ORI Findings of Scientific Misconduct

Two from Oklahoma … note the use of the term “scientific” rather than “research” misconduct (see the helpful comment below for explanation).

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case:

Joy Bryant, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (OUHSC) and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity during its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service found that Ms. Joy Bryant, Tribal Efforts Against Lead (TEAL) phlebotomist, OUHSC, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grant R01 ES008755. Specifically, Ms. Bryant falsified research in the TEAL study by substituting or conspiring with another phlebotomist to substitute her blood or blood of another phlebotomist for blood samples of 10-15 child participants in the TEAL study.

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case:

Diana Layman, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity during its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service found that Ms. Diana Layman, TEAL phlebotomist, OUHSC, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grant R01 ES008755. Specifically, Ms. Layman falsified research in the TEAL study by substituting or conspiring with another phlebotomist to substitute her blood or blood of another phlebotomist for blood samples of 10-15 child participants in the TEAL study.

2 Comments »

  1. Kfields said

    A person who falsified, fabricated or plagiarized in PHS- supported research or grant application before June 2005 may have committed scientific misconduct, the same conduct (plus a bit more, since reviewing research is now included) after June 2005 may have committed research misconduct, due to the federal-wide redefinition of misconduct in scientific research and the new PHS regulation effective June 2005 that incorporates the revised definition. Old reg- 42CFR 50.102 (scientific misconduct defined) new reg, is 42CFR 93.103 (research misconduct defined) . See http://www.ori.hhs.gov for link to the regulations.
    IAnd- – it does not depend on your status, it applies to any scientist be they student, technician, professor or nobel prizewinning scientist. A lot of universities call it “academic misconduct” and include a lot of other bad stuff.

    Aha. Thanks much for this enlightenment. I’m not into the compliance end of things (at my current institution, the separation in research administration powers is so complete that the research development offices are on a different campus from the multiple compliance & oversight offices, with different VPs overseeing each set … and the sponsored research administration in yet another category with its own VP – sort of like the 3 branches of federal government, if you discount Dick Cheney). Anyway, given that this award started back in 1996 and seems to have limped along on no-cost extensions since 2005, you are clearly spot on. I knew the regs had changed to cover misconduct in reviews … didn’t realize the nomenclature had changed. Interesting. Scientific misconduct … research misconduct … scholarly misconduct … academic misconduct. The etymological editor will need to ponder this a spell. – writedit

  2. drugmonkey said

    Another fairly common category of fraud it seems this making up subjects in human clinical research. This is one of Poehlman’s
    areas of fraud and also whatSudbø pulled if I am not mistaken. I seem to recall some other small-fry, like these phlebotomists, coming up on this sort of thing in the past few years too. The box score isn’t going to resolve the question of more-disposed-to-cheat over more-likely-to-be-detected in certain fields of research but at least it will start framing the hypotheses to be tested…

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: