Scientific Misconduct

Scientific Misconduct Definition "Misconduct in Research" means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. (Source: U.S. Public Health Service Regulations).

Scientific Misconduct Definition Fabrication Fabrication – making it up Falsification Falsification – changing the true description Plagiarism Plagiarism – taking the words and ideas of others without citation Other practices Other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community

proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Grants –Preliminary data (what is this) Lab notebooks, other research records –What was done, how, when, results, conclusions Papers, posters, abstracts, talks, lab meetings

The Cost of Scientific Misconduct Damage to others –the integrity of scientific knowledge –non-productive lines of enquiry based on false information –the reputation of colleagues co-authors, collaborators, and institutions –waste of financial resources to investigate/repeat –Loss of confidence in the public Damage to self –Loss of reputation –Loss of funding –Loss of career –Loss of job

Resources about scientific misconduct Baylor Committee on Scientific Integrity – Dr. David Nelson, Chair National AAMC - Beyond the Framework Government Office of Research Integrity (ORI)

Scientific Misconduct Investigations are rare

Fabrication and Falsification are the most common charges

Process for Scientific Misconduct Investigations Allegations Committee on Scientific Integrity Inquiry Investigation President HSS Office of Research Integrity Independent Review Appeal Departmental Appeals Board Findings & Sanctions

Most Inquiries do not lead to investigations

There are few findings of scientific misconduct each year

A Recent example of a scientific misconduct investigation at Baylor Seven Committee members, administrative assistant, secretarial support, legal assistance Five grant applications and five published papers Nine separate “issues” grouped by scientific relationships Found scientific misconduct in seven, no misconduct in two 48 separate instances of FFP Report of 540 pages + separate book of figures Institutional Appeal ORI Appeal DAB Hearing Civil Lawsuit Seven YEARS

Whistleblowers (1) whistleblowers are free to disclose lawfully whatever information supports a reasonable belief of research misconduct as it is defined by PHS policy, (2) institutions have a duty not to tolerate or engage in retaliation against good-faith whistleblowers, (3) institutions have a duty to provide fair and objective procedures for examining and resolving complaints, disputes and allegations of research misconduct, (4) institutions have a duty to follow procedures that are not tainted by partiality arising from personal or institutional conflict of interest or other sources of bias, (5) institutions have a duty to elicit and evaluate fully and objectively information about concerns raised by whistleblower, (6) institutions have a duty to handle cases involving alleged research misconduct as expeditiously as possible without compromising responsible resolutions, and (7) at the conclusion of proceedings, institutions have a responsibility to credit promptly, in public or private as appropriate, those whose allegations are substantiated

Laboratory safety refresher On-line training: Anesthetic Gas Safety Bloodborne Pathogens Biohazard/Medical Waste Emergency Management Facilities Fire Safety Irradiator Security Laser Safety Lab Safety Shipping Biological Samples Hazardous Materials Transportation UV Protection X-ray Protection