Research Misconduct Policies and Consequences

1. Research Misconduct Policies and Consequences

2. SOMEDAY,THIS COULD BE SOMEONE YOU KNOW! Diederik Stapel Professor of Psychology Tilburg University The Netherlands

3. Diederik Stapel, Tilburg University The New York Times (11/03/2011) Fraud Case Seen as a Red Flag for Psychology Research By BENEDICT CAREY A well-known psychologist in the Netherlands whose work has been published widely in professional journals falsified data and made up entire experiments, an investigating committee has found. Experts say the case exposes deep flaws in the way science is done in a field, psychology, that has only recently earned a fragile respectability. …In a prolific career, Dr. Stapel published papers on the effect of power on hypocrisy, on racial stereotyping and on how advertisements affect how people view themselves. Many of his findings appeared in newspapers around the world, including The New York Times, which reported in December on his study about advertising and identity.

4. Diederik Stapel Tilburg University • From Misconduct Investigation Interim Report: The fact is that the fraud with data has been on a large scale and has persisted for a lengthy period, so that people, and in particular young researchers entrusted to him, have been affected profoundly at the start of their careers. This conduct is deplorable, and has done great harm to science, and the field of social psychology in particular. To the best of our knowledge, misconduct of this kind by a full professor in his position is unprecedented.

5. Diederik Stapel, Tilburg University The Chronicle of Higher Education (11/03/2011) The Fraud Who Fooled (Almost) Everyone By Tom Bartlett It’s now known that Diederik Stapel, the Dutch social psychologist who was suspended by Tilburg University in September, faked dozens of studies and managed not to get caught for years despite his outrageous fabrications…. While it is becoming clearer how Stapel committed his fraud, the larger question is why. In separate statements, he explained that “I was not able to withstand the pressure to score points, to publish, to always have to be better,” and that he felt “a sense of dismay and shame” but that he was “sincerely committed to the field of social psychology, young researchers, and other colleagues.”

6. Diederik Stapel, Tilburg University INTERIM REPORT REGARDING THE BREACH OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY COMMITTED BY PROF. D.A. STAPEL Three young researchers from the department concerned voiced their suspicions about the forgery of data by Mr. Stapel to the head of department at the end of August 2011. After months of observation, sufficient details had been gathered to demonstrate that something was not right. The researchers all deserve praise for reporting these abuses. It is noted that they were in a dependent position and had much to lose. http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/commissie-levelt/interim-report.pdf

7. What Is Not Research Misconduct? • Research misconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data, and is not intended to resolve bona fide scientific disagreement or debate. • Misconduct must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.

8. What Is Research Misconduct? "Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” – Office of Research Integrity (ORI), DHHS http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml

9. What Is Research Misconduct? • Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. • Falsification is 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. • Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. – UA Research and Scholarly Misconduct Policies and Procedures http://vpred.uark.edu/Research_Scholarly_Misconduct.pdf

10. How Common Is Misconduct? Office of Research Integrity Annual Reports, http://ori.hhs.gov/publications/annual_reports.shtml

11. Self Plagiarism An author publishing the same data in more than one journal, assuming that the data, figures, etc. are the same in both publications, is not considered research misconduct. (This does violate the rules of most professional journals.) – ORI Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 4, September 2007

12. Authorship/Credit According to the ORI plagiarism is “…theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes.” • “…theft or misappropriation of intellectual property includes the unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods obtained by a privileged communication, such as a grant or manuscript review. • “Substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work means the unattributed verbatim or nearly verbatim copying of sentences and paragraphs which materially mislead the ordinary reader regarding the contributions of the author.”

13. Authorship/Credit “… the collaborative history among the scientists often supports a presumption of implied consent to use the products of the collaboration by any of the former collaborators.” These are commonly perceived as authorship or credit disputes, not plagiarism. – ORI, DHHS http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml

14. Reporting Misconduct By federal regulation, institutions which receive federal funding must have policies and procedures in place to address the reporting and investigation of research misconduct.

