NSF OIG Investigations: Misconduct, Malfeasance, and More Howard University RCR Workshop October 2012 Kenneth L. Busch, Ph.D. Investigative Scientist [email protected]

NSF OIG Investigations: Misconduct, Malfeasance,

and More

Howard University RCR Workshop

October 2012

Kenneth L. Busch, Ph.D.Investigative Scientist

[email protected]

Research MisconductCase Study

University notifies us that data submitted in an NSF proposal may have been fabricated

The data were from a student conducting survey research

Results looked very promising — too promising Mentor submits NSF proposal but then

questions student on veracity of data Student suggests that proposal be withdrawn Student claims that data was analyzed by some

unknown individual — data exchanges via email


Unknown person sends an email to mentor stating data are made up, and apologizes. Then the email account is deleted

The University investigates and determines that the student made up the data. Student does not defend herself but does not offer up the identity of the “unknown person”

Results (after our ROI is sent to NSF)

Student dismissed from UniversityNSF debars the student for three years

Office of Inspector General (OIG)

Almost every federal agency/entity has an IG An IG is an independent office for oversight

Promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness… Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse…

…in agency programs and operations

NSF OIG 38 audit staff, 22 investigative staff Investigations staff includes:

Ph.D. scientists Special agentsCPAs Attorneys

Tasked with investigating research misconduct allegations

Federal Funding Expectations

NSF/Federal Gov’t Clear articulation of rules/expectations Balance compliance, institution responsibility and latitude, reduction

of bureaucracy Numerous funding opportunities

Institution An environment in which employees can operate with integrity Responsible administrative, financial, and research management

and oversight (e.g. Article 1, GC-1, OMB Circulars)

Principal Investigators Overall -- Uphold ethics and standards of community Submit quality proposals and conduct the funded activity Know and adhere to rules, regulations, and ethics Ensure compliance and education of staff, students

What does NSF OIG investigate?

The simple answer:

Lying

Cheating

Stealing

How does OIG know what to investigate?

Allegations received from:

Program officers Reviewers Colleagues Students and post-docs University administrators People like you Anyone with an interest in

what NSF funds Anonymous

We take a general look: Proactive reviews Recurring “problems”

What we don’t investigate . . .

Generalized QUALITY OF SCIENCE Scientific “divorces” Patent, copyright or programmatic disputes Institutional personnel issues that do not

violate statutes, regulations, or grant conditions connected with NSF programs

Authorship disputesi.e., Whose name goes on the paper? In what order?

Research Misconduct (RM) Federal-wide definition and procedural framework.

RM means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research [], reviewing research proposals [] or in reporting research funded by [the agency]. 45 C.F.R. 689.1.a

Fabrication: making up data or results and recording or reporting them

Falsification: manipulating materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results

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

From 1998-2008, NSF has observed a 3-fold increase in RM allegations

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20081

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Allegations Since 1998

Misconduct In Science

Research Misconduct

Year

Fo

ld I

ncr

ease

in

Nu

mb

er o

f A

lleg

atio

ns

*Normalized to 1998research misconduct allegations


Master’s Student makes up his entire MS research project Published 3 articles in major journals with two mentors Also published in one conference proceeding

Successfully completed his MS oral defense Slipped up in post-defense celebration

Claims laziness as an excuse Never really interested in the research

University removes student and voids his MS efforts

NSF debars him for 5 years


Post doc allegedly fabricates data in a plant research project Post doc publishes in a major journal

Supplementary data posted online

Peer researcher reviews research and finds data are questionable—notifies mentor

When approached, post doc confesses

Only one data set existed – the “replicated” two data sets were simple multiples of original data (.95,1.05)

Claims pressure to publish and lack of adequate supplies in laboratory

Employment terminated, debarred by NSF

PI submits proposal w/ copied text and altered figures Amount of text copied was relatively small Figures of cells were taken from a publication by his former

mentor Figure caption was altered to represent three fluorescent

images that did not accurately describe the image Text in proposal was written to suggest that images were

preliminary data collected in his lab University found research misconduct and PI’s employment

was terminated NSF finds research misconduct – letter of reprimand; 3 yrs

of certifications and assurances


PI fabricates the existence of two manuscripts in his biographical sketch and makes reference to a non-existent manuscript in the text of his proposal PI admits that manuscripts did not exist. Showed a pattern of deception about these manuscripts in

other scientific proposals submitted to other funding sources Institution finds research misconduct and PI’s employment is

terminated NSF makes finding of research misconduct – letter of

reprimand and 3 years of certifications


Allegation that PhD student fabricated work in his dissertation Most work is verifiable……but a small piece is not

Mentor files complaint with university Student asks for obscure information Many times refuses to attend hearings regarding the matter

In his absence, committee finds that he committed RM Loses degree 3 yrs after it is conferred Loses job as professor at small college



• PhD student fabricates data in 6 of 16 federally funded research projects

• Alters data to better support research hypothesis• Solicits assistance of husband’ to cover up • During investigation, admits to fabrications and commits

to assist university in cleaning up fabricated data• Actions/Results

• RM finding, 5 year debarment• University removes student from PhD program• Loss of offer to join faculty at Harvard Business School

What was the cost of the University investigation?

