The Not-So-Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Research Misconduct at Penn State Candice A. Yekel, Director Office for Research Protections September 24, 2009

RA10 Definition (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities; (2) callous disregard for requirements that ensure the protection of researchers, human participants, or the public; or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals;

RA10 Definition (continued) (3) failure to disclose significant financial and business interest as defined by Penn State Policy RA20, Individual Conflict of Interest; (4) failure to comply with other applicable legal requirements governing research or other scholarly activities

RA10 Process Written allegation Inquiry Investigation 60 days to complete Fact-finding, not a determination of guilt or innocence Investigation 120 days to complete Senior VP for Research appoints 5 full professors to investigate Recommendations and sanctions Reporting

PSU Research Misconduct Cases (2002-2008) 21 allegations of misconduct – 11 of the allegations went to full investigation 13 of 20 resulted in confirmed misconduct 14 allegations involved plagiarism 5 allegations involved fabrication and/or falsification 2 allegations involved human participant research 1 allegation involved a breach of confidentially in a grant proposal review

PSU Research Misconduct Cases (2002-2008) 3 of the allegations involved individuals who were graduate students at the time of the misconduct. Penalties can range from letter of reprimand to dismissal from the University. 4 of the 12 misconduct findings led to a recommendation of dismissal from the University

Research Misconduct - Plagiarism PSU (2002-2008) – 14 allegations: 13 went to an inquiry, 7 went to an investigation, 7 were confirmed misconduct 67% of PSU allegations involved plagiarism 54% of PSU confirmed misconduct NSF – 68% of confirmed misconduct (1990-2004) ORI – 6% of confirmed misconduct (1994-2003)

Research Misconduct – Fabrication & Falsification NSF: (1990-2004) 11% Fabrication 11% Falsification ORI: (1994-2003) 22% Fabrication 40% Falsification 27% Fabrication & Falsification PSU: (2002-2008) 25% of the confirmed misconduct (3 falsification and/or fabrication)

Case Studies

Case #1 – Protect Thy Brother Handout

Case #1 – Discussion What are the ethical issues raised by this case? Do the familial relationships make a difference in this case? Why or why not? Should this case be considered research misconduct? Why or Why not? What consequences should Julie Smith face? What consequences should Sandy Smith face?

Case #2 – Cut and Paste Handout

Case #2 - Discussion Did Dr. Clip Art do anything wrong? What are the ethical issues raised by the case? Did Dr. Clip Art plagiarize? If yes, what did he plagiarize? Is there any way that Dr. Clip Art could have obtained permission to include the figure in his proposal? Are the actions demonstrated in this case ever justified? Why does it matter what Dr. Clip Art writes in his proposal? After all, it is not a published work. Should this case be considered research misconduct? If yes, what would be an appropriate sanction?

Case #3 – To Trust or Not to Trust Handout

Case #3 - Discussion In what ways did Dr. Simpson act as a good mentor to Susan? What could Dr. Simpson have done that might have prevented this case from occurring? We don’t know what prompted Susan to fabricate data, but what responsibilities did Susan have that might have prevented this case from occurring? What ramifications do the events of this case have on Dr. Simpson?

Questions