Findings of Research Misconduct

Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:

Based on the report of an inquiry conducted by Advanced Liquid Logic Inc., the Respondent’s admission, and additional analysis conducted by ORI, ORI found that Mr. Matthew Poore, former Technician, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by NIAID contract HHSN272200900030C.

ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying data that were included in 1 presentation and 1 report to NIAID and in laboratory records at Liquid Logic.

ORI finds that Respondent knowingly and intentionally falsified reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results by reporting the results from previous experiments as the actual results, when the experiments had not been performed. Specifically:

    In Liquid Logic laboratory documents, the Respondent falsified the RT-PCR results of HIV viral loads in whole blood patient samples by falsely changing previous results for 2 samples from negative to positive and 1 sample from positive to negative. The latter falsified sample result, changed from HIV positive to negative, was included in an April 1-June 30, 2012, quarterly report and a July 12, 2012, presentation to NIAID.

    In Liquid Logic laboratory documents, the Respondent falsified the RT-PCR whole blood lysis results of testing samples as 100 and 200 HIV viral copies per milliliter, when the experiments were not performed by the Respondent. These falsified results were included in an April 1-June 30, 2012, quarterly report to NIAID.

    In Liquid Logic laboratory documents, the Respondent falsified the graphs of RT-PCR results of the Escherichia coli bacteriophage MS2, an internal control, viral loads for 3 clinical samples, when the results were actually from prior experiments of 2 controls and 1 unrelated clinical sample. The Respondent falsified the MS2 graphs in an effort to conceal that RT-PCR experiments of the clinical samples had not been performed.

Mr. Poore has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and has voluntarily agreed for a period of 3 years, beginning on April 1, 2013:

(1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. PHS support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of his duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; he agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan; and

(2) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

Leave a Comment

Findings of Research Misconduct

Notice the unusual notice for this decade-long case … additional details at Retraction Watch, “including [via the Seattle Times] Aprikyan’s own account that a technician working with him at one point wrote research notes on “approximately 30 paper towels,” and the notes were never transcribed.”

Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:

Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the University of Washington (UW), the UW School of Medicine Dean’s Decision, the Decision of the Hearing Panel at UW, and additional analysis conducted by ORI, ORI found by a preponderance of the evidence that Andrew Aprikyan, PhD former Research Assistant Professor, Division of Hematology, UW, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by R01CA89135 and R01DK18951, and applies to the following publications and grant applications:

    Blood pre-published online on January 16, 2003 (NEM)
    Experimental Hematology 31:372-381, 2003 (CMA)
    Blood 97:147-153, 2001 (ISB)
    R01 CA89135-01A1
    R01 HL73063-01
    R01 HL79615-01

Blood pre-published online on January 16, 2003 has been retracted, and Experimental Hematology 31:372-381, 2003 has been corrected.

Specifically, ORI finds that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Respondent falsified and/or fabricated results relating to the above publications and grants. Specifically, Respondent:

    1. Falsely reported sequencing data in the NEM manuscript to strengthen the hypothesis that NE mutations contributed to the phenotype observed in severe congenital neutropenia (SCN) patients. Specifically:

      a. Respondent falsely reported in Figures 2A and 3 that patient 3 had the R191Q neutrophil elastase (NE) mutation, when the majority of the sequencing experiments showed that the mutation was not present.

      b. Respondent fabricated text (p. 12) reporting that sequencing of RT-PCR products confirmed the expression of the NE mutants in the SCN patients and that no mutations were present in the granulocyte colony stimulating factor receptor (G-CSFR) gene and the Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome (WAS) gene in SCN patients, when based on the lack of original records the experiments were not performed. The false claim for G-CSFR sequencing was also reported in CA89135-03.

    2. Falsely reported a two-fold increase in apoptosis of human promyelocytic (HL-60) cells transfected with NE mutants compared to wild type NE in Figure 4A, NEM, Figure 6A, CMA, Figure 8, HL73063-01, and Figure 7, HL79615-01. Respondent used arbitrary flow cytometry data files to generate histograms with the desired result. The false results supported the hypothesis that the NE mutations were sufficient for impaired survival of human myeloid cells.

