The Department of Health and Human Services has barred six scientists from receiving federal grants or contracts and levied lesser penalties against eight others since it established new “scientific integrity” offices two years ago.
The names of those found guilty of scientific misconduct, their offenses, and the sanctions imposed by their employers and the federal government were obtained by The Chronicle under the Freedom of Information Act.
The department’s Office of Scientific Integrity, located at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., was created in March 1989 to calm rising Congressional and public concern over fraud in biomedical research.
The office, which investigates scientific misconduct in research financed by the NIH and other research institutes in the department’s Public Health Service, has itself become the subject of increasing scrutiny and debate in recent months. Accused scientists have complained that they were not treated fairly in the office’s investigations, and whistle blowers have accused the office of not taking their allegations seriously (The Chronicle, May 15).
As of last week, the office had examined 174 allegations of scientific misconduct, according to Lyle W. Bivens, the director of the Office of Scientific Integrity Review. The review office double-checks the investigations of the scientific-integrity office, sets Public Health Service policies on scientific misconduct, and makes final recommendations on penalties for researchers found to have engaged in scientific misconduct, which ranges from plagiarism to outright fabrication of data.
In 86 cases, Mr. Bivens says, preliminary inquiries conducted either by the integrity office at NIH or by universities indicated no scientific misconduct was involved and a full-scale investigation was unnecessary. Fifty-six investigations are still under way, he says, while misconduct has been found in at least 19 cases. Details of only 14 of those 19 cases are available under the Freedom of Information Act, since the office will not release information about those in which misconduct has been found but sanctions have not yet been imposed.
Some scientists say they wonder why the office has found scientific misconduct in such a low proportion of cases: 19 “convictions” stemming from 118 completed cases.
“I can’t believe whistle blowers are that imaginative,” says Charles W. McCutchen, a National Institutes of Health physicist who has asked the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia to force the office to release reports of completed cases even when it has not found misconduct. Public Health Service officials say that to release case reports when accusations have been found to be incorrect would violate the privacy of those who had been wrongly accused.
The review office’s Mr. Bivens says the number of completed cases is artificially inflated by some minor inquiries. For example, he says, the office may receive allegations that are strictly financial in nature and are referred to auditors elsewhere in the Department of Health and Human Services. The scientific-integrity offices, he says, would consider such a case to be closed.
Mr. McCutchen says researchers and other members of the public should have the right to review the two offices’ finished reports to determine if universities and federal officials have come to the correct conclusions in their investigations. “There have been enough cases where university investigations have been found to be cover-ups that everyone has a right to be suspicious,” Mr. McCutchen says.
He says part of the reason he sued the office is “a simple irritation at the `mother-knows-best attitude’ at O.S.I. that what it is doing is right. O.S.I. says scientists should take its word that justice is being done.
“I think mother is up to something,” he adds.
Mr. Bivens disagrees, and notes that the integrity offices are held accountable by Congress.
So far, Mr. McCutchen’s lawsuit has yielded only a list of completed cases that he says is “more notable for its excisions than for its information.”
Some who have used the Freedom of Information Act to review cases in which sanctions have been imposed question whether the penalties that the Public Health Service is handing out are adequate punishment.
The usual penalty for the fabrication of data is debarment from receiving federal grants and contracts for three years. Scientists who are physicians may continue to receive Medicare or Medicaid fees, according to Mr. Bivens.
In cases involving plagiarism, debarment has never been imposed.
Marianne Zorza, a whistle blower in a plagiarism case at the University of Michigan, thinks the penalties for plagiarism have been too weak.
“A scientist who is supported by public money should be innovative, not copy,” Ms. Zorza says. “Plagiarism strikes at the heart of scientific misconduct, but the Public Health Service doesn’t take it seriously.”
Mr. Bivens says the “integrity of the data generated with Public Health Service funds is more threatened by fabrication than by plagiarism.”
“There is a whole spectrum of plagiarism,” he adds. “We aren’t ruling out using debarment for plagiarism but I haven’t seen any cases that would warrant it.”
