The Ethical Conduct of Research Howard University RCR Workshop March 6, 2007

The Ethical Conduct of Research

Howard University RCR Workshop

March 6, 2007

Jim Kroll, Ph.D.Director of Administrative Investigations

Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation

Why am I here?

Offices of Inspector General charged with recommending, providing leadership and coordination to implement policies to:

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

Features: Independent of agency management Jurisdiction (NSF activities, programs, operations) Staff of experts: administrators, attorneys, auditors, criminal investigators, and scientists

Responsible for ensuring the integrity in NSF’s programs and operations

A Partnership

National Science Foundation Program Officers Grants Officers OIG

Institution Officials Administrative Financial Education

Researchers Students Colleagues Postdocs Administration

Expectations

NSF 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) 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

NSF’s Requirements

The awardee has full responsibility for the conduct of the project or activity supported under this award and for adherence to the award conditions. Although the awardee is encouraged to seek the advice and opinion of NSF on special problems that may arise, such advice does not diminish the awardee’s responsibility for making sound scientific and administrative judgements and should not imply that the responsibility for operating decisions has shifted to NSF.

By accepting this award, the awardee agrees to comply with the applicable Federal requirements for grants and cooperative agreements and to the prudent management of all expenditure and actions affecting the award.

Reference: NSF’s Grant General Conditions, Article 1.

Considerations

A submission to NSF must be of the highest level of scholarship; citations, co-authors, data accuracy

A sound, innovative research proposal

Accuracy of NSF submissions / certifications Completeness of research oversight approvals (human

subject, animal, materials)

Oversight of financial and administrative responsibilities

Accuracy of Current and Pending Support / Biographical Sketch / Annual and Final Reports

Ensuring peer review confidentiality

Compliance with misconduct policies and materials

Ethical Issues you WILL confront

Data: Fabricating/Falsifying, Sharing Sharing and Using Ideas Balancing Priorities Making Financial Decisions Authorship and Acknowledgements Collaborations Conflicts of Interest Paraphrasing and Plagiarism Mentorship/Advisor Problems Merit Review Obtaining Oversight Reviews (Compliance with

Rules and Regulations

Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication,

falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF.

Research Misconduct- Case Study

Allegation:

University informs NSF OIG that a university professor may have plagiarized in his final report to a Small Business Innovative Research grant

The Facts after OIG Inquiry Professor used a former graduate

students thesis as the basis for the final report of his SBIR Phase I grant

No apparent work accomplished under the Phase I ($100K)

Original PI changed : Graduate Student -> PI’s wife

Signature styles vary throughout grant period

Company already received Phase II award


Complete Investigative Facts

Virtually no work was done during Phase I and II

Final and interim reports plagiarized

claimed “office” was a trailer in some field

although wife was PI she was deceived by spouse

Professor’s actions were willful to pay for equipment he previously bought for his university lab



Falsification of information in proposal and reports

Evidence of an extensive pattern Convinced them to reimburse all funds Referred to AUSA -- pleaded guilty to

US Code Title 18, 1001 violation Final criminal resolution: 5 yrs

suspended $15K fine

Debarment

Allegation

Proposal submitted to NSF contains text from peer reviewer’s journal article.


Facts after NSF OIG Inquiry

Proposal contains approximately 1 page of plagiarized text taken from two journal articles and a few web sites


Facts after University Investigation

Confirmed previously identified plagiarism plus found that 20% of the research survey portion of his dissertation was plagiarized (approximately 10 pages)

Sources -- websites


ResultsNot recommended for tenureHas to face actions from degree granting

institutionNSF:

Letter of reprimandCertifications for 2 yearsComplete ethics course


Allegation

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


Student conducting survey researchResults look very promising—too promisingMentors colleague states suchMentor submits NSF proposal but then

questions student on veracity of dataStudent suggests that proposal be

withdrawnBegins to claim that data was analyzed by

some unknown individual—data exchanges via email


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

University investigates, determines that student made up data. Student does not defend herself but does not offer up identify of unknown person


