Excerpts of Semiannual Reports to Congress

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT THE CONGRESS Number 1 April 1, 1989 Septernber 30, 1989 National Science Foundation Scientist Censured An assistant scientist with a northwest research institute agreed for Misrepresenting to be declared ineligible for funding as a principal investigator Preliminary after an internal review committee convened by his research institute found a pattern of repeated misrepresentation of data in , Scientific Findings his proposals for research support. The grant application, which in Grant Application was also submitted to the National Institutes of Health was the scientist's independent attempt at obtaining federal funds for his research program. An inquiry was initiated after Foundation staff, who were evaluating the scientist's proposal for funding, discovered apparent misrepresentations of preliminary data in photomicro- graphs and reported the inconsistencies to the OIG. An initial inquiry conducted by at the scientist's research institution a formal investigation of the matter. An internal review committee convened by the scientist's research institute agreed unanimously that a pattern of repeated misrepresentation of data was apparent, suggesting serious misconduct by the scientist his inability to meet the profes- standards and quality expected of a scientist with the he possessed. The scientist was provided an opportunity to respond both to the internal review committee's findings and proposal to censure him by declaring him ineligible for funding as a principal investigator for a period of five years. While denying wrongdoing or guilt, the scientist ad- mitted to carelessness in preparing the grant applications which he to personal problems and poor laboratory ad- practices. The scientist's resignation from the research institute obviated the need for disciplinary action on the part of his employer. The Public Health Service's Office of Scientific Integrity is conducting its own inquiry into work by this scientist which may have been funded by or submitted to through or along with others. SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS NUMBER 1 15 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT THE CONGRESS Number 3 April 1,1990 September 30,1990 National Science Foundation OIG Procedures for Misconduct Allegations We prepared a letter for distribution to the Many allegations, however, will require probing science and engineering community that beyond this stage by means of a preliminary on receipt of an or a investigation conducted by allegation of misconduct in science, engineering, OIG or by the cognizant institution. It is our or education. Our letter both explains our practice, unless there are strong reasons to the procedures and affords scientists and engineers contrary, to defer these proceedings to the an opportunity to respond with comments and subject's institution. Our letter emphasizes questions. concern that subjects, complainants, and witnesses be accorded fundamental fairness and Our letter notes a frequent need to clarify an due process by both OIG and by any institution allegation in order to whether it falls to which may defer an inquiry or an within the NSF definition of misconduct, investigation. Our initial effort to meet this whether it concerns NSF, and whether there is concern is review of an institution's some evidence supporting it. If these conditions published policies and procedures for are met, our standard practice is then to contact conducting an inquiry or investigation into the subject of the allegation, asking for alleged misconduct. Later, by carefully comments or an explanation, before contacting reviewing inquiry and investigative reports, OIG any third parties. This practice helps to ensure can verify the adequacy of the procedures that the subject's reputation is not compromised actually used institutions in evaluating by our preliminary proceedings. If the subject's complaints of misconduct to them. explanation resolves the matter, the case is Finally, OIG solicits comments the subject closed at that point. before an investigative report becomes final. OIG SEMIANNUAL CONGRESS NUMBER 3 25 Our letter also addresses questions about what false. Our letter mentions our standard information is made publicly available on practice of providing informants with misconduct cases. While a case is open, OIG "confidential informant" status, whenever neither nor denies its existence, and requested, in order to minimize the chance that does not give out information about the conduct reprisals will be taken against an individual of the case. This practice provides the who, in good faith. provides information about confidentiality necessary to conduct an adequate alleged misconduct. Closed out cases are subject inquiry or investigation and protects the to requests under the Freedom of Information subject's good name in case the allegation is and the Privacy Acts. NSF Staff Handling of Misconduct Allegations We prepared a bulletin (OIG Bulletin 90-02) for depends on program staff to bring such distribution to NSF staff that sets forth the allegations to its attention and to provide expert procedures that staff members must follow help as it resolves them. Program staff, like whenever they beome aware of possible OIG staff, are required to strict secrecy misconduct by someone who an NSF about allegations, and may not give information award or has submitted a proposal. about them to persons outside the Foundation. Program staff may not conduct their own The basic requirement is that staff must inform inquiries into and may not take OIG of any misconduct allegation immediately. adverse actions against investigators on the The bulletin emphasizes that OIG heavily basis of such allegations. A Sample of Misconduct Cases Debarment Recommended for Misconduct has recommended that a researcher be Experiences for Undergraduates program. The debarred from receiving grant funds from the funding included support for. undergraduate federal government for a 3-year period. The students sharing in the research at the site and subject involved is a biological scientist who working with the researcher afterward to analyze directed research at a field site in a foreign the data collected. country with funding from Research 26 SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS NUMBER In November received allegations of threatened to "blackball" graduate students misconduct against the researcher. Our the community if they investigation involved conducting extensive behavior to authorities. He manipulated access interviews and collecting affidavits. We to the data and the computer used to analyze the analyzed these materials in an investigative data in order to create opportunities for report and recommended debarment. misfeasance. The researcher violated the requirements of both the proposal under which OIG that the researcher had been his work was supported and the Research involved in 16 incidents of sexual misfeasance Experiences for Undergraduates with female graduate and undergraduate students at the research site; on the way to the Office of the Director accepted site; and in his home, car, and office. Many of recommendation of debarment, but extended the these incidents were classifiable as sexual proposed of debarment from 3 to 5 years. assaults. OIG further determined that these In accordance with regulations, the Office of the incidents were an integral part of this General Counsel, under authority the NSF individual's performance as a researcher and Director, served the subject with a notice of research mentor and represented a serious proposed debarment, and he was given a 30-day deviation from accepted research practices. period in which to reply. In response, the Therefore, they amounted to research researcher requested that the reply period be misconduct under NSF regulations. extended for 6 months. The Foundation's General Counsel extended his reply period for The offense was found to be aggravated by an additional 30 days. A final decision on the several considerations. The researcher had proposed debarment will be made after the considerable control over the students at the site. researcher's reply is received. He used alcohol to excess at the site and in connection with misfeasance. He Alleged Noncompliance with Recombinant DNA Guidelines NSF grantees are required to comply with the After determining who performed specific parts National Institutes of Health Guidelines of the scientific work described in the paper and on Recombinant DNA as part of grant where that work was conducted, OIG concluded conditions and, by defmition, noncompliance that: with these guidelines constitutes misconduct in science. In late March 1990, OIG received an There was no violation of Guidelines allegation of noncompliance with on Recombinant DNA by the NSF-funded Guidelines on Recombinant DNA. because no experiments performed at his university required IBC approval. The suspected noncompliance was based on a publication in a leading science journal, which experiments requiring IBC approvals was co-authored by three investigators located at were conducted by the lead author who did two different institutions. The acknowledgment not have any NSF support and is not covered line in the paper read "This research was by NSF regulations. supported by National Science Foundation." The acknowledgment in the paper should implying that work reported in the paper had have indicated that NSF provided only support. According to the paper, by partial support for the published work. using recombinant-DNA techniques

Load more