow-up


Thank you

Thank you

Please contact ORIA or the OVPREA if you have questions or

would like additional information. We can be reached at:

Debra Murphy, Director

Office of Research Integrity & Assurance

480.965.2179

[email protected]

Beth Israel, Associate Vice President for Research

Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs

480.965.1225

[email protected]


  • Login