Results

Student dismissed from University

NSF Debars subject for three years


Allegation

Post doc allegedly fabricates data in a plant research project


Post doc publishes in a major journalSupplementary data posted online

Peer in CA reviews research and finds data are questionable—notifies mentor

When approached, post doc confesses


Research supposedly had three replicates

Only one conducted – other two data sets were multiples of original data (.95,1.05)

Claims pressure to publish and lack of adequate supplies in laboratory


ResultsRemoved from school

Debarred for three years

Now works in pharmaceutical sales


Mentor/Student interactions is a trusted relationship

We continue to see a slip in the effort that professors put forth to mentor students

Mentoring often off-loaded to PhD or Post Docs

Mentor/Student Relations

Professor has grant to conduct animal studies outside the country

Takes two female graduate students with him.

Once in the wilds of the study site, he decides he is the Alpha Male

Mentor/Student - Case Study

Upon return, both students complain Could not get to data or computers for analysis without his permission ( wink, hint, smile)

Wanted to prosecute but actions occurred outside the US borders—ergo, question of jurisdiction

Debarred for 5 years


Graduate student conducts complains that his research was inappropriately used by his mentor

Investigation determines that mentor used several graphs which become the body of a publication by the mentor, the graduate student was not an author.

Finding: Research Misconduct


Graduate student leaves laboratory either happily or unhappily and takes laboratory notebooks with him/her.

Had to return notebooks, may take copies.


Peer review is a confidential process by which NSF assesses the quality of the proposed research

Reviewers sign an agreement to keep the information confidential

You may not share, copy, quote, or otherwise use or disclose material from this proposal. Destroy it after your part of the review process is complete.

Peer Review

Allegation

NSF proposal contains both text and ideas taken from a proposal submitted to a European science funding agency

Peer Review -- Case Study

Obtained copy of European proposal from agency along with peer reviewer list

Subject was peer reviewer of European proposal

Complainant was author of European proposal and reviewer of the subject’s NSF Proposal

Text/scientific ideas in NSF proposal were garnered from European Proposal


ResultsUniversity:

Reprimand; Removed from all grants; barred from submitting grants for 2 yrs; barred from peer review for 3 years

NSF:Reprimand; Debarment for 1 additional year;


Peer Review

Even pillow talk can be a violation of confidentiality

Sometimes peer reviewed proposals wind up where they aught not to

Obtaining Oversight Reviews

IRB -- common ruleAll human subject research is subject

even though it might be “exempt”

IACUC – all animal research needs reviewBiohazards?Collection Permits?

PI collects endangered species and imports into US without permits.

PI removed from grants, action taken by Justice Department

PI fails to get human subjects review or to be aware of human subject rules for behavioral studies.

PI required to get appropriate reviews, all research halted until approval obtained. Changes in NSF’s process.

Obtaining Oversight Reviews – Case Study

Collaborations

Written agreements on work, authorship, proprietary nature, subsequent use

Co-PI helps develop submitted collaborative proposal, the sequel to which relies on co-PI’s information but which is submitted without co-PI. Collaborative dispute, fair use.

New researcher shares ideas with professor who invited researcher to come to university and present seminar. Professor subsequently uses ideas in his own proposal that competes with researcher’s. Seemed egregious, however; was not provable.

