RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Ruth M. Greenblatt

Why talk about this now?

Misconduct can occur in several ways Your own actions Work of staff who report to you Related to interactions with other

investigators As you approach independence you need

to be aware of the rules and how these problems arise

Misconduct is often not volitional, it may arise when someone is trying to expedite work, or is certain of the results they expect

Research Misconduct

Whether these complaints are substantiated or not, the process is difficult for all involved. Time consuming Anxiety provoking Strains relationships Requires third party investigation Tends to extend beyond initial issues

Often involves mentees As witnesses Initiating complaints/responding to complaints

What is research misconduct?

Fabrication (making up data or results) Falsification (manipulating research

resources, or changing or omitting data or results to render the research record inaccurate)

Plagiarism (appropriating another persons ideas, processes, results, or words without giving credit)

Does not include honest error or differences of opinion

Pertains to proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting research

Negligence

Identifying data errors after publication but submitting a retraction

Using an expired version of informed consent

Dispensing a study drug to someone not enrolled in the study

Unintentional but seriously neglectful breaches of accepted research policies and procedures

Plagiarism

Most common unethical behavior Occurs in many forms (appropriating

ideas, copying portions of text without credit or quotation marks)

More subtle varieties, while unethical, may not be considered to be misconduct

Can be inadvertent failure to borrow from a source and fail to fully give credit

Tends to result in significant penalties

Avoiding Plagiarism

“Always acknowledges the contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas

Any text taken from another author must be enclosed in quotation marks (avoid the mosaic)

Always acknowledge every source that we use in our writing, whether it is paraphrased, summarized, or enclosed in quotations

When paraphrasing or summarizing others’ work we must reproduce the exact meaning of the other author’s ideas or facts

When in doubt, use a citation”

http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/plagiarism.pdf

Self Plagiarism

Misleads the reader because the reader has reason to assume the material you write is new Redundant and duplicative papers

Can be acceptable Can include presentations of data

Salami slicing – data fragmentation Copyright infringement Text recycling

Few guidelines Can be tempting in presenting complex methods Can lead to publication of inaccurate methods

http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/plagiarism.pdf

Misconduct involving scientific mentorsand mentees Often arise after an extended period of dispute or

strain Often results from poor communication among

the parties Can result from misunderstanding on the part of

early career investigators concerning: autonomy conventions of authorship conventions regarding credit and intellectual property

Often arise when best practices in team conduct are not followed

Can extend to involve multiple individuals

Trans Mentoring

Should be a great aid in avoiding misconduct episodes and complaints.

Your mentor: Can dispel erroneous assumptions regarding

autonomy and rights Can promote effective communication even with

difficult senior collaborators Can identify significant problems early in

process Can help mentees to appropriately cope with

complaints and grievances

Points to clarify

Role of PI- Responsibilities

Fiscal Scientific direction

Expectations of credit Authorship

Corresponding author: should be person with stable address

Order of authorship: should be discussed openly early in the process

When disputes occur

Parties should avoid involving lab bystanders in casual conversation and gossip about these issues Seek appropriate advice Need to address issues with senior mentor Involving bystanders can complicate situation and

harden positions Also give context

Some disputes in scientific collaborations are common and usually are resolved with good communication

The great majority of scientists are reasonable and ethical, actual misconduct is not common

Workplace conduct issues

Expression of anger can cross lines of acceptable conduct Shouting, singling individuals out, pointing can be

violations of the UC code of conduct on the part of mentor or mentee

Cursing, threatening or seeking to identify the origin of complaints is also unacceptable behavior

Concerned persons should seek appropriate help Problem resolution center Academic affairs office VA and GIVI resources

Vulnerable Settings

Hot findings New initiatives

Especially when one party has much more experience than the others.

Disengaged PI Language/cultural differences within lab

or between mentor and mentee When problems have occurred in past When family members are collaborators New PIs

Suspicion of Research Misconduct Plagiarism, falsification, fabrication

Not authorship disputes Report to RIO immediately, do NOT try to resolve

or even mention suspicion Sequestration of lab books, computer, etc Assessment by RIO Inquiry by administrator Investigation by ad hoc committee Imposition of discipline Report to ORI/other agencies

Case Example A

A complaint of research misconduct is received from a postdoc concerning inappropriate use of grant funds Funding from Project A was used to support Project B and to support

PI travel that was not necessary for the research Background

Postdoctoral fellow had been long frustrated by lack of support for his own research projects, and was looking for job with fewer publications than he had hoped for, disputes had also occurred regarding who the corresponding author on the papers should be;

PI felt that the postdoc had done well, productivity had been hampered by technical issues, and was unaware of the extent of postdoc’s concern

Postdoc also felt that PI had not been as supportive in job search as he could have been, and enrolled other lab staff in effort to review budgets and expenditures.

Case Example A Outcome

Outcome Postdoctoral fellow is granted whistle blower

status, but eventually decided that academics was too difficult a work environment for him.

PI was forced to return funding for Project A using his entire unrestricted funding to cover the costs, resulting in cessation of other projects and support for several graduate students.

Case A

Could anything have been done to achieve a better result, and if so what and when? Communication about the career plan and

productivity Communication about the job search

Case Example B

An early career faculty member submitted a complaint that his prior mentor (PI) committed research misconduct and workplace misconduct: One grievant complained that the mentor had

used material he published previously (without the PIs name as author), word-for-word and without the grievant’s consent (he was listed as coauthor).

A graduate student in the same laboratory supported this complaint and noted that the PI raised his voice, used derogatory language and pointed his finger at her in the workplace.

Example B Background

Other students and faculty who know PI were said to report this kind of misconduct happens all the time.

The faculty member had previously been required to take supervisory and anger management training.

The work that was reported in both papers was completed in the PI’s laboratory using grant funding that he obtained, but he was less involved in leading this work, which was an offshoot of the original project, than was his routine practice.

The PI reported that he was not aware the grievant had submitted this paper, and that he was simply completing what he had thought was an unfinished manuscript.

Case B Continued

The issues were discussed widely within the laboratory when the PI was away, and the entire research team became embroiled.

The grievants shared comments made by academic leaders and other faculty with the research group.

The grievants obtained copies of correspondence that indicated that the PI was aware of the first publication, including collection of material from deleted computer files.

Case B Outcome

The PI was forced to retract his publication.

The PI was found to have violated the UCSF code of conduct.

Since the dispute became public within the department, the grievants also were perceived by some to have transgressed appropriate conduct and to have acted to falsely tarnish the reputation of the PI and his contributions to the research.

Case B

Could anything have been done to achieve a better result, and if so what and when? The paper Discretion about the complaint