Date post: | 26-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | marian-parrish |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
The Ethical Conduct of Research
Howard University RCR Workshop
March 6, 2007
Jim Kroll, Ph.D.Director of Administrative Investigations
Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation
Why am I here?
Offices of Inspector General charged with recommending, providing leadership and coordination to implement policies to:
Prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse Promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness
Features: Independent of agency management Jurisdiction (NSF activities, programs, operations) Staff of experts: administrators, attorneys, auditors, criminal investigators, and scientists
Responsible for ensuring the integrity in NSF’s programs and operations
A Partnership
National Science Foundation Program Officers Grants Officers OIG
Institution Officials Administrative Financial Education
Researchers Students Colleagues Postdocs Administration
Expectations
NSF Clear articulation of rules/expectations Balance compliance, institution responsibility and latitude,
reduction of bureaucracy Numerous funding opportunities
Institution An environment in which employees can operate with
integrity Responsible administrative, financial, and research
management and oversight (e.g. Article 1, GC-1) Investigators
Overall -- Uphold ethics and standards of community Submit quality proposals and conduct the funded activity Know and adhere to rules, regulations and ethics Ensure compliance and education of staff, students
NSF’s Requirements
The awardee has full responsibility for the conduct of the project or activity supported under this award and for adherence to the award conditions. Although the awardee is encouraged to seek the advice and opinion of NSF on special problems that may arise, such advice does not diminish the awardee’s responsibility for making sound scientific and administrative judgements and should not imply that the responsibility for operating decisions has shifted to NSF.
By accepting this award, the awardee agrees to comply with the applicable Federal requirements for grants and cooperative agreements and to the prudent management of all expenditure and actions affecting the award.
Reference: NSF’s Grant General Conditions, Article 1.
Considerations
A submission to NSF must be of the highest level of scholarship; citations, co-authors, data accuracy
A sound, innovative research proposal
Accuracy of NSF submissions / certifications Completeness of research oversight approvals (human
subject, animal, materials)
Oversight of financial and administrative responsibilities
Accuracy of Current and Pending Support / Biographical Sketch / Annual and Final Reports
Ensuring peer review confidentiality
Compliance with misconduct policies and materials
Ethical Issues you WILL confront
Data: Fabricating/Falsifying, Sharing Sharing and Using Ideas Balancing Priorities Making Financial Decisions Authorship and Acknowledgements Collaborations Conflicts of Interest Paraphrasing and Plagiarism Mentorship/Advisor Problems Merit Review Obtaining Oversight Reviews (Compliance with
Rules and Regulations
Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF.
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Allegation:
University informs NSF OIG that a university professor may have plagiarized in his final report to a Small Business Innovative Research grant
The Facts after OIG Inquiry Professor used a former graduate
students thesis as the basis for the final report of his SBIR Phase I grant
No apparent work accomplished under the Phase I ($100K)
Original PI changed : Graduate Student -> PI’s wife
Signature styles vary throughout grant period
Company already received Phase II award
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Complete Investigative Facts
Virtually no work was done during Phase I and II
Final and interim reports plagiarized
claimed “office” was a trailer in some field
although wife was PI she was deceived by spouse
Professor’s actions were willful to pay for equipment he previously bought for his university lab
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Falsification of information in proposal and reports
Evidence of an extensive pattern Convinced them to reimburse all funds Referred to AUSA -- pleaded guilty to
US Code Title 18, 1001 violation Final criminal resolution: 5 yrs
suspended $15K fine
Debarment
Allegation
Proposal submitted to NSF contains text from peer reviewer’s journal article.
