College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Research Integrity and Ethics

Ahsan ChoudhuriDepartment of Mechanical Engineering

Combustion and Propulsion Research Laboratory

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Objectives

• To promote Responsible Conduct in Research• To provide information about Research Misconduct issues• To provide information about federal/agency/university

policies which govern Research Misconduct issues• To provide information about the institutional responsibility

of handling research misconduct allegations.

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Responsible Conduct in Research

• Compliance and Ethics– Compliance means the researcher follow the rules set out by the federal

government, funding agencies and the institution.

– Ethics refers to a responsible behavior towards humans, sentient beings, society and ecosystems. Ethics means promoting good.

– Both compliance and ethics are required for the Responsible Conduct in Research.

– Compliance set out the minimum acceptable ethical behavior in research.• Noncompliance results in Research Misconduct

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Research Misconduct

Federal Research Misconduct Policy [Federal Register: December 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 235)]

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

– Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

– Falsification is 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 is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

–  Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct requires that

• There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and

• The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and

• The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

For More Information

Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation

http://www.nsf.gov/oig

Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services

http://www.ori.dhhs.gov

UTEP Research Misconduct Policyhttp://admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx?PageContentMode=1&tabid=30390

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Some Recent Famous Research Misconduct Cases

• Dr. Hwang Woo Suk Korean Stem Cell Research Scientists• Falsification and Fabrication

• Dr. Jan Hendrik Schön, Bell Laboratory• Falsification and Fabrication

• Eric T. Poehlman,MD, PhD University of Vermont (UVM) College of Medicine in Burlington

• Falsification, Fabrication, Criminal, Civil and Administrative

• Ali Sultan, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health • Fabrication

• Dr. Luk Van Parijs, MIT• Falsification and Fabrication

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Other Research Misconduct Cases

• Misrepresentation of Publications• Plagiarism and Violation of Confidential Peer Review• Proposal seeking funds for already completed research• Fraudulent Data• Misrepresenting Credentials

Source NSF OIG Website

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Handling Research Misconduct Allegations

Step Time-frameOIG Awardee

1. Receipt2. Inquiry 60 days - 90 days 3. Investigation 150 days 180 days 4. Adjudication 45 days - NSF5. Appeal 30 days - NSF

Case may close at any stepReferral: Awardees - 88% of investigations66% reports accepted

Source NSF OIG Website Presentationhttp://www.nsf.gov/oig/administrative.pdf

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Other9%Falsification

12%

Fabrication12%

Plagiarism67%

Intellectual theft 24

Verbatim plagiarism 16

False statements(CV& CPS)

9

NSF procedures 8

Falsification in a proposal 7

Peer review violation 7

Mentoring or colleague abuse

6

Retaliation 4

Fraud 3

Fabrication in proposal 3

Data sharing 3

Impeding research progress 3

Conflicts of interests 2

Duplicate submissions 2

Mishandled investigation 1

Data tampering 1

Human subjects 1

Animal welfare 0.1

Recombinant DNA 0.1

Source NSF OIG Website April 2000 Data

NSF OIG Research Misconduct Investigations

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

“OIG is currently experimenting with the use of computer software to identifyplagiarized text in NSF proposals. There are a number of free or commerciallyavailable software packages that have the ability to identify text that is commonto multiple documents. Some software packages are designed to perform aside-by-side comparison of two or more documents, while others compare thetext of a document to text found on websites.

We obtained one “freeware” package and one commercially available to testtheir capabilities. Interns with linguistics training ran randomly selected proposalsthrough the software to determine if they contained plagiarism. Theinterns analyzed over 600 proposals, and found that approximately 2.5% of theproposals contained more than de minimus unattributed copied text from othersources. Plagiarism rates were relatively uniform across scientific disciplines,although we noted that the rate of possible plagiarism in NSF CAREER proposals was significantly higher at 15%.”

Important

-NSF IG Semiannual Report March 2006

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Agency Actions (SOURCE: 67 FR 11937, Mar. 18, 2002)

(1) Group I actions. (i) Send a letter of reprimand to the individual or institution.

(ii) Require as a condition of an award that for a specified period an individual or institution obtain special prior approval of particular activities from NSF.

(iii) Require for a specified period that an institutional official other than those guilty of misconduct certify the accuracy of reports generated under an award or provide assurance of compliance with

particular policies, regulations, guidelines, or special terms and conditions.

(2) Group II actions.(i) Totally or partially suspend an active award, or restrict for a specified period designated activities or expenditures

under an active award.

(ii) Require for a specified period special reviews of all requests for funding from an affected individual or institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the misconduct.

(iii) Require a correction to the research record.

(3) Group III actions. (i) Terminate an active award.(ii) Prohibit participation of an individual as an NSF reviewer, advisor,

or consultant for a specified period.(iii) Debar or suspend an individual or institution from participation in

Federal programs for a specified period after further proceedings under applicable regulations.

(b) In deciding what final actions are appropriate when misconduct is found,

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

University Actions

• Termination• Non-Renewal of Contract• Others

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Some Recent Famous Research Misconduct Cases

• Dr. Hwang Woo Suk Korean Stem Cell Research Scientists• Termination• Criminal Charges

• Dr. Jan Hendrik Schön, Bell Laboratory• Termination• Revocation of his Doctoral Degree

• Eric T. Poehlman,MD, PhD University of Vermont (UVM) College of Medicine in Burlington

• Termination• Debarment for life• Monetary Penalty• Jail time

• Ali Sultan, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health • Termination• Debarred for 3 years

• Dr. Luk Van Parijs, MIT• Termination

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Other Research Misconduct Cases• Misrepresentation of Publications

– Letter of reprimand, certification for 3 years– Letter of reprimand, certification for 3 years by the subject, certification by the chair

• Plagiarism and Violation of Confidential Peer Review– Letter of reprimand, No grant Submission for three years– Debar for 3 years, Barred from peer review for 2 years

• Proposal seeking funds for already completed research– No Misconduct, Misconduct for Falsifying Signature– Letter of Reprimand, 2 years certification by the subject and institutional representative

• Fraudulent Data– University rescinded student’s degree, Letter of correction to journal, Notified appropriate people (letters of

recommendations) or organizations (where she taught)– University took appropriate action in rescinded the Ph.D. and notifying appropriate institutions, 3-year

certification requirement, Assurance by supervisor or PI if on an NSF project

• Misrepresenting Credentials– Letter of reprimand, For 1 year, subject certifies to OIG that all information in his proposals is correct

Source NSF OIG Website

College of EngineeringUniversity of Texas at El Paso

Concluding Remarks

Research Misconduct is a Serious Business

Visit OIG and ORI websites for more information

Grant proposals should be treated as identical to published pieces