|
|
Summaries of Closed Inquiries and Investigations Not Resulting in Findings of Research Misconduct - 2001
Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified
published data by biased selection of research results involving animal
behavioral research. The research was supported by three National
Institute of Aging), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grants,
one National Institute of Drug Abuse, NIH, grant, and one National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, grant. The institution
conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that although errors
were made and reported in the questioned publication, there was insufficient
evidence of research misconduct to warrant further investigation.
The institution required that the authors of the publication in question
inform the journal of the errors/omissions in the reporting of their
work, and a letter of correction was published. ORI concurred with
the institution's determination that there was insufficient evidence
to warrant further investigation in this case.
Falsification: The respondents, a professor and an associate
professor, allegedly falsified research data in research involving
growth factors and anti-cancer drugs and included the questioned data
in a published paper. The questioned research was supported by three
grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH. The institution
conducted an inquiry into the matter and determined that there was
insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant an investigation under
the institution's disciplinary rules. In conducting the inquiry, the
committee confirmed the existence of the questioned data. In accepting
the institution's conclusion, ORI examined two additional manuscripts
that reproduced and extended the results and noted that no evidence
was presented that confirmed the allegations.
Falsification: The respondent, a professor, allegedly falsified
research results that were reported in a published paper on motor
control in animals. The questioned paper cited support from the National
Institute for Neurological Disorders
and Stroke, NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter
and concluded that the facts of the case did not support the allegation
of research misconduct and determined that no further investigation
was warranted. ORI concurred with the institution's determination.
Falsification:
The respondent, an associate professor, allegedly used false data
for three figures in a research grant application submitted to the
NCI, NIH. The questioned research involved the development of a high
energy proton beam source and its exploitation to deliver therapeutic
doses in radiation oncology. The institution conducted an inquiry
into the matter and concluded that the evidence did not warrant an
investigation into research misconduct. ORI determined that the
evidence indicated that the misrepresentations of the figures in the
questioned grant application were consistent with honest errors on
the part of the respondent and concurred with the institution's conclusion
that an investigation was not warranted.
Falsification:
The respondent, a research nurse, allegedly falsified screening logs
and patient questionnaires and activities records in a clinical research
project involving problems of cancer patients. The questioned research
was supported by grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research,
NIH. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded
that while there were deficiencies in the screening process and in
the data collection methodology, there was no evidence of scientific
misconduct. ORI concurred with the institution's factual findings
and determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an
investigation.
Falsification:
An anonymous complainant alleged that the respondents, who are associate
professors, allegedly falsified data in recent publications by inappropriate
selection of data, using different doses of radiation from case animals
and control animals to ensure statistical significance in their published
case-control studies. The questioned research was supported by five
NCI, NIH, grants. The institution conducted an inquiry into the matter
and concluded, after an exhaustive review of the primary data and
interviews with the respondents, that there was no evidence of scientific
misconduct. ORI accepted the institution's conclusion that there is
insufficient evidence of falsification or fabrication to warrant any
further investigation in this case.
Fabrication:
The respondent, a staff interviewer, allegedly fabricated records
for two interviews on one day, in a behavioral research study involving
sensitive behaviors, under a cooperative agreement funded by Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. The institution conducted an investigation
into the matter. The respondent, who claimed to have conducted the
interviews, failed to respond during the investigation. The institution
concluded the respondent had fabricated the interview records and
forged payment receipts for the two subjects. However, ORI concluded
that the evidence may be insufficient to sustain a PHS finding of
research misconduct. Therefore, ORI accepted the institution's factual
findings, but did not make a finding of research misconduct in this
case.
Falsification:
The respondent, a research nurse, allegedly falsified research data
for human subjects in a study involving hypertension and kidney disease.
The study in question was supported in part by the National Institute
for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), NIH. The institution
conducted an inquiry into the matter and concluded that an investigation
was warranted for certain issues not resolved by the inquiry. Upon
completion of its investigation, the institution determined that the
allegations were unfounded and recommended dismissal of the allegations.
ORI accepted the institution's findings of fact and concluded that
there was insufficient evidence to resolve definitively the allegations
of falsification.
Falsification:
The respondent, a graduate student, allegedly falsified research
for a section of his doctoral dissertation in research on brain control
of animal movements. The questioned research was supported by two
National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, grants. The institution
conducted an investigation into the matter and concluded that an electronic
file containing data from the questioned research was copied and represented
as data from an independent experimental measurement. However, it
was not possible for the institution to determine who was responsible
for the file being copied or whether the copying was intentional.
Thus, the institution found that since neither the identity nor the
intent of the responsible party could be established, no finding of
research misconduct could be made. ORI concluded that the evidence
was insufficient to determine whether duplication and misrepresentation
of computer files represented an intentional and significant falsification
of data for the limited set of control experiments in question. Given
the inconsistencies in the evidence, ORI concurred with the institution's
determination that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that
the respondent was responsible, and ORI did not make a finding of
research misconduct in this case.
Falsification/Fabrication:
The respondent, a senior scientist and chief nurse, allegedly falsified
and/or fabricated data on patient interview forms in a study involving
surgical treatment of a disease. The study in question received funding
from the NHLBI, NIH. The institution conducted an investigation and
determined that the respondent had falsified dates on patient interview
forms but had not falsified or fabricated any other information. Based
on information gained from its extensive oversight review, ORI decided
to close the matter without taking further action. Specifically, ORI
considered: (1) the time lag of approximately 10 years between the
alleged misconduct and the completion of the institutional process
(including several appeals by the respondent); (2) the sufficiency
of the administrative actions already imposed on the respondent by
the institution to protect the integrity of the research record; and
(3) the respondent's retirement and lack of current participation
in Public Health Service research.
|
Assurance
