Transcript RESEARCH MISCONDUCT Ruth M. Greenblatt Why talk about this now?  Misconduct can occur in several ways  Your own actions  Work of staff who.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Ruth M. Greenblatt
Why talk about this now?

Misconduct can occur in several ways
 Your
own actions
 Work of staff who report to you
 Related to interactions with other investigators


As you approach independence you need to be
aware of the rules and how these problems arise
Misconduct is often not volitional, it may arise when
someone is trying to expedite work, or is certain of
the results they expect
Research Misconduct

Whether these complaints are substantiated or not,
the process is difficult for all involved.
 Time
consuming
 Anxiety provoking
 Strains relationships
 Requires third party investigation
 Tends to extend beyond initial issues

Often involves mentees
 As
witnesses
 Initiating complaints/responding to complaints
What is research misconduct?
Pertains to proposing, performing, reviewing or reporting research




Fabrication (making up data or results)
Falsification (manipulating research resources, or
changing or omitting data or results to render the
research record inaccurate)
Plagiarism (appropriating another persons ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving credit)
Does not include honest error or differences of
opinion
Negligence
Unintentional but seriously neglectful breaches of
accepted research policies and procedures



Identifying data errors after publication but
submitting a retraction
Using an expired version of informed consent
Dispensing a study drug to someone not enrolled in
the study
Plagiarism





Most common unethical behavior
Occurs in many forms (appropriating ideas, copying
portions of text without credit or quotation marks)
More subtle varieties, while unethical, may not be
considered to be misconduct
Can be inadvertent failure to borrow from a source
and fail to fully give credit
Tends to result in significant penalties
Avoiding Plagiarism





“Always acknowledges the contributions of others and
the source of his/her ideas
Any text taken from another author must be enclosed in
quotation marks (avoid the mosaic)
Always acknowledge every source that we use in our
writing, whether it is paraphrased, summarized, or
enclosed in quotations
When paraphrasing or summarizing others’ work we
must reproduce the exact meaning of the other author’s
ideas or facts
When in doubt, use a citation”
http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/plagiarism.pdf
Self Plagiarism

Misleads the reader because the reader has reason to
assume the material you write is new

Redundant and duplicative papers
Can be acceptable
 Can include presentations of data

Salami slicing – data fragmentation
 Copyright infringement
 Text recycling

Few guidelines
 Can be tempting in presenting complex methods
 Can lead to publication of inaccurate methods

http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/plagiarism.pdf
Misconduct involving scientific mentors
and mentees



Often arise after an extended period of dispute or strain
Often results from poor communication among the parties
Can result from misunderstanding on the part of early career
investigators concerning:





autonomy
conventions of authorship
conventions regarding credit and intellectual property
Often arise when best practices in team conduct are not
followed
Can extend to involve multiple individuals
Trans Mentoring


Should be a great aid in avoiding misconduct
episodes and complaints.
Your mentor:
 Can
dispel erroneous assumptions regarding autonomy
and rights
 Can promote effective communication even with difficult
senior collaborators
 Can identify significant problems early in process
 Can help mentees to appropriately cope with
complaints and grievances
Points to clarify

Role of PI Responsibilities
 Fiscal
 Scientific
direction
 Expectations
of credit
 Authorship
 Corresponding
author: should be person with stable address
 Order of authorship: should be discussed openly early in the
process
When disputes occur

Parties should avoid involving lab bystanders in casual
conversation and gossip about these issues




Seek appropriate advice
Need to address issues with senior mentor
Involving bystanders can complicate situation and harden positions
Also give context


Some disputes in scientific collaborations are common and usually are
resolved with good communication
The great majority of scientists are reasonable and ethical, actual
misconduct is not common
Workplace conduct issues

Expression of anger can cross lines of acceptable
conduct
 Shouting,
singling individuals out, pointing can be
violations of the UC code of conduct on the part of
mentor or mentee
 Cursing, threatening or seeking to identify the origin of
complaints is also unacceptable behavior

Concerned persons should seek appropriate help
 Problem
resolution center
 Academic affairs office
 VA and GIVI resources
Vulnerable Settings


Hot findings
New initiatives
 Especially
when one party has much more experience
than the others.





Disengaged PI
Language/cultural differences within lab or
between mentor and mentee
When problems have occurred in past
When family members are collaborators
New PIs
Suspicion of Research Misconduct

Plagiarism, falsification, fabrication








Not authorship disputes
Report to RIO immediately, do NOT try to resolve or even
mention suspicion
Sequestration of lab books, computer, etc
Assessment by RIO
Inquiry by administrator
Investigation by ad hoc committee
Imposition of discipline
Report to ORI/other agencies
Case Example A

A complaint of research misconduct is received from a
postdoc concerning inappropriate use of grant funds


Funding from Project A was used to support Project B and to support PI travel
that was not necessary for the research
Background



Postdoctoral fellow had been long frustrated by lack of support for his own
research projects, and was looking for job with fewer publications than he had
hoped for, disputes had also occurred regarding who the corresponding author
on the papers should be;
PI felt that the postdoc had done well, productivity had been hampered by
technical issues, and was unaware of the extent of postdoc’s concern
Postdoc also felt that PI had not been as supportive in job search as he could
have been, and enrolled other lab staff in effort to review budgets and
expenditures.
Case Example A Outcome

Outcome
Postdoctoral fellow is granted whistle blower status, but
eventually decided that academics was too difficult a work
environment for him.
 PI was forced to return funding for Project A using his entire
unrestricted funding to cover the costs, resulting in cessation
of other projects and support for several graduate students.

Case A

Could anything have been done to achieve a better
result, and if so what and when?
 Communication
about the career plan and productivity
 Communication about the job search
Case Example B

An early career faculty member submitted a
complaint that his prior mentor (PI) committed
research misconduct and workplace misconduct:
 One
grievant complained that the mentor had used
material he published previously (without the PIs name
as author), word-for-word and without the grievant’s
consent (he was listed as coauthor).
 A graduate student in the same laboratory supported
this complaint and noted that the PI raised his voice,
used derogatory language and pointed his finger at her
in the workplace.
Example B Background




Other students and faculty who know PI were said to report this
kind of misconduct happens all the time.
The faculty member had previously been required to take
supervisory and anger management training.
The work that was reported in both papers was completed in
the PI’s laboratory using grant funding that he obtained, but he
was less involved in leading this work, which was an offshoot of
the original project, than was his routine practice.
The PI reported that he was not aware the grievant had
submitted this paper, and that he was simply completing what
he had thought was an unfinished manuscript.
Case B Continued



The issues were discussed widely within the
laboratory when the PI was away, and the entire
research team became embroiled.
The grievants shared comments made by academic
leaders and other faculty with the research group.
The grievants obtained copies of correspondence
that indicated that the PI was aware of the first
publication, including collection of material from
deleted computer files.
Case B Outcome



The PI was forced to retract his publication.
The PI was found to have violated the UCSF code of
conduct.
Since the dispute became public within the
department, the grievants also were perceived by
some to have transgressed appropriate conduct and
to have acted to falsely tarnish the reputation of the
PI and his contributions to the research.
Case B

Could anything have been done to achieve a better
result, and if so what and when?
 The
paper
 Discretion about the complaint