Recognizing, Reporting and Avoiding Research

Misconduct

.Beth H. Israel, Associate Vice President for Research

Debra Murphy, DirectorOffice of Research Integrity and Assurance

May 7, 2009

Definitions

Description of the Process

Case Studies

Resources

Objectives

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.

What is 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 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 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 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 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.

Case Studies in Research Misconduct

Plagiarism

“While it is acceptable to copy one’s genes, it is not acceptable tocopy a colleague’s work”.

Sheila Garrity, J.D. M.P.H. M.B.ADirector, Research IntegrityJohn Hopkins University

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

Research Record

Research Record

Laptops

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

Research MisconductWhat it is Not

If you suspect misconduct or simply want todiscuss 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

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

Research Misconduct Reporting

Assessment Inquiry Investigation Adjudication

An Allegation Has Been MadeNow What?

An assessment is what can be called a ‘smell test’. It is an initial review of the allegation todetermine if it has merit and is completed before opening an inquiry. Beside ORIAthe 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.

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.

Assessment

Inquiry is typically handled by a subcommittee

of the University Senate with assistance from the OVPREA and ORIA. Federal regulationscall for the sequestration of evidence before

orwhen an inquiry is opened. That is when we would show up at your lab or office to collectevidence needed to go forward.

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.

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.

Inquiry

The investigation committee is appointed by The Associate VP for Research from among senior members of the Misconduct in ResearchCommittee - a subcommittee of the University Senate.

Members of the committee are generallytenured professors. This is meant to ensurethat no faculty member’s promotion can bejeopardized because they played a role in anunpopular finding.

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.

Investigation

The results of the investigation are reported tothe Vice President for Research and EconomicAffairs.

The VP reviews the final report andrecommendations of the review committee.Based on a preponderance of the evidence, theAVPR will make a final determination whetherto accept the investigation report, its findingsand recommends institutional actions.

Investigation

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 (ifnecessary) 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 relevantparties should be notified of the outcome of the case.

The AVPR is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements to notify sponsors.

Notification

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

Appeal

Three tiers of review each involving an independent process:

InquiryInvestigationAdjudication

Summary of Process

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.

Research Misconduct at ASU

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.

Avoiding Research Misconduct

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.

Additional Resources

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. Yes 2. No

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 theanalysis with the assumption that there was a technical problem for that set without explaining.

Is the an example of Research Misconduct?

1. Yes 2. No

Truth or Consequences

Truth or ConsequencesA graduate student is in the midst of writing herdissertation discovers that her note takingover the years has been sloppy and disorganized.Her notes, including those used in her dissertation proposal, contain substantial paragraphs of text

thatcontain important concepts and ideas placed inquotation marks as well as short unique phrasesconveying important concepts that she knowsintuitively 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 ConsequencesWith the knowledge that she has already used thematerial in her proposal and that none of hercommittee members raised any issues, the studentreasons that there is no harm in doing the same inher dissertation. She reasons that, if she

paraphrasesthe quoted material, it will not be a direct quotationand therefore she does not need to use quotationmarks or cite the source.

Is the an example of Research Misconduct?

1. Yes 2. No

Tony Onofrietti, Director of Research EducationUniversity of Utah www.education.reseach.utah.edu

Shiela Garrity, Director, Research Integrity, Johns Hopkins UniversityOnline Audio Presentation: Recognizing, Reporting andAvoiding 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

Acknowledgments

Please contact ORIA or the OVPREA if you have questions orwould like additional information. We can be reached at:

Debra Murphy, DirectorOffice of Research Integrity & Assurance480.965.2179debra.murphy@asu.edu

Beth Israel, Associate Vice President for ResearchOffice of the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs480.965.1225beth.israel@asu.edu

Thank you