Elizabeth Gammon, Ph.D , CPA; Luisa Franzini , PhD; Stephen Linder, PhD; Jacquelyn Slomka , PhD

1. Estimating the Economic Costs of a Finding of Research Misconduct in Faculty PI’s: Case Studies from ORI Annual Reports Elizabeth Gammon, Ph.D, CPA; Luisa Franzini, PhD; Stephen Linder, PhD; Jacquelyn Slomka, PhD Fleming Center University of Texas-School of Public Health

2. Why look at economic costs of research misconduct? “ …institutional leaders may wish to ignore or minimize allegations of possible research misconduct to protect the revenue that the researcher generates; some may avoid investigations because they are costly in terms of time and money.” Titus, et al. Repairing research integrity. Nature. 453(7198):980-2, 2008 Jun 19.

3. Study Aims • Survey Research Integrity Officers (RIO) responsible for handling findings of research misconduct regarding cost issues; • Develop a model to estimate the economic costs of research misconduct in publicly funded medical research from the perspective of NIH; and • Use the model to estimate economic costs in known findings of research misconduct

4. Methods Analytical Framework: Transaction Costs All economic costs 1 Production costs - Costs of transforming inputs into outputs or the direct production expenses. Transaction costs - Costs of making exchange or the indirect production expenses. Motivation costs – Costs of motivating specialized agents to align their interests, e.g.: Cost of cheating or opportunistic behavior, Williamson [1975, 85]. Agency cost among owners, managers, and debt holders, Jensen and Meckling [1976]. Coordination costs – Costs of coordinating actions between specialized agents, e.g.: Cost of obtaining information, Stigler [1961]. Cost of coordinating input in production, Alchian and Demsetz [1972]. Cost of measurement, Barzel [1982]. 1http://www.encycogov.com/B11ResearchTraditions/TCE/Exhi_1DecomposeTC.asp

5. MethodsSequential Mixed Methods Study Design Qualitativemethods Quantitative methods

6. MethodsData Sources Sample Selection and Qualitative Methods • ORI Annual Reports, 2000-2005 • Findings of Misconduct • Internet search • Institutional RIO

7. MethodsData Sources Quantitative Methods • Wage rates: American Association of Medical College 2007 Report on Medical School Faculty Salaries • Time Inputs: 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Final Rule • NIH Awards: Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) and NIH Awards by State and Foreign Site

8. ResultsFindings of Faculty Research Misconduct 2000-2005

9. Results • Key informant interviews • Economic costs are not measured nor considered in research misconduct findings • Emphasis on proper completion of the inquiry and investigation within the mandated timeline

10. Results RIO interviews Research Misconduct Questionnaire Participation

11. Results • RIO experience in position • Range = (< 6 months, >20 years) • All had additional research administration related duties • All RIOs believed measuring economic costs was appropriate • No institutions in the study sample measured economic costs of research misconduct • Faculty time was the single most costly element

12. Results Model - Economic cost components of research misconduct

13. Results Model - Economic cost components of research misconduct

14. ResultsInvestigative Costs • Key Assumptions for Investigative Costs • 100% RIO time = Estimated annual burden for ORI defined tasks + institutional tasks • RIO expends 50% of each day during an inquiry and investigation overseeing the investigation • RIO hourly wage rate is $119 for PhD and $144 for MD • Assumption for mixed faculty rank hourly wage rate is $144/hr.

15. Results Receipt of allegation Preliminary assessment Conduct of inquiry and investigation Institutional decision $102,115 - $141,090 ORI oversight review PHS decision Imposition of PHS administrative actions $ 14,110 - $ 24,495

16. Results

17. Results

18. Results

19. Results

20. Frequency of Grant Applications Cited in Misconduct Findings per Investigator (n=54)

21. Results

22. Results

23. Results • Calculated VEA (n=2) • RIO reported VEA (n=1)

24. Results

25. Results • RIO reported VEA – Radolf case • 60 month certification period • 2 full tenured professors • 4-8 hours per certification • 60 certifications • $74,880 VEA Cost

26. Results

27. Results Calculated retraction costs RIO reported retraction costs (Poehlman Case)

28. Results *RIO provided

29. Results

30. Results

31. Discussion Economic costs of findings of research misconduct are measureable Research misconduct cost drivers Misaligned incentives Downstream costs

32. Discussion Economic costs of findings of research misconduct are measureable

33. Discussion • Research misconduct cost drivers

34. Discussion • Misaligned incentives • Deterrence theory • Expenditures to deter misconduct determine probability of discovery • Misconduct detection costs have been unmeasured • Unfunded mandate • Unmeasured prevention costs • Punishment • Inconsistent, uncertain • Research institutions have responsibility for detection but bear little risk

35. Citation Maps Retracted Articles by Duan. . Original Mostfrequently - cited Article A cites Article articles Article B Discussion • Downstream costs • Duan case • 13 publications acknowledge $ 7,314,689 total grant funding

36. Limitations • Study measures only one category of research misconduct • Research misconduct unmeasured if • Undetected • Unreported

37. Limitations • No processes in place to document, estimate or measure costs associated with research misconduct • Economic cost model relies heavily on assumptions • Cost categories not considered • Value of a ruined career • Findings of misconduct attributable to non faculty • Responsible Conduct of Research program costs • Impact of flawed evidence base on public health

38. Questions