Docstoc

Proposal to Conduct Investigation

Document Sample
Proposal to Conduct Investigation Powered By Docstoc
					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
                                                               College of Engineering
                                                         University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                              College of Engineering
                                                        University of Texas at El Paso
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.




                                                                                                          College of Engineering
                                                                                                    University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                                    College of Engineering
                                                                              University of Texas at El Paso
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.


                                                                College of Engineering
                                                          University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                College of Engineering
                                                          University of Texas at El Paso
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.

      –       Falsification is 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.

      –       Plagiarism is 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.




                                                                                        College of Engineering
                                                                                  University of Texas at El Paso
RCR Policies for Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences
Office 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




                                                                College of Engineering
                                                          University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                                  College of Engineering
                                                                            University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                   College of Engineering
                                                             University of Texas at El Paso
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‛




                                                                                College of Engineering
                                                                          University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                        College of Engineering
                                                                  University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                             College of Engineering
                                                                       University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                                    College of Engineering
                                                                              University of Texas at El Paso
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




                                                                    College of Engineering
                                                              University of Texas at El Paso
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



                                                                               College of Engineering
                                                                         University of Texas at El Paso
NSF OIG Research                                Falsification
                                                                 Other
                                                                  9%
Misconduct                                          12%

Investigations
                                           Fabrication
                                              12%
                                                                                                      Plagiarism
                                                                                                         67%

Intellectual theft             24   Fabrication in proposal      3
Verbatim plagiarism            16   Data sharing                 3
False statements               9    Impeding research progress   3
(CV& CPS)
                                    Conflicts of interests       2
NSF procedures                 8
                                    Duplicate submissions        2
Falsification in a proposal    7
                                    Mishandled investigation     1
Peer review violation          7
                                    Data tampering               1
Mentoring or colleague abuse   6    Human subjects               1       Source NSF OIG Website
                                                                             April 2000 Data
Retaliation                    4    Animal welfare               0.1
Fraud                          3    Recombinant DNA              0.1              College of Engineering
                                                                            University of Texas at El Paso
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 minimus unattributed 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
                                                                         College of Engineering
                                                                   University of Texas at El Paso
Agency Actions (SOURCE: 67 FR 11937, Mar. 18, 2002)
 (1)         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,
                                                                                                                College of Engineering
                                                                                                          University of Texas at El Paso
University Actions
 •   Termination
 •   Non-Renewal of Contract
 •   Others




                                     College of Engineering
                               University of Texas at El Paso
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



                                                                      College of Engineering
                                                                University of Texas at El Paso
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
                                                                                                      College of Engineering
                                                                                                University of Texas at El Paso
   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.
                                                                                                        College of Engineering
                                                                                                  University of Texas at El Paso
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

                                                                  College of Engineering
                                                            University of Texas at El Paso

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Proposal to Conduct Investigation document sample