Responsible Conduct of Research Training

Research Misconduct

Source: Office of Research and Grants (ORG)

Fabrication: Infamous CaseJohn DarseeResearch Fellow at Harvard University (1980-1981)Harvard had done an internal investigation (1981)

◦ Found – Darsee fabricated data on his lab work◦ Terminated Darsee’s fellowship but did not inform NIH.

NIH performed a formal investigation (1981)◦ asked Harvard to refund >$100K and barred Darsee from

receiving NIH funding for 10 years. ◦ Harvard retracted 30 of Darsee’s papers◦ This was the first time an institution was required to return

money to NIH because of research fraud.NY State Board of Regents revoked Darsee’s license to

practice medicine (1984).2

Graduate Student

16%

Senior PI21%

Asst. Professor or Scientist17%

Other21%

Postdoctoral Fellow26%

Who Commits Research Misconduct?

Gawrylewski (2009) The Scientist 23:67

Federal Definition of Research Misconduct:

“Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results”.Fabrication – “Making up data or results and recording or reporting them”Falsification – “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 – “The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving appropriate credit.”

• represent a "significant departure from accepted practices";

• have been "committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly"; and be "proven by a preponderance of evidence”;

• Misconduct IS NOT: an honest error, honest differences, academic disagreement or debate, authorship disputes or appropriate co-author ranking.

To be considered “Research Misconduct”, actions must:

APU Definition of Research Misconduct

Federal Government Policy applies for Federally-funded award.

For APU’s non-federally funded research, Research Misconduct includes: Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation

from commonly accepted practices committed intentionally or unintentionally, which has been proven by a preponderance of evidence;

Failure to protect researchers, human participants, the public and laboratory animals;

Abuse of confidentiality; Academic dishonesty in the design, conduct, and presentation

of research. Integrity in Research Policy (Policy# PO2010029)

2) Whistleblower Policy#PO2007012 – “A University employee may not: (1) retaliate against an employee or applicant for employment who has made a protected disclosure or who has refused to obey an illegal order, nor (2) directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority or influence of his or her position for the purpose of interfering with the right of an applicant or an employee to make a protected disclosure to the University”.

APU has responsibility to investigate and report to appropriate parties allegations of suspected improper activities, and to protect those employees who, in good faith, report these activities to the appropriate authority.

Reason for Policy:

Example

Example

Example

Example

Example

Is it research misconduct? Retract paper?

Professor Smith received a grant from NIH. He produced five research articles with accurate data and proper test procedures.

But he used part of the research funds to buy a home computer, which is unrelated to his work.

Is it research misconduct? Retract paper?

Professor Doe received a grant from NFS. He signed the disclosure of the conflict of interest to declare that he will not have any personal financial gain from the research study.

His wife has a MBA and a JD. He hired his wife to be he project manager and he believed that she is the most competent candidate for the job.

He wrote two excellent research papers out of this study with accurate data.

Is it research misconduct? Retract paper?

Professor Ho received a grant from DOE. He hired an army of graduate assistants for the project.

Her assistants are very competent and produced ten papers.

Dr. Ho didn’t write anything but she demanded her name on every paper. Her rationale is: the money is from her and she is the boss.