Preventing Misconduct
In Research
Candyce Lindsay, Assistant Director
Debra Murphy, Director
Office of Research Integrity and Assurance
February 4, 2012
Objectives
Definitions
Case Study
Description of the Process
Resources
What is Misconduct
Misconduct is fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other
practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly
accepted within the academic community for proposing,
conducting, or reporting research.
Instances of honest error and honest differences of opinion or
judgments of data are not considered misconduct.
Misconduct Definitions
• 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.
• Other deviations may include action, such as performing
research without obtaining the appropriate approvals.
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
Marc Hauser –
Harvard says: Guilty of Scientific Misconduct
Psychologist Marc Hauser — a well-known scientist and author
of the book “Moral Minds’’ — has been found guilty after a
lengthy internal investigation by Harvard University found
evidence of scientific misconduct in his laboratory.
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
Various outlets of the press reported in that it was one
experiment, in particular, that led members of Dr. Hauser's lab to
Become suspicious of his research and, in the end, to report their
concerns about the professor to Harvard administrators.
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
The experiment tested the ability of cotton-top tamarins to
recognize sound patterns. Researchers played a series of three
speech syllables1 over a sound system and recorded the
responses.
1Original
text corrected based on questions posed by M. Hauser, 2/20/2012.
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
Researchers watched videotapes of the experiments and
"coded" the results, meaning that they wrote down how the
monkeys reacted.
Two researchers independently coded the results so that their
findings could later be compared to eliminate errors or bias.
The purpose of dual coding is to obtain inter-observer
reliabilities & show that the response measure is reliable2.
2Detail
on purpose provided by M. Hauser 2/20/2012.
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
• Research assistants concerned with the reporting of results
independently reviewed the data themselves, without Dr.
Hauser's permission.1
• Some versions from the press indicate that the student
interpretation of the results concluded that the experiment had
failed.
• It was also reported in the press that a review of Dr. Hauser's
coding revealed that what Hauser had recorded bore little
relation to what they had actually observed on the videotapes.
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
Evidence was taken to the University, setting in motion an
investigation that would lead to Dr. Hauser's lab being raided
by the University in August of 2007 to collect evidence.
It wasn't until much, however, that the investigation was
completed.
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
Dean's letter to Harvard faculty of August 20, 2010
confirmed the allegations of scientific misconduct against
Marc Hauser.
The Boston Globe reports that Hauser is on leave for the current
Academic year.
…..to be continued
Case Study in Research
Misconduct – Falsification
The findings have resulted in the retraction of the results of 2
studies that he led and brought 3 publications into question.
Dr. Hauser accepted responsibility for the error in the study on
whether monkeys learn rules, which was published in 2002 in the
journal, “Cognition.”
Information of note is that of the 3 studies reviewed the results of
2 have been replicated.
Case Study in Research Misconduct –
Falsification, Fabrication, & Plagiarism
Bengu Sezen, Ph.D., Columbia University
• Office of Research Integrity (ORI), found that Bengu Sezen,
former graduate student, Department of Chemistry, CU,
engaged in misconduct in science research funded by
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS).
• Twenty-one (21) findings of scientific misconduct against Dr.
Sezen based on evidence that she knowingly and intentionally
falsified, fabricated and, in one instance, plagiarized data
reported in three (3) papers* and her doctoral thesis.
Case Study in Research Misconduct-Falsification
• Consequence for Sezen included:
• Dr. Sezen is debarred from eligibility for contracting or
subcontracting with any agency of the United States
Government and from eligibility or involvement in any nonprocurement programs of the United States Government
• Dr. Sezen is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity
to the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), including, but not
limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board,
and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.
Case Study in Research Misconduct –
Fabrication and Falsification
Hung-Shu Chang, Washington State University
• Based on a report of an investigation conducted by
Washington State University (WSU) and additional analysis by
ORI in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service
(PHS) found that Hung-Shu Chang, PhD, former postdoctoral
fellow, WSU, engaged in research misconduct in research by
fabricating and falsifying data in Figure 3 of a paper published
in “Endocrinology”
Case Study in Research Misconduct-Falsification
• Consequence: (1) to exclude himself from serving in any
advisory capacity to PHS, including, but not limited to, service
on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review
committee, or as a consultant; (2) that any institution which
submits an application for PHS support for a research project
on which the Respondent's participation is proposed or that
uses him in any capacity on PHS-support research, or that
submits a report of PHS-funded research in which the
Respondent is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for
supervision of the Respondent's duties to the funding agency
for approval.
