Sam BrutonSam Bruton

Office of Research IntegrityOffice of Research Integrity

4/9/144/9/14

Research Misconduct (narrow sense):Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FF&P)

Research Misconduct (wider sense)

includes also, e.g., c. of i., data storage, abuse of graduate students, authorship, sabotage, etc.

Research Misconduct: Developing AwarenessSummerlin’s Mice, 1970’s

New Scientist, 2/28/81

1981, Gore subcommittee of House Science and Technology Committee holds hearings on fraud in biomedical research.

www.sfgate.com/.../2008/02/11/gore250x357.jpg

Broad and Wade, 1983

Baltimore Case

May 1986 – Post-doc Margot O’Toole alleges fraud.

Evolving Definitions

PHS (late 1988): “…fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research."

1989: The “Final Rule," Responsibilities of Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science, (42 CFR Part 50, Subpart A)

NSF (early 1990’s), includes: “…Retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct…”

CRI (1990’s): “…significant misbehavior that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that risks compromising the integrity of scientific practices"

NAS (1990’s): three categories - 1) FF&P, 2) other kinds of research misconduct, 3) misconduct not unique to science.

Also: disagreements about standard of evidence.

1997 – first ORI conference on Research Misconduct

http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml

Current Federal Standard, Dec. 2000 Def.:

Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

A finding of research misconduct requires that:

1) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the scientific community for maintaining the integrity of the research record; and,

2) The misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or in reckless disregard of accepted practices; and the allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

Why these 3 alone?

Common “sin”: intent to deceive.

These three distinguished from others by Seriousness,

Universality,

and General “Prosecutability”.

How Widespread?

One Answer: Not Very

http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/one-bad-apple-makes-the-barrel-bad.png

Another: Very common

http://seawayblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/tip-of-iceberg.html

A 2005 survey by Nature estimated 2,325 instances of misconduct per year, only 58% were reported to institutional officials.

ORI (HHS) Stats:Typically 20 – 30 findings of guilt/year

OIG (NSF) Stats: Sept. 2013 Semiannual – 6 misconduct findings in 86 investigations.

Recent Cases: Retraction Watch

Most analysts think misconduct is on the rise.

Retractions in life sciences papers since 1977. 67% due to misconduct.

from: Fang et al., “Misconduct accounts for majority of retracted scientific publications,” PNAS, Sep. 2012.

Other disturbing findings in Fang:Numbers likely under-estimate incidence.Many retracted papers continue to be cited.Fraud contributed to most retractions in high-impact journals.Plagiarism more common in lower-impact journals.

Note: Duplicated publication, or “self-plagiarism,” not generally prosecuted by ORI/OIG, but cause for retractions.

Detecting Misconduct:

Reports/ComplaintsForensic tools, e.g.

plagiarism detection and image forensics.

Recent Examples

Plagiarism in PLoS One:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016011

In Fish Biology and Fisheries:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11160-013-9322-x/fulltext.html

What to Do About It?

Teaching Tools

2007: ORI Introduction to RCRby Nicholas Steneck, PhDhttp://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/RCRintro

CITI Modules

USM Scholarly Misconduct Policy

1. Research Misconduct as defined by federal policy: “fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or reporting research results.”        2. Abuse of confidentiality, including improper use of information gained by privileged access, such as information obtained through service on peer review panels and editorial boards.           3. Violation of University regulations concerning the use of human subjects, animal subjects, and laboratory safety.         4. Misappropriation of funds or resources, such as the misuse of research funds for personal gain.

https://www.usm.edu/institutional-policies/current-policies

Other Changes:

-Replacement of Ombudsman with RIO

-Added protections for respondents.

-Clarification, e.g., sequestration of evidence.

-Remove Presidential Review

Procedures:

Assessment

Inquiry

Investigation

Allegations

Received by RIO in writing or verbally.

May be made anonymously

Must be made in good faith

Interim protective actions will be taken if necessary.

Office of Research Integrity:http://www.usm.edu/research/office-research-integrity(601) 266-6756ori@usm.edu

To maximum extent possible:

Respect for confidentiality of those involved

Protection from retaliation

Assessment:RIO assesses whether alleged actions: 1) fall under df. of misconduct

2) Allegations are “sufficiently credible” to merit an inquiry.

Inquiry:

Purpose is to determine whether formal inquiry is warranted.

Committee of three

Examines written evidence and collects testimony.

Respondent and complainant comments attached to final report

InvestigationPurpose is to make recommended findings on whether scholarly misconduct has occurred.

Develops factual record by examining evidence in depth.

Committee of five

Preponderance of evidence standard

Respondent and complainant comments again attached to final report

Committee’s findings accepted or rejected by DO.

Range of possible sanctions:

Letter of reprimand,Probation,Suspension,Restrictions on activities,Reduction in rank,Termination,Restitution of funds

Restoration:

All reasonable efforts possible made to protect and restore reputations when no finding of misconduct

Magdalena Koziol

Transgenic zebrafish experiments failed due to poisoning by a fellow postdoc.Now suing Yale and lab boss.Bhrigu case at Michigan: ORI ruled was misconduct, because tampering “caused false results to be reported in the research record.”