Responsible Conduct in Research

1. Responsible Conduct in Research Ahsan Choudhuri, PhD Department of Mechanical Engineering Combustion and Propulsion Research Laboratory Research and Sponsored Projects 101 Workshops Office of Research and Sponsored Projects September 13, 2007

2. Objectives • To promote Research Ethics • To promote Responsible Conduct in Research • To promote Responsible Data Management • To provide information about Research Misconduct issues • To provide information about Federal/Agency/University Policies those govern Research Misconduct issues • Case Study

3. Research Ethics “Ethics (derived from the Greek ethos, meaning character, custom, or usage), or morality (from the Latin synonym meaning manner, custom, or habit), is the philosophical study of normative behavior, the ‘shoulds’ and ‘oughts’ the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of our conduct. Research Ethics is a kind of applied or practical ethics, meaning that it attempts to resolve not merely general issues but also specific problems that arise in the conduct of research. Its goal is to determine the moral acceptability and appropriateness of specific conduct and to establish the actions that moral agents ought to take in particular situation. Research ethics therefore not merely theoretical. It aims to establish practical moral norms and standards for the conduct of research.” Peach, Lucianda (1995) “ An Introduction to Ethical Theory,” Research Ethics: Cases and Materials, Editor Penslar, Robin Levin, Bloomington Indianan University Press.

4. Why do you need ethics in research? “Research is a process, using defensible methodology that is done on behalf of society, in search of knowledge that can be shared and used. Research is usually supported through public or private funds. Research matters because it is judged to be important by knowledgeable peers. Just as researchers have responsibilities to their colleagues and to the institution in which they work, researchers have responsibilities to potential and actual funders, to the audiences and publishers to whom they submit their work, and to peers.” Professor Deni Elliot, University of Montana Research Ethics Center

5. Research Compliance Every institutions and researchers who receive federal funds must comply with a set of specific rules and standards established by the Federal Government. These rules and standards set the minimum acceptable ethical behavior in research practices. UTEP’s internal research compliance policy is also governed by the federal policy. All research and research related works at UTEP require strict adherence to federal and UTEP research compliance standards.

6. Responsible Conduct in Research (RCR) Compliance and Ethics • Compliance means the researcher follow the rules set out by the federal government, funding agencies and the institution. • Ethics refers to a responsible behavior towards humans, sentient beings, society and ecosystems. Ethics means promoting good. • Both compliance and ethics are required for the Responsible Conduct in Research. • Compliance set out the minimum acceptable ethical behavior in research. • Noncompliance results in Research Misconduct

7. Federal Research Misconduct Policy • [Federal Register: December 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 235)] • Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. • Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. • Falsificationis 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. • Plagiarismis the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. •  Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

8. RCR Policies for Biomedical and Behavioral SciencesOffice of Research Integrity (ORI) Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct [Federal Register: May 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 94)] Special Items: The Protection of Human Subjects The Welfare of Laboratory Animals Conflicts of Interest Data Management Practices

9. Faculty/ Researchers Trained in Other Countries Please Note • Some Research Practices which may be acceptable in other countries however, may be considered ‘Research Misconduct’ in the United States. • Clinical, Biomedical Research, Research Involved Human Subjects and animals • Data acquisition, presentation, analysis, management and retention techniques. • Strict adherence to the definition of Plagiarism

10. For More Information Office of Inspector General (OIG), National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/oig Office of Research Integrity (ORI), Department of Health and Human Services http://www.ori.dhhs.gov UTEP Research Misconduct Policy http://admin.utep.edu/Default.aspx?PageContentMode=1&tabid=30390

11. Responsible Data Management What is Data? Federal Acquisition Regulations [45 CFR 27.401] “Recorded information regardless of form of the media on which it may be recorded. The term included technical data and computer software” OMB Circular A-110 (2CFR 215) “ Recorded factual material commonly accepted in scientific community as necessary to validate research findings”

12. Data Management Issues • Ownership, Control, and Access • Collection • Storage and Retention • Sharing and Presentation. 90% of ORI Research Misconduct findings involve data falsification and fabrication

13. Questionable Data Management Practices • Poor record keeping of research methods and experimental techniques • Selective use of data to support hypothesis or to increase its significance • Suppression of negative data which contradict the hypothesis • Inappropriate image manipulation

14. Some Recent Famous Research Misconduct Cases • Dr. Hwang Woo Suk Korean Stem Cell Research Scientists • Falsification and Fabrication • Dr. Jan Hendrik Schön, Bell Laboratory • Falsification and Fabrication • Eric T. Poehlman,MD, PhD University of Vermont (UVM) College of Medicine in Burlington • Falsification, Fabrication, Criminal, Civil and Administrative • Ali Sultan, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health • Fabrication • Dr. Luk Van Parijs, MIT • Falsification and Fabrication

