Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Stephen Erickson, Ph.D. Director, Office for Research Integrity and Compliance Director,

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct

Stephen Erickson, Ph.D.

Director, Office for Research Integrity and Compliance

Director, Office for Research Protections

Boston College

March 21, 2015


BC Policy: Ethical Conduct of Research and Research Misconduct

http://www.bc.edu/offices/policies/meta-elements/doc/policies/IV/4-210-020.pdf




What is Research Misconduct?

Fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing,

performing, or reviewing research or reporting results, or

in the conduct of other academic pursuits. It also includes

unethical research involving living research subjects as

well as retaliation against those making allegations of

research misconduct. Research misconduct does not

include honest error or differences of opinion.


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.



Plagiarism

The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.


Avoid Plagiarism Through Appropriate

Citation

Giving credit where credit is due:

Citation.

Quotation.

Failure leads to plagiarism.


Giving Credit Properly Check the original source

Says what you say it does?

Correct citation?

Study of 4300 citations to a seminal paper in condensed-matter physics concluded 4 of 5 authors did not read original paper because they preserved erroneous citations derived from secondary sources.1

1. (Reported in Nature 420:594. 12 December 2002)



Fabrication of Data.

Making up data or results and recording or

reporting them.



Falsification of Data.

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.


If You Think Misconduct Has Occurred

Review your concerns with someone you trust;

Listen to what that person tells you;

Get a second opinion and take that seriously, too.

If you decide to initiate formal proceedings, seek strength in numbers;

cont.


If You Think Misconduct Has Occurred

Find the right place to file charges; study the procedure;

Report you concerns;

Ask questions; keep notes;

Cultivate patience.

Slides 11 and 12 are based on Gunsalus, C.K. “How to Blow the Whistle and Still Have a Career Afterwards.” Science and Engineering Ethics 4:51-64, 1998.

13


Examples of Research Misconduct

Woo Suk Hwang

Eric T. Poehlman

Curbstoning

Other Examples

Tuskeegee

GuatemalaIf not misconduct, then what are they?


Woo Suk Hwang Case 2004 – he claimed that his lab had cloned a human

embryonic stem cell.

2005 – he said his lab had created 11 such cells. A lab member divulged that they were paying $1,400 to women for their eggs and this raised bioethical questions.

Later in 2005, his lab cloned a dog.

December 2005 – all 112 human “cloned” cells were found to have been and had been faked at Hwang’s direction.

2006 – Hwang was charged with embezzlement and bioethics law violations. He received a two year suspended jail sentence. His lab was shut down. The embezzlement resulted from his using part of $3M of grant funds to purchase gifts for his wife as well as and expensive cars .


Eric Poehlman Case Faculty members at UVM. He fabricated and falsified data in 10

publications and 17 federal grant applications which resulted in grants valued at over $11M between 1992-2000.

UVM uncovered 22 misconduct findings, ORI confirmed 21 of them and them added 35 more. He pled guilty in 2005.

Initially turned in by his grad students.

In 2006, he was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for fraud.

Misconduct affected studies related to disease prevention for older men and women, as well as the effects of diet, exercise, menopause, and hormone replacements on disease status. Since the results were published, it is very likely that physicians used the information in treating their patients.


Curbstoning Cases

In 2004, two cases took place in Maryland on the same federal grant study the success of HIV risk prevention programs for teenagers.

The two interviewers, who were paid by completed interviews, faked going to addresses to conduct survey questionnaires.

They faked the data by filling in the questionnaires themselves and then collected the interview fees.


The Tuskegee Study 1932-1972. NIH investigators studied the

progression of untreated syphilis in hundreds of poor black men who thought they were getting medical treatment.

Not only were the patients deceived but they were denied treatment even when Penicillin became available in 1947.

Became known in 1972 when an unidentified person leaked the story to the press.


The Guatemala Study A syphilis study that took place in Guatemala between 1946-

1948. Conducted by U.S. Government doctors with the Approval and Cooperation of the Guatemalan Government.

The subjects were soldiers, prostitutes, prisoners, mental patients with syphilis and other STDs. Most were treated with antibiotics, but 83 of the patients died as a result of the study.

A key difference between Tuskegee and Guatemala – in Guatemala, subjects were purposely infected by the doctors.

It was terminated when the doctors and NIH feared that word of the study might become public.

Discovered by chance by Prof. Susan Reverby (Wellesley College in 2005. Confirmed by US Gov’t Report in 2011.


Contact Information:

Stephen Erickson, Ph.DDirector, Office for Research integrity and ComplianceDirector, Office for Research [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Identifying and Protecting Yourself from Research Misconduct Stephen Erickson, Ph.D. Director, Office for Research Integrity and Compliance Director,