1 / 17

The Not-So-Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Not-So-Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Research Misconduct at Penn State. Candice A. Yekel, Director Office for Research Protections September 24, 2009. RA10 Definition.

stephen-black
Télécharger la présentation

The Not-So-Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Not-So-Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

  2. Research Misconduct at Penn State Candice A. Yekel, Director Office for Research Protections September 24, 2009

  3. RA10 Definition (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities; (2) callous disregard for requirements that ensure the protection of researchers, human participants, or the public; or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals;

  4. RA10 Definition (continued) (3) failure to disclose significant financial and business interest as defined by Penn State Policy RA20, Individual Conflict of Interest; (4) failure to comply with other applicable legal requirements governing research or other scholarly activities

  5. RA10 Process • Written allegation • Inquiry • 60 days to complete • Fact-finding, not a determination of guilt or innocence • Investigation • 120 days to complete • Senior VP for Research appoints 5 full professors to investigate • Recommendations and sanctions • Reporting

  6. PSU Research Misconduct Cases (2002-2008) • 21 allegations of misconduct – 11 of the allegations went to full investigation • 13 of 20 resulted in confirmed misconduct • 14 allegations involved plagiarism • 5 allegations involved fabrication and/or falsification • 2 allegations involved human participant research • 1 allegation involved a breach of confidentially in a grant proposal review

  7. PSU Research Misconduct Cases (2002-2008) • 3 of the allegations involved individuals who were graduate students at the time of the misconduct. • Penalties can range from letter of reprimand to dismissal from the University. • 4 of the 12 misconduct findings led to a recommendation of dismissal from the University

  8. Research Misconduct - Plagiarism • PSU (2002-2008) – 14 allegations: 13 went to an inquiry, 7 went to an investigation, 7 were confirmed misconduct • 67% of PSU allegations involved plagiarism • 54% of PSU confirmed misconduct • NSF – 68% of confirmed misconduct (1990-2004) • ORI – 6% of confirmed misconduct (1994-2003)

  9. Research Misconduct –Fabrication & Falsification • NSF: (1990-2004) • 11% Fabrication • 11% Falsification • ORI: (1994-2003) • 22% Fabrication • 40% Falsification • 27% Fabrication & Falsification • PSU: (2002-2008) • 25% of the confirmed misconduct (3 falsification and/or fabrication)

  10. Case Studies

  11. Case #1 – Protect Thy Brother Handout

  12. Case #1 – Discussion • What are the ethical issues raised by this case? • Do the familial relationships make a difference in this case? Why or why not? • Should this case be considered research misconduct? Why or Why not? • What consequences should Julie Smith face? • What consequences should Sandy Smith face?

  13. Case #2 – Cut and Paste Handout

  14. Case #2 - Discussion • Did Dr. Clip Art do anything wrong? What are the ethical issues raised by the case? • Did Dr. Clip Art plagiarize? If yes, what did he plagiarize? • Is there any way that Dr. Clip Art could have obtained permission to include the figure in his proposal? • Are the actions demonstrated in this case ever justified? • Why does it matter what Dr. Clip Art writes in his proposal? After all, it is not a published work. • Should this case be considered research misconduct? If yes, what would be an appropriate sanction?

  15. Case #3 – To Trust or Not to Trust Handout

  16. Case #3 - Discussion • In what ways did Dr. Simpson act as a good mentor to Susan? • What could Dr. Simpson have done that might have prevented this case from occurring? • We don’t know what prompted Susan to fabricate data, but what responsibilities did Susan have that might have prevented this case from occurring? • What ramifications do the events of this case have on Dr. Simpson?

  17. Questions

More Related