Research Misconduct

1. Research Misconduct

2. Research Misconduct • What is it?: • Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research results. • Fabrication:making up results and recording or reporting them • Falsification:manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting results such that the research is not accurately represented in the record. • Plagiarism: the appropriation of another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving proper credit.

3. Criteria for Research Misconduct • Represents a significant departure from accepted practices • Has been committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and • Can be proven by a preponderance of evidence • What is NOT MISCONDUCT: honest, unintentional error + = Research Misconduct

4. SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: How Prevalent Is Fraud? That's a million-Dollar QuestionScience 1 December 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5497, pp. 1662 - 1663 How often does scientific misconduct occur? There seems to be no consensus on the answer, although a range of estimates were presented at a conference called last month by a key federal watchdog agency to announce a $1 million grants program to investigate the prevalence of fraud, data fabrication, plagiarism, and other questionable practices in science. The 9-year-old Office of Research Integrity hopes to support studies gauging the frequency of misconduct and assessing efforts to raise ethical standards.

5. Nature453, 980-982 (19 June 2008) • SURVEY of 2,212 Researchers • Observed 201 instances of misconduct • E.G. • "A post doc changed the numbers in assays in order to 'improve' the data." • "A colleague duplicated results between three different papers but differently labeled data in each paper." • "A co-investigator on a large, interdisciplinary grant application reported that a postdoctoral fellow in his laboratory falsified data submitted as preliminary data in the grant. As principal investigator of the grant, I submitted supplementary data to correct the application." • "A colleague used Photoshop to eliminate background bands on a western blot to make the data look more specific than they were."

6. Top ten “POOR” behaviors 1. Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data 2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements 3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based on one‘s own research 4. Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be interpreted as questionable 5. Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit (plagiarism) 6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one’s own research 7. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research ???? 8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements

7. Top ten behaviors(continued) 9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data 10. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source (falsification) Other behaviors 11. Publishing the same data or results in two or morepublications 12. Inappropriately assigning authorship credit 13. Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or proposals 14. Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs 15. Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate 16. Inadequate record keeping related to research projects

8. SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT:Scandals Shake Chinese Science • "Too many incentives have blurred the reasons for doing science in some people's minds“ • Lu Yongxiang, president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences • "Though it is difficult to ascertain the number of misconduct cases, the negative impact of these cases should not be underestimated“ • Ministry of Education spokesperson Wang Xuming

9. How is misconduct identified • Suspected and reported by a colleague • Failure to confirm research results by own lab or others

10. Consequences (if misconduct is substantiated) • Withdrawal or correction of all pending and published papers and abstracts affected by the misconduct • Reprimand, removal from project, rank and salary reduction, dismissal • Restitution of funds to the granting agency • Ineligibility to apply for Federal grants for years • I.E. the end of your research career!

11. Who is investigated and who is held accountable? • Investigated • All authors that are involved in the specific data in question • Held accountable • Primary author • Other authors whose results are found culpable

12. SCIENCE: Vol 435|9, p.737 June 2005 COMMENTARY Scientists behaving badly “To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices” Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries.

13. Responsible Research Conduct • The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) defines research integrity as “adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms.” • Research integrity is essential to ensure the reliability of research results and to preserve public support for research.

14. Information Sources • DHHS 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93; Federal Register/Vol 70, No. 94, 2005. • “Fraud and the Role of Intensions” On Being A Scientist, Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989, page 15, ISBN 0-309-04091-4 • Martinson, B., Anderson, M.,& de Vries, R., “Scientists behaving badly”. Journal of Nature 435, 737-738, June 2005. • Office of Research Integrity http://ori.dhhs.gov/ • Office of Research Integrity: Case Summary-Pat J. Palmer. Federal Register: February 17, 2004, 69:31, 7488-7489. • Steneck, Nicholas H. (2004) ORI: Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. • WEBSITE FOR THIS POWER POINT FILE:http://www.research.vt.edu/reports/Research_Misconduct.ppt