Other Concern Areas

Human subject research IRB

Animal research IACUC

Conflicts of Interest Biohazards Financial Management

When Administrative cases turn Civil/Criminal . . .

PI submitted SBIR-1 proposal as follow up to his MS Student’s thesis work ($100K, 6 months).

PI copied the thesis into his final reportand proposal for the SBIR-2 award ($500K).

University notifies OIG of plagiarism allegation When awarded, PI used the money to

pay his child’s tuition at a University, along with other personal expenses.

The PI denied everything. His wife did not.

NSF suspended the award and OIG issued subpoenas.

OIG referred the case to DOJ, which accepted it for prosecution.


At a meeting with DOJ, the professor (through his attorneys) indicated that he would like to1) plead guilty to a criminal count (1001)

and pay $240,000 restitution2) avoid jail3) avoid Federal action against his wife

NSF OIG recommended RM finding and debarment. Professor and NSF settled for 3 years voluntary exclusion from Federal funding.


Excerpts from the PlagiarismHall of Excuses

It’s only background/introductory material (or it had no technical merit.)

It’s only a proposal. It’s not like it’s a publication. The reviewers are smart enough to know what is my work and

what is someone else’s. My English teacher told me it’s not plagiarism if I change every

seventh word. In my country, this is how we do it. My native language does not have a word for plagiarism. I didn’t do it. My grad student/undergraduate/postdoc/grant

writer/faculty colleague/secretary/Co-PI/SRO/AOR/VP of Research/Dean/spouse wrote that section.

It’s in the public domain. The pressure of the deadline and the room overheating resulted

in my carelessness with my citations. It’s not plagiarism; it’s just bad citation.

Your Take-Home Message Research community operates under the

assumption that effort is honest and that integrity standards are upheld

If you uphold the standards, then you can hold the next generation to the same standards

If you lose your professional reputation, it’s hard to recover

Federally funded research is a public trust; if not treated as such, consequences are severe

Don’t lie. Don’t cheat. Don’t steal

Contact Information

nsf.gov/oig

Hotline:1-800-428-2189E-mail:[email protected]:(703) 292-9158

Mail:4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22230 ATTN: OIG HOTLINE

Purchase Card Fraud

Purchase (P) Card misuse at a university, Center Accountant - Large volume of purchases

from Internet vendors, Vague receipts submitted by the P-Card user,

many receipts looked similar, Questionable purchases charged to Federal

Grants. Center Accountant resigned after University

Auditors asked about internet purchases. Investigation initiated by NSF-OIG

Evidence found on the Center Accountant’s Computer

E-mails from Internet vendors shipping goods to the employee’s home,

Copies of templates for various Internet vendor invoices,

One template had been altered 64 times, Personal Pictures of the P-Card User enjoying

the good life.

Investigative Findings

Over 5 year period of time Over 3800 personal purchases made from more

than 15 different vendors Over 1900 transactions through the institution’s

financial system Over 30 different accounts (NSF/State/Private)

fraudulently charged Over $316,000 fraudulently diverted

Concealment of Fraudulent Activities

Majority of items shipped to home address Lied to supervisors and co-workers Forged the supervisor’s signature on P-

Card statement review documents Created false invoices Manipulation of the institution’s accounting

system

How many items were purchased with Grant Funds?

By tracking the evidence, we found 20 items purchased with Grant funds.

What was really bought

DOJ Resolution 22 count Federal Criminal Indictment

17 Counts “Mail Fraud” 5 Counts “Theft from an Organization Receiving Federal

Funds”

Guilty Plea to all 22 counts

Sentenced to: 32 months prison 3 years supervised probation $316,000 Restitution/$2200 fines-assessment 250 hours community service 5 year debarment.

Documents

NSF OIG Investigations: Misconduct, Malfeasance, and More Howard University RCR Workshop October 2012 Kenneth L. Busch, Ph.D. Investigative Scientist [email protected]