BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XXII
The Investigative Process and Outcomes of Those Investigations

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

Last time, we diagrammed the flow of an allegation through the NSF OIG: In 2003, NSF processed over 40,000 grant proposals. However, only about 400 allegations of potential wrongdoing were brought to the NSF OIG. Of those allegations, over 230 were determined to be nonsubstantive upon initial review, 79 were substantive enough for detailed review by Civil/Criminal Investigations Section, and 83 were substantive enough for detailed review by the Administrative Investigations Section. (See Figure 1 in the July/August 2005 issue of the ASPB News, pages 10–11).

Learning how to recognize a potential ethical breach seems to me an important part of functioning well as a scientist because this ability will help you avoid possible unethical acts on your own part, guard against false accusations made against you and others, teach you how to train your students properly, and flag potential ethics breaches that we all come across in the course of doing science (in grant proposals, presentations, and the literature). Although the last may seem distasteful “policing,” we cannot afford to let this issue remain mokita because the consequences of not policing ourselves, our students, and our discipline are dire indeed. Remember what happened to David Baltimore and how the credibility of all scientists subsequently eroded? Our funding depends on the perceived credibility of science and scientists on Capitol Hill and, in turn, by the general public. Although ethics is not the only issue playing a role in the current erosion in national funding agencies, we need to be sure that it does not fuel the fire. How then can principal investigators learn to recognize what is ethical and what is not?

Interestingly, NSF routinely trains program officers about NSF operations through a Program Manager Seminar that all new program officers must attend. A section of that seminar is dedicated to ethical issues. A member of the OIG staff always attends this seminar to assist in facilitating these and other discussions. During the ethics review, employees discuss a wide range of topics including research misconduct and conflicts of interest by reviewing pertinent case studies, some of which are based on past events at NSF. Not all the case studies are legal or ethical violations, but they still prompt the attendees to think about the potential ethical issues associated with being a program officer and managing federal dollars. Ultimately, trainees are urged to report any suspected legal or ethical violations to the OIG. OIG has the expertise to deal with these matters, thereby freeing the program officer to concentrate on the scientific funding issues.

I made up four cases and asked the OIG to indicate whether or not these cases would warrant further investigation if they were true. The responses of James Kroll, head of Administrative Investigations of the OIG at NSF, are in italics.

Case 1: The text from an article in the literature is reused by the author of the original text—i.e., the author is recycling his own text verbatim. A student of the author realizes this and wonders what to do. Is this plagiarism? What should the student do? Generally speaking, “self-plagiarism,” as it is sometimes called, is not a good scientific practice. However, OIG generally does not pursue matters where small portions of text are reused by the original author.

Case 2: In a grant proposal, a PI presents an idea that his postdoctoral fellow had without crediting the postdoc. The proposal is reviewed by the postdoc’s former mentor, who knows about this idea from conversations with his former student. Did the postdoc’s new PI steal the idea? This matter would certainly require an initial inquiry. However, intellectual theft is a difficult matter to prove. It is not unreasonable to believe that two competent scientists could come up with similar ideas. To prove intellectual theft, there would have to be hard evidence that the postdoc shared the idea with the PI just before the PI wrote his/her proposal.

Case 3: A researcher, Q, presents his data at a small local meeting at University of the Sky. Colleague M was at this meeting and spent quite a long time in front of Q’s poster and actually photographed the poster. In working up his data for publication, Q finds that colleague M has published data virtually identical to Q’s as a “Breaking Research” article. Q believes that M took an idea and, on the basis of Q’s data presented at that meeting, rushed back to his lab to repeat the work and then published before Q. What recourse does Q have? This case appears to be a solid case of intellectual theft. Investigation would have to verify that Q and M were at the same meeting, and Q would have to show proof of his presentation. M would then be asked to demonstrate that his research predated Q’s research. The key in this case would be the identical nature of the data. Q would want to contact the OIG of the cognizant funding agency as well as his own VP for Research regarding this matter.

Case 4: On a manuscript, the senior author lists the name of a competitor as an author so that that competitor does not receive the manuscript for review. The manuscript is reviewed favorably. The senior author strikes the name of the competitor from the proofs and boasts of his cleverness to a junior colleague. What should this junior colleague do? I can’t say that we have ever seen a case like this. I am not sure that this is a violation of any Federal rule. One could argue falsification, since the author falsely lists the competitor as his coauthor. At the same time, this is clearly unethical behavior. If the senior author did not want his competitor to review the proposal, he should clearly state that to the journal editor with his justification for that request. I would think that most editors would respect a “reasonable” request of that nature. As for the junior colleague, he should consider contacting the OIG of the cognizant agency, the editor, and the VP for Research regarding the matter. [Note: Both Plant Physiology and The Plant Cell notify all authors on a submitted manuscript that they have been listed as an author.]

Next time: An In-Depth Look at Effort Certifications: The Good, The Bad, & the Ugly

Dina Mandoli
mandoli@u.washington.edu