Scientific Integrity: Recognizing, Reporting and Avoiding Scientific Misconduct

1
Scientific IntegrityRecognizing, Reporting and
AvoidingScientific Misconduct
Research Ethics CIPP 909 February 18, 2004

• Joe Giffels
• Director
• UMB Research Integrity Office
• Academic Affairs
• jgiff001_at_umaryland.edu

2
Dept of Health and Human Services Office of the
SecretaryFindings of Scientific Misconduct
Federal Register December 2, 2003 (Volume 68,
Number 231) SUMMARY Notice is hereby given that
the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Health have taken
final action in the following case Sheila
Blackwell, University of Maryland, Baltimore
Based on the report of an investigation conducted
by the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB
Report), the respondents admission of
responsibility, and additional analysis conducted
by ORI in its oversight review, the U.S. Public
Health Service (PHS) found that Sheila Blackwell,
former contractual employee, Department of
Pediatrics at UMB, engaged in scientific
misconduct in research supported by National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National
Institutes of Health (NIH), grant 2 R01 MH54983,
entitled Effectiveness of Standard versus
Embellished HIV Prevention. Specifically,
PHS found that Ms. Blackwell engaged in
scientific misconduct by fabricating interview
records for the Focus on Teens HIV Risk
Prevention Program for nine interviews that had
not been performed over the period of May through
July 2001
3
Research Integrity

• Further knowledge
• Benefit society
• Responsible science

4
What are we protecting?
5
Total U.S. RD

• 292 billion in CY 2002

6
NIH Funding Increase

• FY 1998 13.6 billion
• FY 2004 28.0 billion

7
UMB Funding Increase

• FY 1998 146 million
• FY 2003 266 million

8
Responsible Conduct of Research

• Data acquisition, management, sharing, and
  ownership
• Mentor/trainee responsibilities
• Publication practices and responsible authorship
• Peer review
• Collaborative science
• Human subjects
• Research involving animals
• Conflict of interest and commitment
• Research misconduct

9
Responsible Research
Scientific Misconduct
Irresponsible Research
10
Case Study

• Protocol
• Role of Interviewers

11
Categories of Scientific Misconduct

• Fabrication making up experiments, data
• Falsification changing results, data without
  statistical justification
• Plagiarism appropriating the words or ideas of
  another and presenting them as ones own

12
What Scientific Misconduct Is Not

• Example 1 Simply illegal, improper or
  unacceptable behavior
• Example 2 Honest error
• Example 3 Disagreement based on honest
  differences of opinion
• Example 4 Simply authorship disputes
• Example 5 Arguably unethical behavior
• Example 6 Sloppy science

13
Case Study

• Allegations

14
UMB Definition(academic misconductmisconduct in
scholarly work)

• Means 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 or other scholarly work also includes
  any form of behavior, including the making of
  allegations that involve frivolous, mischievous
  or malicious misrepresentation, whereby ones
  work or the work of others is seriously
  misrepresented does not include honest error or
  honest differences in interpretations or
  judgments of data.

15
Case Study

• Application of Misconduct In Scholarly Work
  Policy What is the Misconduct (F? F? P?)

16
Definitions

• Allegations
• Complainant (whistleblower)
• Respondent

17
Case Study

• Who is the Respondent?
• Who is the Complainant?
• Must the NIH be notified?

18
Process

• Inquiry
• Investigation
• Consequences

19
Case Study

• Process
• Committee
• Evidence
• Proceedings

20
Whistleblowing
Benefits
Risks

• To ensure that the scientific record is correct
  (science society)
• To comply with regulations (individual)
• To prevent future misconduct (science society)
• To protect ones own reputation (individual) or
  the reputation of another (science society)
• To punish wrongdoer (individual)

• Allegations are not borne out (individual)
• Time, effort and emotion intensive (individual)
• Retaliation by respondent or respondents
  institution (individual)
• Gain reputation as a trouble-maker (individual)

21
Case Study

• Findings
• Report
• ORI Oversight of Investigation

22
How To Avoid Becoming Involved

• Maintain good records
• Collaborate with co-investigators
• Dont take that first step

23
Case Study

• ORI Findings and Actions

24
Case Study

• Washington Times Article
• UMB Response

25
A Few Good URLs

• www.ori.dhhs.gov
• www.iom.edu
• www.aamc.org
• http//rcr.ucsd.edu
• www.umaryland.edu/PPM

26
Scientific IntegrityRecognizing, Reporting and
AvoidingScientific Misconduct
Research Ethics CIPP 909 February 18, 2004

• Joe Giffels
• Director
• UMB Research Integrity Office
• Academic Affairs
• jgiff001_at_umaryland.edu