Research Integrity and Ethics

1. Research Integrity and Ethics Ahsan Choudhuri Department of Mechanical Engineering Combustion and Propulsion Research Laboratory

2. Objectives • To promote Responsible Conduct in Research • To provide information about Research Misconduct issues • To provide information about federal/agency/university policies which govern Research Misconduct issues • To provide information about the institutional responsibility of handling research misconduct allegations.

3. Responsible Conduct in Research • Compliance and Ethics • Compliance means the researcher follow the rules set out by the federal government, funding agencies and the institution. • Ethics refers to a responsible behavior towards humans, sentient beings, society and ecosystems. Ethics means promoting good. • Both compliance and ethics are required for the Responsible Conduct in Research. • Compliance set out the minimum acceptable ethical behavior in research. • Noncompliance results in Research Misconduct

4. Research Misconduct Federal Research Misconduct Policy [Federal Register: December 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 235)] Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. • Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. • Falsification is 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 is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. •  Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

5. Research Misconduct A finding of research misconduct requires that • There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and • The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and • The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

6. For More Information Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/oig Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services http://www.ori.dhhs.gov UTEP Research Misconduct Policy http://admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx?PageContentMode=1&tabid=30390

7. Some Recent Famous Research Misconduct Cases • Dr. Hwang Woo Suk Korean Stem Cell Research Scientists • Falsification and Fabrication • Dr. Jan Hendrik Schön, Bell Laboratory • Falsification and Fabrication • Eric T. Poehlman,MD, PhD University of Vermont (UVM) College of Medicine in Burlington • Falsification, Fabrication, Criminal, Civil and Administrative • Ali Sultan, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health • Fabrication • Dr. Luk Van Parijs, MIT • Falsification and Fabrication

8. Other Research Misconduct Cases • Misrepresentation of Publications • Plagiarism and Violation of Confidential Peer Review • Proposal seeking funds for already completed research • Fraudulent Data • Misrepresenting Credentials Source NSF OIG Website

9. Handling Research Misconduct Allegations Step Time-frame OIG Awardee 1. Receipt 2. Inquiry 60 days - 90 days 3. Investigation 150 days 180 days 4. Adjudication 45 days - NSF 5. Appeal 30 days - NSF Case may close at any step Referral: Awardees - 88% of investigations 66% reports accepted Source NSF OIG Website Presentation http://www.nsf.gov/oig/administrative.pdf

10. NSF OIG Research Misconduct Investigations Source NSF OIG Website April 2000 Data

11. Important “OIG is currently experimenting with the use of computer software to identify plagiarized text in NSF proposals. There are a number of free or commercially available software packages that have the ability to identify text that is common to multiple documents. Some software packages are designed to perform a side-by-side comparison of two or more documents, while others compare the text of a document to text found on websites. We obtained one “freeware” package and one commercially available to test their capabilities. Interns with linguistics training ran randomly selected proposals through the software to determine if they contained plagiarism. The interns analyzed over 600 proposals, and found that approximately 2.5% of the proposals contained more than de minimusunattributed copied text from other sources. Plagiarism rates were relatively uniform across scientific disciplines, although we noted that the rate of possible plagiarism in NSF CAREER proposals was significantly higher at 15%.” -NSF IG Semiannual Report March 2006

12. Agency Actions (SOURCE: 67 FR 11937, Mar. 18, 2002) • Group I actions. (i) Send a letter of reprimand to the individual or institution. (ii) Require as a condition of an award that for a specified period an individual or institution obtain special prior approval of particular activities from NSF. (iii) Require for a specified period that an institutional official other than those guilty of misconduct certify the accuracy of reports generated under an award or provide assurance of compliance with particular policies, regulations, guidelines, or special terms and conditions. (2) Group II actions. (i) Totally or partially suspend an active award, or restrict for a specified period designated activities or expenditures under an active award. (ii) Require for a specified period special reviews of all requests for funding from an affected individual or institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the misconduct. (iii) Require a correction to the research record. (3) Group III actions. (i) Terminate an active award. (ii) Prohibit participation of an individual as an NSF reviewer, advisor, or consultant for a specified period. (iii) Debar or suspend an individual or institution from participation in Federal programs for a specified period after further proceedings under applicable regulations. (b) In deciding what final actions are appropriate when misconduct is found,

13. University Actions • Termination • Non-Renewal of Contract • Others

14. Some Recent Famous Research Misconduct Cases • Dr. Hwang Woo Suk Korean Stem Cell Research Scientists • Termination • Criminal Charges • Dr. Jan Hendrik Schön, Bell Laboratory • Termination • Revocation of his Doctoral Degree • Eric T. Poehlman,MD, PhD University of Vermont (UVM) College of Medicine in Burlington • Termination • Debarment for life • Monetary Penalty • Jail time • Ali Sultan, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health • Termination • Debarred for 3 years • Dr. Luk Van Parijs, MIT • Termination

15. Other Research Misconduct Cases • Misrepresentation of Publications • Letter of reprimand, certification for 3 years • Letter of reprimand, certification for 3 years by the subject, certification by the chair • Plagiarism and Violation of Confidential Peer Review • Letter of reprimand, No grant Submission for three years • Debar for 3 years, Barred from peer review for 2 years • Proposal seeking funds for already completed research • No Misconduct, Misconduct for Falsifying Signature • Letter of Reprimand, 2 years certification by the subject and institutional representative • Fraudulent Data • University rescinded student’s degree, Letter of correction to journal, Notified appropriate people (letters of recommendations) or organizations (where she taught) • University took appropriate action in rescinded the Ph.D. and notifying appropriate institutions, 3-year certification requirement, Assurance by supervisor or PI if on an NSF project • Misrepresenting Credentials • Letter of reprimand, For 1 year, subject certifies to OIG that all information in his proposals is correct Source NSF OIG Website

16. Concluding Remarks • Research Misconduct is a Serious Business • Visit OIG and ORI websites for more information • Grant proposals should be treated as identical to published pieces