BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XXVIII
Hybrids: Cases That Involve More Than One Type of Allegation

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea

In recent discussions with Jim Kroll, head of administrative investigations at the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation (NSF), I have learned how the OIG identifies and categorizes allegations of misconduct. Whereas the fictitious cases I presented in earlier articles were simple, real-world cases are not! It is not uncommon for cases to involve multiple allegations or to have new allegations arise as the case is investigated. Sometimes cases involve allegations of one or more instances of research misconduct and/or civil or criminal violations; Kroll referred to these cases as “hybrids.”

This article is based on my discussions with Kroll. I offer a simple interpretation of four cases and then describe what the OIG did. Interestingly, the U.S. Attorney often does not prosecute in these types of cases but rather hands them back to the NSF to apply appropriate sanctions. In keeping with other TBI columns, the names of the investigators used in the real cases that follow are playful and utterly fictitious.

Case 1. Upset that a colleague did not “pull his weight,” Dr. Bea Koncerned alleged that Ahn Break inappropriately vacationed on NSF monies rather than collecting research data. Dr. Koncerned stated that Ahn’s data might be fabricated because Ahn had been at the research site for only two weeks rather than the full four weeks of data collection. Then a new problem cropped up: As a part of the investigation, a review of financial documents of this grant showed that the institution had overcharged $7,000 in indirect costs to a subawardee.

The OIG reviewed the grant documents and interviewed Dr. Break, and it dismissed the allegations of data fabrication and fraud. The data fabrication charge was deemed unfounded because Ahn Break’s research notes were reasonable, albeit messy. Dr. Break had taken two weeks’ vacation in southern Europe, but the leave was properly accounted for, and he returned the advanced per diem to the university. The institution also reimbursed the NSF for the $7,000 overcharge on indirect costs, which the OIG ascribed not to fraud but to incorrect calculations with no intent to deceive on the part of the institution.

Case 2. Dr. I. Takit was a peer reviewer of a proposal (the source document) that Dr. Mai Data submitted to an international funding agency. Dr. Takit later submitted a proposal to the NSF with text taken from the source document. Dr. Mai Data happened to be the peer reviewer for the NSF proposal and (naturally) identified his own work. Mai Data also noted that in the proposal, Investigator Takit claimed some of Data’s scientific ideas as his own. A third party in the case, Dr. Noh Maill, never responded to the OIG’s initial inquiry letter. University investigation revealed that I. Takit had removed the OIG letter from Maill’s mailbox—in other words, Dr. Takit intercepted a confidential letter meant for Dr. Noh Maill.

The initial allegation of plagiarism also included misstatement of the source of original scientific ideas, which is intellectual theft. In addition, tampering with the U.S. mail is illegal. The U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute in lieu of administrative action by the NSF. I. Takit was debarred for two years and was prevented from being a peer reviewer for two years.

Case 3. During a peer review process, an allegation of plagiarism was made against Dr. Bade Tu Wurst. A review of his three most recent proposals indicated that all three were 85% plagiarized. Dr. Wurst denied the allegation of plagiarism, saying that original documents submitted to FastLane (the NSF’s web site for communicating with researchers) contained all the necessary quotes. A review of the documents at the NSF proved that Wurst’s claim was false. As part of the university investigation, Dr. Wurst offered his hard drive as evidence that the original documents contained proper attribution. Forensic analysis of the hard drive showed that Bade Tu Wurst had switched his hard drive and doctored the files to make them look as if they supported his claim.

In this case, the charges were plagiarism for the proposal writing and obstruction of justice for switching the hard drive. Was it fear of reprisal that drove Dr. Bade Tu Wurst to compound his difficulties by switching his hard drive, thus making the charges more severe? The U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute for obstruction of justice in lieu of agency administrative action. The agency proposed debarring Wurst from NSF activities for three years.

Case 4. An allegation of making false statements was made against Kopi Kat, owner of a small business. In a proposal, Kopi claimed that three patents were the result of a previous grant. However, a review of the patent data indicated that the patents were filed long before the original grant. A more detailed review of Kopi’s 13 most recent proposals indicated a pattern of deception in her letters of support. Dr. Kat had received 10 original letters of support for two separate grants. She then photocopied the letters, altering some by changing the date, leaving the date blank, or reducing the photocopy to 90% of the original size to make it look different. She photocopied and submitted the 10 original letters 27 times in 13 proposals over a period of about two years. Many of the later proposals had no scientific connection to the proposals associated with the original letters of support.

Regarding both the patents and the letters of reference, the charge was making a false statement. It is illegal to make a false statement to the government. Page 2 of the cover sheet of an NSF proposal states that “Willful provision of false information in this application and its supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense” (U.S. Code, title 18, sec. 1001). Dr. Kat provided the letters of support to give panelists the impression that the businesses that signed the letters supported that particular proposal, when in reality the support was for completely unrelated projects. The stronger allegation, research misconduct (falsification), did not stick. The U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute for making false statements, but the NSF sent Kopi Kat a letter with a stern warning that her actions were not acceptable practice.

Next time: Snowballs! Cases Made Worse by Subsequent Actions.

Dina Mandoli
mandoli@u.washington.edu