    3. Falsified NE and β-actin Western blots in Figure 4B Blood, pre-published online January 16, 2003, Figure 5B of the manuscript initially submitted to Blood April 2002, and Figure 6B Experimental Hematology 31:372-381, 2003, by falsely labeling lanes to support the hypothesis that accelerated apoptosis in mutant NE transfect HL-60 cells was due to the mutation and not the level of protein present. Specifically:

      a. Respondent used portions of a single NE Western blot to represent: Figure 4B as HL-60 cells transfected with L92H, R191Q, and wtNE, when the cells were transfected with R191Q, P110L, and D145-152; Figure 5B as HL-60 transfected with wtNE, mutNE, and EGFP when they were cells transfected with NE mutants, P110L, D145-152, and 194

      b. Respondent used portions of a single β-actin Western blot to represent: Figure 4B as HL-60 cells transfected with L92H, R191Q, and wtNE, when they were cells transfected with I31T, P110L, and G185R mutants; Figure 5B as HL-60 cells transfected with wtNE, mutNE, and EGFP, when they were cells transfected with P110L, I31T, and INE; Figure 6B as HL-60 cells transfected with G185R, mock, D145-152, and P110L NE mutants, when they were cells transfected with I31T, P110L, G185R, and 32. The false β-actin Western blot in Figure 6B was also included in HL73063-01, Figure 8 (where the I31Tlane was labeled correctly), and HL79615-01, Figure 7.

    4. Falsified the reported methodology for flow cytometry experiments in Figure 4A, NEM, Figures 1 and 2, and Tables 2 and 3, CMA, and Figures 4, 5, and 6, ISB, to validate the key hypothesis showing accelerated apoptosis in SCN and CN patients. The methodology claimed that flow cytometry experiments were gated for GFP+ populations, or that cell purity was greater than 96%, when based on the available original records, the experiments were not performed as stated.

    5. Falsified Figure 2, CMA, Figure 2, HL73063-01, Figure 3, HL79615-01, and Figure 5, CA89135-01A1, demonstrating that the overnight cultures of CD34+ and CD33+ bone marrow cells from SCN/AML patients showed normal cell survival, and only the CD15+ overnight cultures showed accelerated apoptosis, when the actual record available contradicted this result. Respondent used flow cytometry data files to generate histograms with the desired result to support the hypothesis that the progression from SCN to leukemia (AML) involves acquired G-CSFR mutations that override the pro-apoptotic effect of the NE mutations in primitive progenitor cells.

Dr. Aprikyan has entered into a Settlement Agreement in which he denied ORI’s findings of research misconduct based on the UW Faculty Adjudication Hearing Panel decision. The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent. Respondent entered into the Agreement solely because contesting the findings would cause him undue financial hardship and stress, lead to lengthy and costly appellate proceedings, and he wished to seek finality. Respondent agreed not to appeal the ORI findings of research misconduct set forth above. He has agreed, beginning on March 12, 2013:

    (1) If within 2 years from the effective date of the Agreement, Respondent receives or applies for U.S. PHS support, Respondent agreed to have his research supervised for a period of 2 years; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of his duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; Respondent agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;

    (2) If within 2 years from the effective date of the Agreement, Respondent receives PHS support, Respondent agreed that for 2 years, any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract; and

    (3) Respondent agreed not to serve in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant for a period of 2 years beginning with the effective date of the Agreement.

Comments (4)

Obama Budget Proposal – $31B for NIH, $7.6B for NSF

From the Administration’s FY14 budget comments for HHS:

Supports Biomedical Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Biomedical research contributes to improving the health of the American people, as well as the economy. The Budget includes $31 billion for NIH to support research on-campus and at academic and independent research institutions across the United States, including delivering on the Administration’s commitment to enhance investment in Alzheimer’s research. Tomorrow’s advances in health care depend on today’s investments in basic research on the fundamental causes and mechanisms of disease, new technologies to accelerate discoveries, advances in translational sciences, and new investigators and new ideas. The Budget will increase focus on research that aims to increase understanding of the brain, improve the clinical trials network, and enhance the development of new therapeutics to treat diseases and disorders that affect millions of Americans. NIH will implement new policies to collect better data on trainees and institutions’ administrative costs.

As a reminder, the NIH received appropriations of $31.24B in FY10 (highest in NIH history), $30.91B in FY11, and $30.86 in FY12 … still no official word on the final appropriation for FY13 ($28.6B according to FASEB).

The President’s budget requests $7.6B for NSF and makes reference to consolidating STEM undergraduate education and graduate fellowship programs in the NSF, with no details as to which other federal STEM education programs might migrate to the NSF or what else this initiative might entail.

