Research Integrity

Research Integrity University of Kentucky Grulke. research integrity

Research Misconduct: • Past & Present policy • Cases • Procedure & Rights Grulke. research integrity

Past & Present Grulke. research integrity

History of research misconduct policy: • 1978 Boston Univ., 1981 Harvard Med. School. • 1981 House Subcom. on Investig. and Oversight • 1985 Health Research Extension Act • 1987 NSF policies • 1989 DHHS policies • 1992 ORI created & NIH prevention initiative • 2000 OSTP proposed government-wide policy • 2009 NSF requirement of RCR training of undergraduate, graduate student and postdoctoral scholars supported by NSF funds • 2009 DHHS/NIH update on requirement for RCR training (trainees, fellows, participants and scholars) Grulke. research integrity

Government-wide Definition • Research Misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results. • Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Grulke. research integrity

Research Misconduct: • Fabrication • Falsification • Plagiarism • Other serious deviations Grulke. research integrity

Many Scientists Admit to MisconductDegrees of Deception Vary in Poll; Researchers Say Findings Could Hurt the FieldBy Rick WeissWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, June 9, 2005; Page A03 Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but a surprising number engage in troubling degrees of fact-bending or deceit, according to the first large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior. More than 5 percent of scientists answering a confidential questionnaire admitted to having tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research or said they had circumvented some human research protections. Ten percent admitted they had inappropriately included their names or those of others as authors on published research reports. And more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate. None of those failings qualifies as outright scientific misconduct under the strict definition used by federal regulators. But they could take at least as large a toll on science as the rare, high-profile cases of clear-cut falsification, said Brian Martinson, an investigator with the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, who led the study appearing in today's issue of the journal Nature. Grulke. research integrity

Mundane Misdeeds Skew Findings, Researchers Say By CORNELIA DEAN Published: June 14, 2005 “People who worry about research misconduct in science should look beyond the fabrication, falsification and plagiarism that have traditionally defined the term and consider less obvious misdeeds, like interpreting data in a questionable way, changing study methods to suit a sponsor and other problems, researchers from Minnesota say. “They say this kind of "mundane 'regular' misbehavior" occurs often and threatens the integrity of science more than the occasional high-profile case of scientific misconduct. Grulke. research integrity

Reasons for misconduct in science: • Funding and career pressures. • Inadequate training in methods of traditional science. • Increasing scale and complexity of research environment. • Inadequate institutional oversight. • Inappropriate forms of collaborations. Grulke. research integrity

Accountability: Who cares about research integrity? • Taxpayers • Congress • Funding agencies • Scientific community • Society Grulke. research integrity

Cases Grulke. research integrity

Scientific fraud found at Bell LabsStar researcher fired for falsifying data By LINDA A. JOHNSON, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Seattle PI Business TRENTON, N.J. -- A series of extraordinary advances claimed by scientists at Bell Labs are based on fraudulent data, a committee investigating the matter reported yesterday. The findings, in effect, dismiss as fiction results from more than a dozen papers that had been promoted as major breakthroughs in physics, including claims last fall that Bell Labs had created molecular-scale transistors. Jan Hendrik Schon, a star researcher in electronics, was fired after the outside committee found he falsified experimental data. The review committee concluded Schon, 32, made up or altered data at least 16 times between 1998 and 2001 -- the first case of scientific fraud in the 77-year history of the Nobel Prize-winning laboratory, Lucent Technologies said yesterday. Bell Labs is the research arm of Lucent, which makes telecommunications gear; the labs used to be part of AT&T. Grulke. research integrity

Plagiarism in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the Russ College of Engineering at Ohio University To: Dr. Kathy Krendl, Provost, Ohio University May 30, 2006 From: Gary D. Meyer, Asst. V.P. for Economic Development & Technology Development and H. Hugh L. Bloemer, Associate Professor (Emeritus) of Geography; Director (Emeritus) of the Ohio University Cartographic Center (OUCC) & former Chair for the Ohio University Faculty Senate (2001-04) Subject: Plagiarism in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the Russ College of Engineering at Ohio University We have assessed the issue of plagiarism in the above department over the past four months and we conclude that rampant and flagrant plagiarism has occurred in the graduate program of the Department of Mechanical Engineering for over twenty years. All members of the academic community, students and faculty alike, are responsible for the integrity and originality of their work. According to the documents that we read and investigated, there are seven faculty members in the department who supervised theses where plagiarism was found. However, the vast majority of the cases revolve around three faculty members who either failed to monitor the writing in their advisees theses or simply ignored academic honesty, integrity and basically supported academic fraudulence. We consider this most serious. Grulke. research integrity

Bubble-fusion scientist debarred from federal funding. Office of Naval Research passes verdict on controversial researcher Rusi Taleyarkhan. Published online 23 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1103 News, Eugenie Samuel Reich Rusi Taleyarkhan has been barred from receiving federal funding. A nuclear engineer who claimed that he could perform 'bubble fusion' in a table-top apparatus has been debarred from receiving federal funding for 28 months, according to the US Office of Naval Research (ONR). Three years ago, a Nature investigation raised concerns about research by Rusi Taleyarkhan, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, who claimed that nuclear fusion reactions could be triggered by firing sound waves into deuterated acetone1. Grulke. research integrity