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Facts after NSF OIG Inquiry
Proposal contains approximately 1 page of plagiarized text taken from two journal articles and a few web sites
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Facts after University Investigation
Confirmed previously identified plagiarism plus found that 20% of the research survey portion of his dissertation was plagiarized (approximately 10 pages)
Sources -- websites
Research Misconduct- Case Study
ResultsNot recommended for tenureHas to face actions from degree granting
institutionNSF:
Letter of reprimandCertifications for 2 yearsComplete ethics course
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Allegation
University notifies us that data submitted into an NSF proposal may have been fabricated
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Student conducting survey researchResults look very promising—too promisingMentors colleague states suchMentor submits NSF proposal but then
questions student on veracity of dataStudent suggests that proposal be
withdrawnBegins to claim that data was analyzed by
some unknown individual—data exchanges via email
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Unknown person then sends an email to mentor stating data are made up, apologizes and account is deleted
University investigates, determines that student made up data. Student does not defend herself but does not offer up identify of unknown person
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Results
Student dismissed from University
NSF Debars subject for three years
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Allegation
Post doc allegedly fabricates data in a plant research project
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Post doc publishes in a major journalSupplementary data posted online
Peer in CA reviews research and finds data are questionable—notifies mentor
When approached, post doc confesses
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Research supposedly had three replicates
Only one conducted – other two data sets were multiples of original data (.95,1.05)
Claims pressure to publish and lack of adequate supplies in laboratory
Research Misconduct- Case Study
ResultsRemoved from school
Debarred for three years
Now works in pharmaceutical sales
Research Misconduct- Case Study
Mentor/Student interactions is a trusted relationship
We continue to see a slip in the effort that professors put forth to mentor students
Mentoring often off-loaded to PhD or Post Docs
Mentor/Student Relations
Professor has grant to conduct animal studies outside the country
Takes two female graduate students with him.
Once in the wilds of the study site, he decides he is the Alpha Male
Mentor/Student - Case Study
Upon return, both students complain Could not get to data or computers for analysis without his permission ( wink, hint, smile)
Wanted to prosecute but actions occurred outside the US borders—ergo, question of jurisdiction
Debarred for 5 years
Mentor/Student - Case Study
Graduate student conducts complains that his research was inappropriately used by his mentor
Investigation determines that mentor used several graphs which become the body of a publication by the mentor, the graduate student was not an author.
Finding: Research Misconduct
Mentor/Student - Case Study
Graduate student leaves laboratory either happily or unhappily and takes laboratory notebooks with him/her.
Had to return notebooks, may take copies.
Mentor/Student - Case Study
Peer review is a confidential process by which NSF assesses the quality of the proposed research
Reviewers sign an agreement to keep the information confidential
You may not share, copy, quote, or otherwise use or disclose material from this proposal. Destroy it after your part of the review process is complete.
Peer Review
Allegation
NSF proposal contains both text and ideas taken from a proposal submitted to a European science funding agency
Peer Review -- Case Study
Obtained copy of European proposal from agency along with peer reviewer list
Subject was peer reviewer of European proposal
Complainant was author of European proposal and reviewer of the subject’s NSF Proposal
Text/scientific ideas in NSF proposal were garnered from European Proposal
Peer Review -- Case Study
ResultsUniversity:
Reprimand; Removed from all grants; barred from submitting grants for 2 yrs; barred from peer review for 3 years
NSF:Reprimand; Debarment for 1 additional year;
Peer Review -- Case Study
Peer Review
Even pillow talk can be a violation of confidentiality
Sometimes peer reviewed proposals wind up where they aught not to
Obtaining Oversight Reviews
IRB -- common ruleAll human subject research is subject
even though it might be “exempt”
IACUC – all animal research needs reviewBiohazards?Collection Permits?
PI collects endangered species and imports into US without permits.
PI removed from grants, action taken by Justice Department
PI fails to get human subjects review or to be aware of human subject rules for behavioral studies.
PI required to get appropriate reviews, all research halted until approval obtained. Changes in NSF’s process.
Obtaining Oversight Reviews – Case Study
Collaborations
Written agreements on work, authorship, proprietary nature, subsequent use
Co-PI helps develop submitted collaborative proposal, the sequel to which relies on co-PI’s information but which is submitted without co-PI. Collaborative dispute, fair use.
New researcher shares ideas with professor who invited researcher to come to university and present seminar. Professor subsequently uses ideas in his own proposal that competes with researcher’s. Seemed egregious, however; was not provable.