Case Study in Misconduct in Research
Fabrication and Falsification
• Recent case of misconduct under discussion:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/player.html?category=
News&zone=health&site=cbc.health.ca&clipid=
1403209582
• Final outcome for Dr. Wakefield hasn’t been
determined.
Plagiarism
“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
Your turn
Based on the cases we have discussed,
what would you consider to be a bad research
behavior that would result in research
misconduct…
Bad Behaviors
•
•
•
•
Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data
Ignoring or circumventing human-subject requirements
Not properly disclosing financial conflicts of interest
Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit
(plagiarism)
• Failing to present data that contradict one’s own
• Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of
data
• Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to
pressure from a funding source (falsification)
Research Record
Laptops
Research Record
Research Misconduct
What it is Not
Research Misconduct does not include honest
error or honest differences in interpretations or
judgments of data.
Research Misconduct Reporting
If you suspect misconduct or simply want to
discuss what you feel are questionable
research practices – who do you call?
ASU University Policy states that allegations can be
reported anonymously and that whistleblowers
will be protected. Reports can be made by
email to the OKED, ORIA or to the University
hotline at: http://uabf.asu.edu/asu_hotline.
An Allegation Has Been Made
Now What?
• Assessment
• Inquiry
• Investigation
• Adjudication
Assessment
An Assessment is what can be called a ‘Smell Test’ -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 Policy and
Assurance and, possibly, the Unit Supervisor may be involved.
At the assessment stage, if it is determined that the allegation
does have merit, we move into the next phase, Inquiry.
Assessment
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
Inquiry is typically handled by a subcommittee
of the University Senate, with assistance from
OKED and ORIA. Federal Regulations
call for the sequestration of evidence before or
when an Inquiry is Opened.
This is when we would show up at your lab or
office to collect evidence needed to go forward.
Inquiry
• Our goal is not to shut down the lab or stop research.
• The purpose of the inquiry is not to make a finding.
Inquiry 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.
Inquiry
• 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.
Investigation
An Investigation Committee is appointed by The Associate VP
for Research Policy and Assurance from among senior
members of the Misconduct in Research Committee - a
subcommittee of the University Senate.
Members of the Investigation 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.
Investigation
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.
Investigation
Results of the Investigation are reported to the University’s
Chief Research Officer, who is the Deputy Vice President,
OKED.
The Deputy VP reviews the Final Report and
Recommendations of the Investigation Committee.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the AVPRPA will
make a final determination whether to accept the Investigation
Report, its findings and recommends institutional actions.
Notification
When a final decision on the case has been reached, the AVPRPA will provide
written notification to the respondent, appropriate administrative officials, and the
complainant.
In addition, the AVPRPA, 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 AVPRPA is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements to
notify Sponsors.
Appeal
Respondent may Appeal the Findings of
Research Misconduct through the Chief
Research Officer to the University
President.
Summary of Process
Three tiers of review, each involving an
independent process:
Inquiry
Investigation
Adjudication
Research Misconduct at ASU
The number of Research Misconduct Cases
referred to OKED remains quite low, but
nationally the number of cases continue to rise.
There is concern by the Feds that Misconduct is
under reported.
Avoiding Research Misconduct
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.
Additional Resources
•
•
•
•
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/labmanagement/moves.html.
Acknowledgments
•
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
•
Office of Research Integrity, DHHS http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/
•
University of Sheffield, Department of Marketing & Communication
•
BBC Homepage Science and Nature: TV & Radio Follow-up
Thank you
Please contact ORIA or the OKED 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
Candyce Lindsay, Assistant Director
Office of Research Integrity & Assurance
480.965.8016
Candyce.lindsay@asu.edu