Last week, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found former graduate student, Marija Manojlovic, responsible for research misconduct. In the report, the former University of Pittsburgh student was found to have falsified data in a poster presentation and in an article manuscript submitted for publication. Manjlovic fabricated at least some of the steps taken to collect data and the final data itself.
The ORI is a government organization whose purpose is to oversee research misconduct specifically related to Public Health Service (PHS) research. PHS departments include:
- Office of Public Health and Science
- National Institutes of Health.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- The Food and Drug Administration
- The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- The Health Resources and Services Administration
- The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
- The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
- The Indian Health Service
- Office of Regional Health Administrators
In 2004, 30 billion dollars of research funding was provided to health researchers. The ORI ensures the money used in this research is not used on irresponsible research.
Institutions receiving funding assure the ORI that they will comply with administrative procedures, outlined by the ORI, regarding research misconduct. Typically, universities complete their own investigation and then turn cases over to the ORI.
In 2009, the ORI received 179 allegations of research misconduct, which include: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." This quote is taken from the 2009 annual report published by the ORI.
Of these 179 allegations, 49 were examined in greater detail to determine the need for a potential investigation. Not all of these cases were completed in 2009.
There were 43 cases closed in 2009, 11 of which found research misconduct. Only 1 person was disbarred from PHS research for 10 years; 2 were disbarred for 3 years, and 2 were disbarred for 2 years. Other disciplinary actions most often included not being allowed to be a PHS advisor and/or having research supervised by someone else for a number of years.
Another recent case investigated Scott Weber. Weber was an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh in the school of nursing. (The research integrity officer there must be pretty busy!) Weber was found guilty of plagiarizing and falsifying data in two publications and plagiarizing in 2 grant applications. Here is the quote from the report, because I think it does a better job than I could of describing Weber's actions:
In both manuscripts, the Respondent falsified and fabricated tables and figures by using all or nearly all of the data in tables and graphs from the plagiarized articles while altering numbers and changing text to represent data as if from another subject population;he also copied most of the original bibliographic references but falsified 35% of the copied references from JAANP MS and 25% of the copied references from JGMS MS, by changing volume numbers and/or publication years, apparently to hinder detection of the plagiarism.The data fabrication occurred when the Respondent altered or added values to Table 2 in each manuscript describing the demographic characteristics of the study population that was never studied.
Weber changed data in tables from another publication to make it seem like they were from his "study." He actually never conducted a study, but created demographic data for a population.
He plagiarized 90% of one of these articles mentioned and 66% of the other article mentioned! Seven of his previously published articles have now been retracted. Weber has been barred from participating in federally funded research for 3 years.
Weber
It has been briefly mentioned in class that faculty are under enormous pressure to publish. Faculty under this pressure are often tempted to commit acts of research misconduct or questionable research practices. Questionable research practices are often defined as actions that stray from accepted practices of the research community. There are a couple of great articles from the counselor education field examining research misconduct and questionable research practices among faculty. I'll put the references at the bottom of this blog.
I have lots of questions for you. This topic is an area of interest for me, so you can see that I have geeked out a bit on it.
I would imagine most people would have issues with Weber's egregious plagiarism. Is his disciplinary action appropriate? For me this brings up questions of whether certain research misconduct or questionable research practices should be weighted differently. Is plagiarism worse than falsifying data? They both feel dishonest to me, yet the disciplinary actions in these cases indicates that they are different.
What about the use of federal funding for these behaviors...should students or faculty be allowed to use federal funding for research after committing research misconduct?
Should they be allowed to continue in their programs or maintain their status at the university? Should graduate students and faculty punishment be all that different? When the student mentioned above becomes a faculty member and is under pressure to publish, are they going to resort to research misconduct in order to survive?
What kind of career implications does this have for students or faculty?
References:
Davis, M. S., Wester, K. L., & King, B.(2008). Narcissism, entitlement, and questionable research practices in counseling: A pilot study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 200-210.
Wester, K. L., Willse, J. T., & Davis, M. S. (2010). Psychological climate, stress, and research integrity among research counselor educators: A preliminary study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 50(1), 39-55.
Just so I get this correct, Manjlovic fakes the research and findings in a study she was preparing for publication. Her punishment is to be supervised in further research for the next 3 years as well as to not serve as an advisor to the Office of Public Health and Science. But she’s still eligible for federal funding? And Weber lied about doing a study then stole the results and data from two other articles? His punishment is to not receive funding for research for three years and to have prior articles retracted? Where are the real ramifications for plagiarizing and lying about the research? Are these two people still employed?
ReplyDeleteBoth of these people were doing research where true findings could have a large impact on society. They were also both in positions to mentor and lead students and their actions teach the wrong message. However, to look at this from simply a punitive perspective doesn’t provide the entire picture. Margaret asks some good questions, in particular what kind of institutional environment leads to both students and faculty research misconduct. I hope the ORI took into account other aspects of the situation, perhaps investigating personal and professional character statements. I would also hope both Manjlovic and Weber would use this opportunity to educate others about ethics and integrity in research and about what NOT to do.
I believe all cases of plagiarism and academic dishonestly need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis…just like student misconduct. The facts of both cases matter a great deal and we will likely never be privy to anything more than the basic details. However, it appears both engaged in behavior that was unprofessional and possibly worse (if Federal funds were directly involved). As a graduate student, Manjlovic should be treated a bit differently than Weber, an assistant professor. In fact, if she was conducting research and publishing under the supervision of a faculty advisor, there maybe some additional issues at play. In both cases the intent and events leading up to it needs to be determined. However, I agree that these consequences (especially for the assistant professor) seem to not fit the crime. However, as I think about it, Weber is probably in for a very difficult time getting tenure and maybe out of a job shortly (with little chance of getting hired elsewhere). It would be interesting to see where he is working in 3 years.
ReplyDeleteFalsifying data - especially in federally funded research, should, I believe, carry a much more severe penalty - MUCH. The results of this research will directly impact public policy. To falsify data could have far-sweeping impacts for our entire nation. In some fields (for example: economics, public health and safety - those things which impact public poliucy) this could almost be considered treasonous and could be considered tantamount to an attack on the public good. If a strong example is not made in these cases what is to prevent an intellectual terrorist attack on our country? I mean the results of policy made on false data could really be leveraged as a tool of sedition and even war. Think this is going to far? Do you remember a year or two ago when the FBI broke a Russian deep-cover intel operation which was targetted at acquiring economic and political intelligence on the U.S.? Those kinds of operations are inherently risky and high-cost. The expected gains obviously outweighed them though. If we look at the members of this ring, considering the potential for infiltration of public policy through our research communities is, honestly, not as far of a stretch as it may sound. This kind of research should be highly controlled and continually evaluated before we set policy and I am happy that there is at least an apparatus in place for ensuring we 'let the right one in.'
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/russia-spy-ring-2010-photos_n_1067968.html
When funding of any type is involved and the person plagiarizes or falsifies data then there is an issue of fraud present. Fraud is a felony and punishable with jail time.
ReplyDeleteAs David noted if these 'findings' went undiscovered then they could have had a far more reaching impact than many people realize, particularly since the funding is from a federal source. Essentially these people actively sought to defraud the government and thereby the tax payers. In a worse case scenario the faulty research could have cost people their lives. Some may say I am over dramatizing the issue however I would have to disagree. Information and analysis is very important and often acted upon in many ways unforeseeable by the researcher therefore research must be valid and posses integrity.
In a number of blogs people have cited the lack of meaningful discipline of athletes for misconduct. In this write up we have two examples where academics were slapped on the wrist.