The Not-So-Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Candice A. Yekel, DirectorOffice for Research Protections

September 24, 2009

2-10 the good, the bad and the ugly.m4a

(1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities;

(2) callous disregard for requirements that ensure the protection of researchers, human participants, or the public; or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals;

(3) failure to disclose significant financial and business interest as defined by Penn State Policy RA20, Individual Conflict of Interest;

(4) failure to comply with other applicable legal requirements governing research or other scholarly activities

Written allegationInquiry

60 days to completeFact-finding, not a determination of guilt or

innocenceInvestigation

120 days to completeSenior VP for Research appoints 5 full

professors to investigateRecommendations and sanctionsReporting

21 allegations of misconduct – 11 of the allegations went to full investigation

13 of 20 resulted in confirmed misconduct

14 allegations involved plagiarism5 allegations involved fabrication and/or

falsification2 allegations involved human

participant research1 allegation involved a breach of

confidentially in a grant proposal review

3 of the allegations involved individuals who were graduate students at the time of the misconduct.

Penalties can range from letter of reprimand to dismissal from the University.

4 of the 12 misconduct findings led to a recommendation of dismissal from the University

PSU (2002-2008) – 14 allegations: 13 went to an inquiry, 7 went to an investigation, 7 were confirmed misconduct67% of PSU allegations involved plagiarism54% of PSU confirmed misconduct

NSF – 68% of confirmed misconduct (1990-2004)

ORI – 6% of confirmed misconduct (1994-2003)

NSF: (1990-2004)11% Fabrication11% Falsification

ORI: (1994-2003)22% Fabrication 40% Falsification27% Fabrication & Falsification

PSU: (2002-2008)25% of the confirmed misconduct (3 falsification

and/or fabrication)

Handout

What are the ethical issues raised by this case?

Do the familial relationships make a difference in this case? Why or why not?

Should this case be considered research misconduct? Why or Why not?

What consequences should Julie Smith face?

What consequences should Sandy Smith face?

Handout

Did Dr. Clip Art do anything wrong? What are the ethical issues raised by the case?

Did Dr. Clip Art plagiarize? If yes, what did he plagiarize?

Is there any way that Dr. Clip Art could have obtained permission to include the figure in his proposal?

Are the actions demonstrated in this case ever justified?

Why does it matter what Dr. Clip Art writes in his proposal? After all, it is not a published work.

Should this case be considered research misconduct? If yes, what would be an appropriate sanction?

Handout

In what ways did Dr. Simpson act as a good mentor to Susan?

What could Dr. Simpson have done that might have prevented this case from occurring?

We don’t know what prompted Susan to fabricate data, but what responsibilities did Susan have that might have prevented this case from occurring?

What ramifications do the events of this case have on Dr. Simpson?