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

1. The Ethical Conduct of ResearchHoward University RCR WorkshopMarch 6, 2007 Jim Kroll, Ph.D. Director of Administrative Investigations Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation

2. Why am I here? • Offices of Inspector Generalcharged 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

3. A Partnership • National Science Foundation • Program Officers • Grants Officers • OIG • Institution Officials • Administrative • Financial • Education • Researchers • Students • Colleagues • Postdocs • Administration

4. 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

5. 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 makingsoundscientific 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. Research Misconduct- Case Study 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

11. Research Misconduct- Case Study 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

12. Research Misconduct- Case Study • 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

13. Research Misconduct- Case Study Allegation Proposal submitted to NSF contains text from peer reviewer’s journal article.

14. Research Misconduct- Case Study Facts after NSF OIG Inquiry Proposal contains approximately 1 page of plagiarized text taken from two journal articles and a few web sites

15. Research Misconduct- Case Study 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

16. Research Misconduct- Case Study Results Not recommended for tenure Has to face actions from degree granting institution NSF: Letter of reprimand Certifications for 2 years Complete ethics course

17. Research Misconduct- Case Study Allegation University notifies us that data submitted into an NSF proposal may have been fabricated

18. Research Misconduct- Case Study Student conducting survey research Results look very promising—too promising Mentors colleague states such Mentor submits NSF proposal but then questions student on veracity of data Student suggests that proposal be withdrawn Begins to claim that data was analyzed by some unknown individual—data exchanges via email

19. Research Misconduct- Case Study 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

20. Research Misconduct- Case Study Results Student dismissed from University NSF Debars subject for three years

21. Research Misconduct- Case Study Allegation Post doc allegedly fabricates data in a plant research project

22. Research Misconduct- Case Study Post doc publishes in a major journal Supplementary data posted online Peer in CA reviews research and finds data are questionable—notifies mentor When approached, post doc confesses

23. Research Misconduct- Case Study 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

24. Research Misconduct- Case Study Results Removed from school Debarred for three years Now works in pharmaceutical sales

25. Mentor/Student Relations 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

26. Mentor/Student - Case Study 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

27. 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

28. Mentor/Student - Case Study 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

29. Mentor/Student - Case Study Graduate student leaves laboratory either happily or unhappily and takes laboratory notebooks with him/her. Had to return notebooks, may take copies.

30. Peer Review 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.

31. Peer Review -- Case Study Allegation NSF proposal contains both text and ideas taken from a proposal submitted to a European science funding agency

32. 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

33. Peer Review -- Case Study Results University: 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;

34. Peer Review Even pillow talk can be a violation of confidentiality Sometimes peer reviewed proposals wind up where they aught not to

35. Obtaining Oversight Reviews IRB -- common rule All human subject research is subject even though it might be “exempt” IACUC – all animal research needs review Biohazards? Collection Permits?

36. Obtaining Oversight Reviews – Case Study 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.

37. 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.

38. 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

39. Making Sound Financial/Administrative 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

40. Making Sound Financial/Administrative 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

41. Making Sound Financial/Administrative 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

42. Making Sound Financial/Administrative 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

43. Making Sound Financial/Administrative 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

44. INTEGRITY STARTS WITH YOU! If you are aware of, or suspect • research misconduct • fraud • waste • abuse • Issues of economy or efficiencyor if you just have questions,Please contact theNSF Office of Inspector General

45. Contact Information • Internet: oig.nsf.gov • E-mail: oig@nsf.gov • Telephone: 703-292-7100 (Jim - x5012) • Anonymous: 1-800-428-2189 • Write: 4201 Wilson Blvd. Suite II-705 Arlington, VA 22230