Beth H. Israel, Associate Vice President for Research
.
Debra Murphy, Director
Office of Research Integrity and Assurance
May 7, 2009

Definitions
Description of the Process
Case Studies
Resources


Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

Falsification means 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 means appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

John Darsee - An Overly Ambitious Researcher
•
•
Medical Researcher at Harvard (previous positions at Notre Dame, Indiana University and Emory University)
First author on 7 publications in very good scientific journals with 5 major papers in 15 months – offered faculty position at Harvard in 1981

John Darsee - An Overly Ambitious Researcher
•
•
•
Colleagues became concerned about the accuracy of results reported by Darsee.
Concerns were reported to lab director and investigated by the head of the lab and the lab manager.
The internal lab investigation found that Darsee had been altering dates in lab notes to make a few hours work appear to be several weeks of data.

•
•
•
Darsee’s fellowship was terminated.
NIH – ORI investigated in 1981 and found that
Darsee had committed wide-range scientific misconduct (fabrication of large amounts of data that was never conducted.)
Over time more research by Darsee came under fire. Investigations revealed that data was falsified between 1966-1970.

Outcomes
• Harvard University retracted 30 of Darsee’s published papers and abstracts in 1983
• Emory University retracted an additional 52 papers and abstracts published during his tenure there
• Harvard drew criticism for lax supervision and for creating a hurried pace emphasizing productivity and limited interaction with senior scientists that contributed to the ease with which the data was fabricated.
• Coauthors were criticized for their unfamiliarity with the work and lack of awareness that misconduct was occurring.


Aftermath


Darsee maintained that he had "no recollection" of committing research fraud. He issued an apology which was printed in the New England Journal of Medicine, writing: "I am deeply sorry for allowing these inaccuracies and falsehoods to be published in the Journal and apologize to the editorial board and readers." Darsee asked "forgiveness for whatever I have done wrong."
Darsee subsequently entered a clinical fellowship at Ellis
Hospital in Schenectady, NY where he did not perform research.

“While it is acceptable to copy one’s genes, it is not acceptable to copy a colleague’s work”.
Sheila Garrity, J.D. M.P.H. M.B.A
Director, Research Integrity
John Hopkins University http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/1797416/Getty-Images-News

Laptops

Research Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

If you suspect misconduct or simply want to discuss what you feel are questionable research practices – who do you call?
University policy states that allegations can be reported anonymously and that whistleblowers will be protected. Reports can be made by email to the OVPREA, ORIA or to the University hotline at: http://uabf.asu.edu/asu_hotline .





Assessment
Inquiry
Investigation
Adjudication

An assessment is what can be called a ‘smell test’. It is an initial review of the allegation to determine if it has merit and is completed before opening an inquiry. Beside ORIA the Associate VP for Research and possibly the
Unit Supervisor may be involved.
If it is determined at the assessment stage that the allegation does have merit, we move into the next phase, inquiry.

If no merit is found the process ends at the assessment stage.
If it is determined at the assessment stage that the allegation does have merit, we move into the next phase, inquiry.

Inquiry is typically handled by a subcommittee of the University Senate with assistance from the OVPREA and ORIA. Federal regulations call for the sequestration of evidence before or when an inquiry is opened. That is when we would show up at your lab or office to collect evidence needed to go forward.




Our goal is not to shut down the lab or stop research.
The purpose of the inquiry is not to make a finding, it is designed to determine if the complaint can be dismissed as frivolous, unjustified or mistaken.
The inquiry is an initial review of the evidence to determine if the allegation merits further review.


If the inquiry finds that an investigation is not warranted the process ends at the inquiry stage.

If the inquiry finds that an investigation is warranted and federal funds are involved, we may be required to report to the sponsor and the Office of Research Integrity at ORI if HHS funds are involved. The next stage is
Investigation.

The investigation committee is appointed by
The Associate VP for Research from among senior members of the Misconduct in Research
Committee - a subcommittee of the University
Senate.
Members of the committee are generally tenured professors. This is meant to ensure that no faculty member’s promotion can be jeopardized because they played a role in an unpopular finding.

During an investigation a thorough review of the evidence is completed and those involved are interviewed by the Investigation
Committee. The interviews may be recorded.
Individuals interviewed include the accuser, the complainant and in some cases witnesses may be called.

The results of the investigation are reported to the Vice President for Research and Economic
Affairs.
The VP reviews the final report and recommendations of the review committee.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the
AVPR will make a final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings and recommends institutional actions.

When a final decision on the case has been reached, the AVPR will provide written notification to the respondent, appropriate administrative officials, and the complainant.
In addition, the AVPR on advice of General Counsel (if necessary) recommends whether law enforcement agencies,
Professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case.
The AVPR is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements to notify sponsors.


Respondent may appeal the findings of
Research Misconduct through the Vice
President for Research and Economic Affairs to the University President.

Three tiers of review each involving an independent process:
Inquiry
Investigation
Adjudication


The number of research misconduct cases referred to the Office of the Vice President for
Research remains quite low but nationally the number of cases continue to rise. There is concern by the Feds that misconduct is under reported.


Also important for avoiding misconduct is awareness. We want to publicize our expectation and policies and we want to make sure you know who to call if you have questions.






ASU Policies and Procedures
ORIA Website – http://researchintegrity.asu.edu
ORI Website http://ori.hhs.gov
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Publication
“Making the Right Moves A Practical guide to
Scientific management for Postdocs and New
Faculty”. http://www.hhmi.org/resources/labmanagem ent/moves.html
.

An allegation of sexual harassment was filed by a post-doctoral fellow against a junior faculty member. The two had worked together for 24 months developing a new psychological assessment scale. The institution investigated the allegation and determined it to be true.
Is this an example of Research Misconduct?
1. Yes 2. No

A faculty member is reviewing data from a series of experiments in preparation for a publication. Data from one set of experiments appears to be outliers and presents statistical significance. The
Investigator decides to eliminate that data from the analysis with the assumption that there was a technical problem for that set without explaining.
Is the an example of Research Misconduct?
1. Yes 2. No

A graduate student is in the midst of writing her dissertation discovers that her note taking over the years has been sloppy and disorganized.
Her notes, including those used in her dissertation proposal, contain substantial paragraphs of text that contain important concepts and ideas placed in quotation marks as well as short unique phrases conveying important concepts that she knows intuitively were not her own. Some of notes have a name written by them and other list a book or article title with page numbers but many do not.

With the knowledge that she has already used the material in her proposal and that none of her committee members raised any issues, the student reasons that there is no harm in doing the same in her dissertation. She reasons that, if she paraphrases the quoted material, it will not be a direct quotation and therefore she does not need to use quotation marks or cite the source.
Is the an example of Research Misconduct?
1. Yes 2. No

Tony Onofrietti, Director of Research Education
University of Utah www.education.reseach.utah.edu
Shiela Garrity, Director, Research Integrity, Johns Hopkins University
Online Audio Presentation: Recognizing, Reporting and
Avoiding Research Misconduct
University of New Hampshire Responsible Conduct of Research on line study guide http://www.unh.edu/rcr/
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
University of Sheffield, Department of Marketing & Communication
BBC Homepage Science and Nature: TV & Radio Follow-up

Please contact ORIA or the OVPREA if you have questions or would like additional information. We can be reached at:
Debra Murphy, Director
Office of Research Integrity & Assurance
480.965.2179
debra.murphy@asu.edu
Beth Israel, Associate Vice President for Research
Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs
480.965.1225
beth.israel@asu.edu