The Senate budget resolution indicates support for the NIH (particularly with regard to its positive impact on the US economy) but lists no specific dollar amount other than $94.3B budget authority for health discretionary spending (which includes the NIH), versus $40.1B in the House budget resolution. The Senate also approved an amendment by Senators Durbin (IL), Moran (KS), Cardin (MD), Mikulski (MD), Blumenthal (CT), Casey (PA), Collins (ME), and Klobuchar (MN) to “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health.”

Nothing over, especially the shoutin’.

Comments (4)

CSR Scoring Recalibration

NIGMS has kindly publicly confirmed that CSR is recalibrating percentiles, having pushed SRGs to enforce the spreading of scores when reviewing Cycle III applications this past February and March.

Last December, CSR posted a new graphic illustrating how the 9-point scoring should be interpreted:

CSR scoring

Colleagues and alert readers have been sharing their experiences, both on the giving (SRG) and receiving (PI) end. Reviewers were told to spread the scores, PIs were puzzled (often pleasantly) about their score/percentile. For example, in Cycle III, a score of 30 at the 7th percentile … compared with a score of 19 and 7th percentile in Cycle II … both going to NCI for consideration (do not know if they are the same SRGs). I have heard about a lot more scores in the 40s and 50s this cycle, generally described as in the Summary of Discussion as significant but with moderate weaknesses (which I suspect were being scored in the 20s & 30s last year). Just an FYI for those trying to work out their scores/percentiles.

Comments (7)

Findings of Research Misconduct

Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:

Based on the report from Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) and Respondent’s admission, ORI found that Mr. Adam C. Savine, former doctoral student, Department of Psychology, WUSTL, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by grants R56MH066078, F31DA032152, R21DA027821, and T32AG00030.

ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying data that were included in the following 3 publications and 6 conference abstracts:

Publications

    1. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. “Local and global effects of motivation on cognitive control.’ Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 12(4):692-718, 2012 Dec.

    2. Savine, A.C., McDaniel, M.A., Shelton, J.T., Scullin, M.K. “A characterization of individual differences in prospective memory monitoring using the Complex Ongoing Serial Task.’ J Exp Psychol Gen. 141(2):337-62, 2012 May.

    3. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. “Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task- switching.’ J Neurosci. 30(31):10294-305, 2010 Aug 4.

Conference Abstracts

    1. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (November 2010) “The contextual and local effects of motivation on cognitive control.’ Psychonomics Society, St. Louis, MO.

    2. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (November 2010) “A model-based characterization of the individual differences in prospective memory monitoring.’ Psychonomics Society, St. Louis, MO.

    3. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (November 2010) “Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task-switching.’ Society for Neuroscience, San Diego, CA.

    4. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (June 2010) “Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task-switching.’ Motivation and Cognitive Control Conference, Oxford, England.

    5. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (January 2010) “Neural correlates of the motivation/cognitive control interaction: Activation dynamics and Performance prediction during task-switching.’ Genetic and Experiential Influences on Executive Function, Boulder, CO.

    6. Savine, A.C., & Braver, T.S. (June 2009) “Incentive Induced Changes in Neural Patterns During Task-Switching.’ Organization for Human Brain Mapping, San Francisco, CA.

As a result of the Respondent’s admission, the senior authors will request that the published papers be retracted or corrected.

ORI finds that Respondent falsified data and related text by altering the experimental data to improve the statistical results. Specifically, Respondent:

    1. Falsified data in Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2012 to show an unambiguous dissociation between local and global motivational effects. Specifically, Respondent exaggerated (1) the effect of incentive context on response times and error rates in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 3 for experiment 1 and (2) the effect of incentive cue timing on response times and error rates in Table 2 and in Figures 6, 9, and S2 for experiment 2.

    2. Falsified data in J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 to show that prospective memory is influenced by three dissociable underlying monitoring patterns (attentional focus, secondary memory retrieval, information thresholding), which are stable within individuals over time and are influenced by personality and cognitive differences. Specifically, Respondent modified the data to support the three category model and to show (1) that individuals fitting into each of the three categories exhibited differential patterns of prospective memory performance and ongoing task performance in Tables 1-3; Figures 5-8, and (2) that certain cognitive and personality differences were predictive of distinct monitoring approaches within the three categories in Figure 9.

    3. Falsified data in J Neurosci. 2010 and mislabeled brain images to show that motivational incentives enhance task-switching performance and are associated with activation of reward-related brain regions, behavioral performance, and trial outcomes. Specifically, Respondent modified the data so that he could show a stronger relationship between brain activity and behavior in Table 2 and Figure 4 and used brain images that fit the data rather than the images that corresponded to the actual Talairach coordinates in Figure 3.

