1. Research Misconduct Adapted with permission from Virginia Tech University Office of the Vice-President for Research

2. Federal Laws on Misconduct Code of Federal Regulations: ► 45 CRF 689 (for NSF) ► 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 (for the Department of Health and Human Services)

3. Agencies Overseeing Research Misconduct ► U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity ► National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General

4. Definition of Research Misconduct ► Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research results

5. Research Misconduct ► Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them ► Falsification: manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting results such that the research is not accurately represented in the record. ► Plagiarism: the appropriation of another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving proper credit.

6. What is it not: ► Honest error ► Differences of opinion Research Misconduct

7. Real-world examples include: ► PI claiming Ph.D. and many publications ► PI made up interviews with autistic children during clinical trials ► Students not able to replicate PI’s results in lab; discovered fraud, reported it ► PI falsified data for grant applications and subsequent publication ► Graduate student discovered inconsistencies in data on aging project; reported it Research Misconduct

8. Criteria ► Represent a significant departure from accepted practices ► Have been committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and ► Be proven by a preponderance of evidence

9. Top ten “POOR” behaviors 1. 1. Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data 2. 2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements 3. 3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based on one‘s own research 4. 4. Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be interpreted as questionable

10. Top ten “POOR” behaviors 5. 5. Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission (intellectual property violation) or giving due credit (plagiarism) 6. 6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one’s own research 7. 7. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research

11. 8. 8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements 9. 9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data 10. 10. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source (falsification) Top ten “POOR” behaviors

12. Other “POOR” behaviors ► ► Publishing the same data or results in two or more publications ► ► Inappropriately assigning authorship credit ► ► Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or proposals

13. Other “POOR” behaviors ► ► Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs ► ► Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate ► ► Inadequate record keeping related to research projects

14. Why does misconduct happen? ► Publish or Perish pressure ► Desire to “get ahead” ► Personal problems ► Character issues ► Cultural differences ► ???

15. How is misconduct identified ► Suspected and reported by a colleague ► Failure to confirm research results by own lab or others

16. Consequences (if misconduct is substantiated) ► Withdrawal or correction of all pending and published papers and abstracts affected by the misconduct ► Restitution of funds to the granting agency ► Ineligibility to apply for federal grants for years ► The end of your funded projects career!

17. Who is investigated and who is held accountable? ► Investigated  All authors that are involved in the specific data in question ► Held accountable  Primary author  Other authors whose results are found culpable  The PI

18. Mentor Responsibilities ► Mentors have the responsibility to ensure that all trainees (post-docs, grad students, undergrads) are aware of the responsible conduct of research ► Obligation to report

19. Sinclair Requirements ► Provide assurances necessary to permit Sinclair to participate in federally supported programs ► Promote responsible conduct of research ► Establish policies and procedures for investigating and reporting instances of alleged research misconduct ► Respond to allegations of possible misconduct

20. Sinclair Actions ► Post requirements on Grants website ► Current: Communicate with PIs, obtain written confirmation ► Future: PIs and Co-PIs sign assurances with submission ► Refer issues to Sinclair General Counsel ► Respond to allegations according to regulations

21. Information Sources ► Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity http://ori.dhhs.gov/ ► National Science Foundation Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (NSF 07- 140 June 2007) Chapter VII - Grant Administration Disputes and Misconduct ► http://nsf.gov/oig ► NSF Office of Inspector General http://nsf.gov/oig

22. Questions?

23. Contact Us ► Neil Herbkersman, Director Grants Development neil.herbkersman@sinclair.edu937-512-2524 ► Karla Hibbert-Jones, Assistant Director Grants Development karla.hibbert-jones@sinclair.edu937-512-4573