15. Reporting Misconduct “All institutional members will report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the RIO, the DO, or their designees. Prior to submitting a formal charge, a potential complainant is encouraged to consult informally with the RIO, the DO, or their designees to consider whether the case involves questions of research misconduct, should be resolved by other University procedures, or does not warrant further action.” – UA Research and Scholarly Misconduct Policies and Procedures

16. Historical Examples of Misconduct • Gregor Mendel – pea plant data is suspiciously “clean” • Louis Pasteur – used a competitor’s vaccine, yet reported use of his own

17. More Recent Examples • James David Lieber, UCLA (ORI Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 4, September 2007) • Fabricated interviews for 20 research participants • Falsified the urine specimens for those 20 subjects • Caused the entry of false information the study tracking and locating database (Also stole incentive payment and travel expense reimbursements meant for participants.) • Rebecca Uzelmeier, former doctoral student, MSU (ORI Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 2007) • Fabricated /falsified data in her research notebook by multiple instances of using data/results generated from one experiment to represent data/results purportedly obtained from one or more entirely different experiments • Fabricated and falsified data in her thesis including autoradiographic films, computer image files scanned from those films, and numerical data reduced from those computer files

18. Consequences Your Name In Print "Emily M. Horvath, Indiana University: Based on the Respondent's own admissions in sworn testimony and as set forth below, Indiana University (IU) and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Ms. Emily M. Horvath, former graduate student, IU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), National Institutes of Health…” http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/

19. Consequences Case Summary - Rebecca Uzelmeier [Federal Register: April 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 64)] [Page 16366-16367] Findings of Research MisconductMs. Uzelmeier's actions caused the withdrawal of a manuscript that had been submitted for publication, the withdrawal of her mentor's PHS grant application, and her dismissal from graduate school. The following administrative actions have been implemented for a period of five (5) years, beginning on March 12, 2007: Ms. Uzelmeier has been debarred from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as ``covered transactions'' as defined in the debarment regulations at 2 CFR 180 and 376; and Ms. Uzelmeier is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as consultant.

20. Consequences Title 18 USC § 1001 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

21. Responding to Wrong Doing • Suspecting a problem • Assessing the problem • Dealing with feelings – yours and others • Choosing to act (or not) • Taking Action • Informal action • Formal action

22. Suspecting A Problem Is it misconduct, “bad science” or just annoying behavior? • Using faulty research design or outdated procedures • Poor statistical analysis • Carelessness • Failing to meet IRB or IACUC guidelines • Lack of supervision or training • Authorship dispute

23. Assessing the Problem • Firsthand knowledge or gossip? • Direct evidence – actual data logs or copies or original results • Confessions • Inability to replicate results • Distinct change in writing/composition skills

24. Dealing with Feelings • Appearing disloyal • Afraid of the negative publicity or lack of institutional support • Harming your own career • Retaliation • Too small to cause a significant problem • Not wanting to hurt someone • Feeling too overwhelmed to take on something else at the time • Fear of being sued

25. Choosing to Act (or Not) • Factors that affect the choice • Your own moral principles • Perceived degree of potential harm • Perceived motivations of the suspected individual • How “abhorrent” the act is to you personally • Your degree of self-confidence/insecurity • How you would feel if the act resulted in harm to others • Personal vulnerability

26. Making the Choice Easier • Know the rules of responsible science in advance. • Form or join an alliance of colleagues who have an interest in upholding responsible science.. • Carefully monitor the relationship between you and those with whom you work. • Never rely solely on your memory after intervening in a crisis.

27. Choosing to Act – Formal or Informal Informal Formal Formal intervention is more appropriate for some kinds of issues, particularly more serious and clear-cut ones or when a pattern seems to be at issue. More resources are typically available for handling the matter Informal intervention is not bound by strict investigative rules. There is a solid potential for a collegial problem-solving meeting, as opposed to an adversarial process. A problem may be prevented or fixed without the issue‘s becoming public.

28. Final Thoughts Simply ignoring potential misconduct can plague you for the rest of your academic career. Always do right; this will gratify some people and astonish the rest. Mark Twain