Mr. Savine has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement and has voluntarily agreed for a period of 3 years, beginning on February 22, 2013:

    (1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agreed that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. PHS support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, Respondent shall ensure that a plan for supervision of his duties is submitted to ORI for approval; the supervision plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; he agreed that he shall not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;

    (2) That any institution employing him shall submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;

    (3) To exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and

    (4) That the senior authors will request that the following papers be retracted or corrected: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2012, J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012, and J Neurosci. 2010.

Comments (1)

For Those of You Celebrating Sequester Day by Looking for a New Job …

why not be part of the team that works out to the sixth decimal place just how bad success rates will be in the coming FYs?

The Office of Statistical Analysis and Reporting with the Office of Extramural Research of NIH is seeking qualified GS-9 through GS-14 Mathematical Statisticians (translation: these are the folks who conduct analyses for the RockTalk Blog, NIH Data Book, and other internal and external reports to help support decision-making at the NIH):

These positions are open to any qualified U.S. citizens as well as federal staff via merit promotions (separate job postings: GS 14 and GS 9-13).  They will  close on Monday, March 4 at midnight.

Comments (2)

Plan B in Case of Sequestration

Days before a 5.1% cut may or may not occur, the NIH released its agency-wide “Operation Plan in the Event of a Sequestration“.

The NIH continues to operate under a Continuing Resolution as described in NOT-OD-13-002, and therefore all non-competing continuation awards are currently being funded at a level below that indicated on the most recent Notice of Award (generally up to 90% of the previously committed level).  Final levels of FY 2013 funding may be reduced by a sequestration.  Despite the potential for reduced funding, the NIH remains committed to our mission to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

Should a sequestration occur, NIH likely will reduce the final FY 2013 funding levels of non-competing continuation grants and expects to make fewer competing awards to  allow the agency to meet the available budget allocation. Although each NIH Institute and Center (IC) will assess allocations within their portfolio to maximize the scientific impact, non-competing continuation awards that have already been made may be restored above the current level as described in NOT-OD-13-002 but likely will not reach the full FY 2013 commitment level described in the Notice of Award. Finally, in the event of a sequestration, NIH ICs will announce their respective approaches to meeting the new budget level.

Noncompeting renewal cuts should stay below 25% due to NIH fiscal policy, though there was word of a Type 5 taking a 50% hit, which seems exceptional. Each IC will be able to take its own approach to applying the cuts.

Now, given the timing, this would actually amount to a ~10% cut (~$1.6B distributed proportionately among the ICs). After the NIH takes out the cost of administrative and intramural costs for the remainder of FY13 (which ends Sept 30th), the slice of the pie for extramural funding would dwindle further, so paylines for FY13 would remain conservative following sequestration.

Congress also has a March 27 deadline for the continuing resolution that is currently funding the federal government. They probably won’t pass appropriation bills or an omnibus budget bill by the end of March, and while I assume an extension of the CR would maintain FY12 funding levels, it doesn’t have to, so the NIH may continue to face uncertainty with regard to its FY13 appropriation. Alternatively, Congress could scramble to pass a CR that restores some of the sequestered funding (ditto for the final FY13 appropriation). In that case, NIH would likely be on the receiving end, since there is generally bipartisan support for living longer, healthier lives.

Of course, even once the sequestration-CR-FY13 appropriation smack down is over, we still have the debt ceiling to deal with by May, at which point any long-term implications on future FYs would become more clear.

And guess what: next year starts now, too. President Obama will present his proposal for the FY14 budget in February (the applications you are submitting now will be funded in FY14). Following CBO review of the Administration’s plan, the House & Senate will present their own FY14 budget resolutions in April. Sequestration also affects the FY14 budget, so we’ll have to see how that is taken into consideration, especially amidst the debt ceiling wrangling.

What to do? Too few Representatives signed a bipartisan letter to the party leadership in support of preserving the NIH from budget cuts, so we can keep reminding our elected officials of the economic benefit and importance to society of biomedical research in their state and districts. You can find the contact information for your House representative through a zip code search and your Senators by state.

Otherwise, sit tight on contacting your PO for updates until April – they do not have secret information about paylines/paylists or fiscal policy at their ICs. Neither do their bosses. This is a stressful time for everyone in Bethesda, so hang loose, try not to refresh your eRA Commons account more than every 10 minutes, and monitor the headlines for white smoke coming out of the Capitol.

Comments (9)

Older Posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 175 other followers