Making Sound Financial/Administrative

Decisions PI receives grants to work with foreign

collaborators—mostly travel money to assist collaborator visit to US

Post 9/11 makes travel difficult PI unilaterally decides to put grant monies to

other related research Files false final report stating collaboration

occurred PO meets collaborator at foreign conference Other awards have similar problems Extensive travel for Lab Tech Lab Tech turns out to be spouse Institution supposedly aware of the COI Possible civil liability


Decisions In 1993, NSF awarded a 5-year $3.8 million

grant to an institution to create a center to enhance science teaching in public schools

Subject was hired to be a Co-PI Had been convicted in 1988 for burglarizing the

homes of his and his mother’s friends He lied on his Institution application about his

criminal history

In 1993, NSF awarded a 5-year $3.8 million grant to an institution to create a center to enhance science teaching in public schools

Subject was hired to be a Co-PI Had been convicted in 1988 for burglarizing the

homes of his and his mother’s friends He lied on his Institution application about his

criminal history


Decisions Subject habitually used the VISA card

issued to him for the project as if it were his own — for example: Groceries: 85 times at stores such as

Safeway Garden supplies, hardware, and pet supplies:

90 times at stores such as Home Depot Expensive clothing and jewelry for his wife,

and clothing and toys for his children: dozens of times

He submitted paperwork to Institution that lied about the items and their purpose

Subject habitually used the VISA card issued to him for the project as if it were his own — for example: Groceries: 85 times at stores such as

Safeway Garden supplies, hardware, and pet supplies:

90 times at stores such as Home Depot Expensive clothing and jewelry for his wife,

and clothing and toys for his children: dozens of times

He submitted paperwork to Institution that lied about the items and their purpose


Decisions Institution hired subject’s wife to work

on the project in 1995 For 2½ years, she was employed part

time and paid for the hours worked at an hourly rate based on a hand-written timesheet submitted twice each month.

She never filled out her timesheets — instead, subject filled them out with exaggerated hours, forged her signature, and submitted them to Institution to receive fraudulently larger paychecks

Institution hired subject’s wife to work on the project in 1995

For 2½ years, she was employed part time and paid for the hours worked at an hourly rate based on a hand-written timesheet submitted twice each month.

She never filled out her timesheets — instead, subject filled them out with exaggerated hours, forged her signature, and submitted them to Institution to receive fraudulently larger paychecks


Decisions Institution became suspicious of subject in

1999 and began an internal review He acknowledged the $108,497 fraud

Institution uncovered, but did not inform them of any of his additional fraudulent activities

Institution allowed subject to continue working on the grant project, though it removed his ability to charge expenditures to the grant and required him to repay the $108,497 — of which it repaid $56,676 to NSF

Institution became suspicious of subject in 1999 and began an internal review

He acknowledged the $108,497 fraud Institution uncovered, but did not inform them of any of his additional fraudulent activities

Institution allowed subject to continue working on the grant project, though it removed his ability to charge expenditures to the grant and required him to repay the $108,497 — of which it repaid $56,676 to NSF


Decisions We and defense counsel submitted

sentencing memoranda, argued in sentencing hearing

The court rejected a request for a reduction, sentenced him to: (1) 1 year in prison; (2) 2 years of supervised release following prison; and (3) pay restitution to NSF in the amount of $93,503 (in addition to the $56,676 previously repaid to NSF)

NSF may recover additional funds from Institution, for unallowable costs above $202,000

We and defense counsel submitted sentencing memoranda, argued in sentencing hearing

The court rejected a request for a reduction, sentenced him to: (1) 1 year in prison; (2) 2 years of supervised release following prison; and (3) pay restitution to NSF in the amount of $93,503 (in addition to the $56,676 previously repaid to NSF)

NSF may recover additional funds from Institution, for unallowable costs above $202,000

INTEGRITY STARTS WITH YOU!

If you are aware of, or suspect research misconduct

fraud waste

abuse Issues of economy or efficiency

or if you just have questions,Please contact the

NSF Office of Inspector General

Contact Information

Internet: oig.nsf.gov

E-mail: [email protected]

Telephone: 703-292-7100 (Jim - x5012)

Anonymous: 1-800-428-2189

Write: 4201 Wilson Blvd. Suite II-705

Arlington, VA 22230

The Ethical Conduct of Research Howard University RCR Workshop March 6, 2007

Documents

Transcript of The Ethical Conduct of Research Howard University RCR Workshop March 6, 2007