15. Other Research Misconduct Cases • Misrepresentation of Publications • Plagiarism and Violation of Confidential Peer Review • Proposal seeking funds for already completed research • Fraudulent Data • Misrepresenting Credentials • Source NSF OIG Website

16. Handling Research Misconduct Allegations Step Time-frame OIG Awardee 1. Receipt 2. Inquiry 60 days - 90 days 3. Investigation 150 days 180 days 4. Adjudication 45 days - NSF 5. Appeal 30 days - NSF Case may close at any step Referral: Awardees - 88% of investigations 66% reports accepted Source NSF OIG Website Presentation http://www.nsf.gov/oig/administrative.pdf

17. NSF OIG Research Misconduct Investigations Source NSF OIG Website April 2000 Data

18. Important “OIG is currently experimenting with the use of computer software to identify plagiarized text in NSF proposals. There are a number of free or commercially available software packages that have the ability to identify text that is common to multiple documents. Some software packages are designed to perform a side-by-side comparison of two or more documents, while others compare the text of a document to text found on websites. We obtained one “freeware” package and one commercially available to test their capabilities. Interns with linguistics training ran randomly selected proposals through the software to determine if they contained plagiarism. The interns analyzed over 600 proposals, and found that approximately 2.5% of the proposals contained more than de minimusunattributed copied text from other sources. Plagiarism rates were relatively uniform across scientific disciplines, although we noted that the rate of possible plagiarism in NSF CAREER proposals was significantly higher at 15%.” -NSF IG Semiannual Report March 2006

19. Agency Actions (SOURCE: 67 FR 11937, Mar. 18, 2002) • Group I actions. • (i) Send a letter of reprimand to the individual or institution. • (ii) Require as a condition of an award that for a specified period an individual or institution obtain special prior approval of particular activities from NSF. • (iii) Require for a specified period that an institutional official other than those guilty of misconduct certify the accuracy of reports generated under an award or provide assurance of compliance with particular policies, regulations, guidelines, or special terms and conditions. • (2) Group II actions. • (i) Totally or partially suspend an active award, or restrict for a specified period designated activities or expenditures under an active award. • (ii) Require for a specified period special reviews of all requests for funding from an affected individual or institution to ensure that steps have been taken to prevent repetition of the misconduct. • (iii) Require a correction to the research record. • (3) Group III actions. • (i) Terminate an active award. • (ii) Prohibit participation of an individual as an NSF reviewer, advisor, or consultant for a specified period. • (iii) Debar or suspend an individual or institution from participation in Federal programs for a specified period after further proceedings under applicable regulations. • (b) In deciding what final actions are appropriate when misconduct is found,

20. University Actions • Termination • Non-Renewal of Contract • Others

21. Some Recent Famous Research Misconduct Cases • Dr. Hwang Woo Suk Korean Stem Cell Research Scientists • Termination • Criminal Charges • Dr. Jan Hendrik Schön, Bell Laboratory • Termination • Revocation of his Doctoral Degree • Eric T. Poehlman,MD, PhD University of Vermont (UVM) College of Medicine in Burlington • Termination • Debarment for life • Monetary Penalty • Jail time • Ali Sultan, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard School of Public Health • Termination • Debarred for 3 years • Dr. Luk Van Parijs, MIT • Termination

22. Other Research Misconduct Cases • Misrepresentation of Publications • Letter of reprimand, certification for 3 years • Letter of reprimand, certification for 3 years by the subject, certification by the chair • Plagiarism and Violation of Confidential Peer Review • Letter of reprimand, No grant Submission for three years • Debar for 3 years, Barred from peer review for 2 years • Proposal seeking funds for already completed research • No Misconduct, Misconduct for Falsifying Signature • Letter of Reprimand, 2 years certification by the subject and institutional representative • Fraudulent Data • University rescinded student’s degree, Letter of correction to journal, Notified appropriate people (letters of recommendations) or organizations (where she taught) • University took appropriate action in rescinded the Ph.D. and notifying appropriate institutions, 3-year certification requirement, Assurance by supervisor or PI if on an NSF project • Misrepresenting Credentials • Letter of reprimand, For 1 year, subject certifies to OIG that all information in his proposals is correct • Source NSF OIG Website

23. Case Study: Charlie West Case • Issues and Points of Conflict • Interested Parties • Consequences • Obligations *The case study is adopted from Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research (1995)by Muriel J. Bebeau and Kenneth Pimple, Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions , Indiana University , Bloomington Indiana. Authors allow use and distributions of the materials for classroom and educational purposes.

24. Final Remarks Responsible Conduct in Research is a Serious Business Consequences of noncompliance are dire: probably it will ruin your career Please visit UTEP, OIG, and ORI websites for more information Grant proposals should be treated as identical to published pieces Welcome to UTEP Good Luck