Making Sound Financial/Administrative
Decisions PI receives grants to work with foreign
collaborators—mostly travel money to assist collaborator visit to US
Post 9/11 makes travel difficult PI unilaterally decides to put grant monies to
other related research Files false final report stating collaboration
occurred PO meets collaborator at foreign conference Other awards have similar problems Extensive travel for Lab Tech Lab Tech turns out to be spouse Institution supposedly aware of the COI Possible civil liability
Making Sound Financial/Administrative
Decisions In 1993, NSF awarded a 5-year $3.8 million
grant to an institution to create a center to enhance science teaching in public schools
Subject was hired to be a Co-PI Had been convicted in 1988 for burglarizing the
homes of his and his mother’s friends He lied on his Institution application about his
criminal history
In 1993, NSF awarded a 5-year $3.8 million grant to an institution to create a center to enhance science teaching in public schools
Subject was hired to be a Co-PI Had been convicted in 1988 for burglarizing the
homes of his and his mother’s friends He lied on his Institution application about his
criminal history
Making Sound Financial/Administrative
Decisions Subject habitually used the VISA card
issued to him for the project as if it were his own — for example: Groceries: 85 times at stores such as
Safeway Garden supplies, hardware, and pet supplies:
90 times at stores such as Home Depot Expensive clothing and jewelry for his wife,
and clothing and toys for his children: dozens of times
He submitted paperwork to Institution that lied about the items and their purpose
Subject habitually used the VISA card issued to him for the project as if it were his own — for example: Groceries: 85 times at stores such as
Safeway Garden supplies, hardware, and pet supplies:
90 times at stores such as Home Depot Expensive clothing and jewelry for his wife,
and clothing and toys for his children: dozens of times
He submitted paperwork to Institution that lied about the items and their purpose
Making Sound Financial/Administrative
Decisions Institution hired subject’s wife to work
on the project in 1995 For 2½ years, she was employed part
time and paid for the hours worked at an hourly rate based on a hand-written timesheet submitted twice each month.
She never filled out her timesheets — instead, subject filled them out with exaggerated hours, forged her signature, and submitted them to Institution to receive fraudulently larger paychecks
Institution hired subject’s wife to work on the project in 1995
For 2½ years, she was employed part time and paid for the hours worked at an hourly rate based on a hand-written timesheet submitted twice each month.
She never filled out her timesheets — instead, subject filled them out with exaggerated hours, forged her signature, and submitted them to Institution to receive fraudulently larger paychecks
Making Sound Financial/Administrative
Decisions Institution became suspicious of subject in
1999 and began an internal review He acknowledged the $108,497 fraud
Institution uncovered, but did not inform them of any of his additional fraudulent activities
Institution allowed subject to continue working on the grant project, though it removed his ability to charge expenditures to the grant and required him to repay the $108,497 — of which it repaid $56,676 to NSF
Institution became suspicious of subject in 1999 and began an internal review
He acknowledged the $108,497 fraud Institution uncovered, but did not inform them of any of his additional fraudulent activities
Institution allowed subject to continue working on the grant project, though it removed his ability to charge expenditures to the grant and required him to repay the $108,497 — of which it repaid $56,676 to NSF
Making Sound Financial/Administrative
Decisions We and defense counsel submitted
sentencing memoranda, argued in sentencing hearing
The court rejected a request for a reduction, sentenced him to: (1) 1 year in prison; (2) 2 years of supervised release following prison; and (3) pay restitution to NSF in the amount of $93,503 (in addition to the $56,676 previously repaid to NSF)
NSF may recover additional funds from Institution, for unallowable costs above $202,000
We and defense counsel submitted sentencing memoranda, argued in sentencing hearing
The court rejected a request for a reduction, sentenced him to: (1) 1 year in prison; (2) 2 years of supervised release following prison; and (3) pay restitution to NSF in the amount of $93,503 (in addition to the $56,676 previously repaid to NSF)
NSF may recover additional funds from Institution, for unallowable costs above $202,000
INTEGRITY STARTS WITH YOU!
If you are aware of, or suspect research misconduct
fraud waste
abuse Issues of economy or efficiency
or if you just have questions,Please contact the
NSF Office of Inspector General
Contact Information
Internet: oig.nsf.gov
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 703-292-7100 (Jim - x5012)
Anonymous: 1-800-428-2189
Write: 4201 Wilson Blvd. Suite II-705
Arlington, VA 22230