Journals step up plagiarism policingCut-and-paste culture tackled by CrossCheck software. Published online 5 July 2010 | Nature466, 167 (2010) | doi:10.1038/466167a News Declan Butler Look out plagiarists — you are being watched. Major science publishers are gearing up to fight plagiarism. The publishers, including Elsevier and Springer, are set to roll out software across their journals that will scan submitted papers for identical or paraphrased chunks of text that appear in previously published articles. The move follows pilot tests of the software that have confirmed high levels of plagiarism in articles submitted to some journals, according to an informal survey by Nature of nine science publishers. Incredibly, one journal reported rejecting 23% of accepted submissions after checking for plagiarism. Grulke. research integrity

rOffice of Research Integrity Case Summaries M. Renuka Prasad, Ph.D., University of Kentucky School of Medicine (UK): Based on the UK investigation report and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, PHS found that Dr. Prasad, a former Research Professor of Surgery, UK, engaged in scientific misconduct by fabricating and falsifying data. The research was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), NIH grant R01 NS34264,“Phospholipases in traumatic brain injury.” This research is important to understanding the mechanism of breakdown of the blood-brain barrier and swelling from edema that occurs after traumatic injury of the brain. Dr. Prasad entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement in which he voluntarily agreed that for 3 years beginning August 19, 2002: (a) any institution that submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which Dr. Prasad’s participation is proposed or that uses him in any capacity on PHS supported research, or that submits a report of PHS funded research in which he is involved, must concurrently certify in every PHS research application or report that Dr. Prasad is prohibited from supervising other research staff; and (b) any institution employing him is required to submit a certification that the data he provided are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived, and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application or report; (2) to exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS; and (3) within 30 days, Dr. Prasad must submit a letter to the journal Brain Research requesting retraction of the paper, stating that some of the data for the reported effects of kynurenate are falsified. Dr. Prasad sent a copy of the retraction letter to ORI. Grulke. research integrity

Procedure & Rights Grulke. research integrity

Office of Research Integrity (ORI): • Protection of human subjects (IRB) • Welfare of laboratory animals (IACUC) • Misconduct in research Grulke. research integrity

UK policy on Research Misconduct University of Kentucky Administrative RegulationsAR 7:1 (Formerly II-4.0-2) RESEARCH MISCONDUCT I. Introduction II. Definition of Misconduct III Confidentiality IV. Reporting Alleged Misconduct V. Absence of Respondent VI. Interim Administrative Action VII. Extramural Assurance and Reporting requirements VIII. Statute of limitations IX. Inquiry X. Investigation XI. Documentation XII. Restoration of Reputation XIII. Formal Findings, Actions Following the Investigation and Disposition IV. Reference Policy Grulke. research integrity

Model for handling a research misconduct allegation: • Receipt of allegation A good faith communication that discloses information that may evidence an improper act. (whistleblower) • Inquiry Information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine if an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct has substance and therefore warrants an investigation. • Investigation The formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine whether misconduct has occurred, and if so, the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct. (respondent) • Adjudication Verbal warning; Supervision; Termination of grant support; Termination of fellowship support; Adjustment of research space allocation; Adjustment of salary; Mandated actions to redress the consequences of the misconduct; Withdrawal of specific privileges; Removal from a special position of privilege or prestige; OR Restoration of Reputation • Appeal Grulke. research integrity

Rights (whistleblower): • Confidentiality • Protection from retaliation • Informed of outcome. Grulke. research integrity

Informed Confidentiality Consult with a lawyer Comment on committee Preponderance of the evidence Timely process Competency Fair, objective, thorough, ethical, legal, professional No conflict of interest Comment on the final report Outcome Restoration of reputation Rights (respondent): Grulke. research integrity

Potential Outcomes • Pressure to drop allegations • Threat or actual lawsuit • Ostracism by colleagues • Guilt by association • Loss of job or own research funding • Loss of job recommendations • Emotional stress and reduced health (Lubalin, Ardini, and Matheson, 1995) Grulke. research integrity

Protect your research by: • carefully recording experimental design, data and results in a notebook. • keeping the notebook up to date and in a secure place. • giving proper credit where credit is due when writing up your results for publication. Grulke. research integrity

IIs research misconduct a common problem? Grulke. research integrity

“Scientific sins are common” MSNBC.comSurvey suggests scientific sins are common 9 percent of scientists in sample report seeing instances of misconduct By Will Dunham Reuters updated 10:12 p.m. ET, Wed., June. 18, 2008 WASHINGTON - Research misconduct at U.S. institutions may be more common than previously suspected, with 9 percent of scientists saying in a new survey that they personally had seen fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. The survey of 2,212 mainly biomedical scientists at 605 universities and other research institutions, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, also showed that researchers are very reluctant to report bad conduct. Thirty-seven percent of cases of suspected misconduct were never reported to the institution involved for investigation, perhaps due to fear of reprisals for turning in a colleague or a desire to protect the flow of research money. “There’s more misconduct, or potential for misconduct, out there than probably anyone has appreciated before. And a good part of that goes unreported,” said James Wells, director of the Office of Research Policy at the University of Wisconsin, who helped conduct the survey. “Usually what happens is that somebody very close to the research has to observe this going on. And they have to step forward and report it to their institution in order for something to happen. And they can very often be jeopardizing themselves,” Wells added in a telephone interview. Wells did the survey with two experts from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Research Integrity. Grulke. research integrity

PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A ...by D Fanelli - 2009 A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct. Grulke. research integrity

“Lancet urges China to fight scientific fraud” By Daureen Walton BBC News, Friday, 8 January 2010 China ranks second behind the United States in the number of academic papers published every year. Last December, two teams of researchers at Jinggangshan University in central China were found to have falsified 70 papers published in 2007. "It's very tricky. The problem has existed for a long time," says Dr Lu Yiyi, Associate Fellow at Chatham House's China programme. "The concern is if science in China cannot be trusted in certain areas that undermines China's economic growth." Grulke. research integrity

ORI contact information • IRB questions: 257-9428 • IACUC questions: 257-2549 • Research integrity questions: 257-9428 Grulke. research integrity

Grulke. research integrity

Research Integrity