A University of Michigan investigation of L. Cass Terry, who was a professor of neurology there and supervised Ms. Zorza’s work as a research associate, found that “a pattern of plagiarism is evident in Professor Terry’s work, extending at least between 1982 and 1987.” The investigating committee found that Dr. Terry’s plagiarism included portions of his doctoral thesis at McGill University, a grant application, books, and journal articles. (Dr. Terry is now the chairman of the neurology department at the Medical College of Wisconsin.)
After reviewing the university’s investigation of Dr. Terry, the Public Health Service ultimately decided on a version of its standard punishment for plagiarism.
The agency prohibited him from serving on any of its committees for five years; required that he certify the authenticity of his grant applications to the agency for five years; and required notification of any of the agency’s advisory councils that might be reviewing Dr. Terry’s grant applications in the future.
Ms. Zorza says such punishments “make the offenders the watchdogs.” Scientists who have been found to be less than truthful, she says, are being asked to vouch for their own integrity. Some universities that couldn’t successfully investigate misconduct, she says, are being asked again to detect it.
Mr. Bivens agrees the plagiarism sanctions don’t “eliminate the possibility that future applications will be compromised.” But he says, “We do have to rely on institutions to act responsibly.”
The Office of Scientific Integrity is conducting a new investigation into allegations that Dr. Terry misrepresented data in papers published in Science and in Clinical Endocrinology, according to court documents that Dr. Terry filed in a lawsuit. The suit seeks to stop the office’s investigation until it changes its procedures to give accused scientists more due process.
Dr. Terry responded to the plagiarism charges by saying he provided attribution for the material in question. But the university investigating committee found that it was impossible to connect the attributions to the passages that the committee found he had copied.
In a plagiarism case at the University of Pittsburgh, an investigation found that David H. Van Thiel, a professor of medicine, surgery, and psychiatry, plagiarized in a book chapter about liver diseases from three review articles he edited for a journal. At the time of the university investigation, Dr. Van Thiel was receiving money from five Public Health Service grants.
The investigation found Dr. Van Thiel had used 85 to 99 per cent of the articles’ text in the book chapter, according to a Public Health Service summary of the case.
Dr. Van Thiel said he had made substantial contributions to the articles and said he thought he had the authors’ permission to use the articles. But the chief authors of all the articles said they had not given it to him.
The Public Health Service gave Dr. Van Thiel a similar punishment to Dr. Terry, only for a shorter period of time: three years instead of five.
Dr. Terry’s case is the only one of the publicly available cases in which the Office of Scientific Integrity conducted its own investigation. In the other publicly available cases, four investigations were started by NIH or the National Institute of Mental Health before the integrity office’s establishment. In nine cases, universities or other research institutions conducted their own investigations, which the integrity office reviewed.
In some instances the investigations of scientific misconduct do appear to be changing life in the laboratory. At Tufts University, for example, a committee that investigated a postdoctoral researcher who falsified data noted that the researcher’s supervisor had caught the tampering before it was published. But the committee’s investigation ultimately resulted in a reminder to faculty members that they should check original data generated under their supervision.
Joseph J. Byrne, associate provost for research at Tufts and head of the investigating committee in the case, says that in the past, faculty members might not always have reviewed the primary data of a senior person in their laboratory, believing that the person should be trusted at that stage of his or her career.
The postdoctoral researcher accused of fabricating data at Tufts committed suicide after his supervisor asked for the data, but before a formal allegation was made. Mr. Byrne says it was unclear if the suicide was a result of the researcher’s fear of an investigation.
In other misconduct cases, researchers’ responses that are described in documents available under the Freedom of Information Act ranged from firm denials to contrite confessions. Some scientists said that they had been mentally ill when they fabricated data, while others said the investigations had driven them to mental illness.
A former associate professor of physiology at Northwestern University, Douglas O. Nelson, said he had suffered acute depression, memory loss, and ill health as a result of charges that he had fabricated data.
Many scientists said they had altered data or plagiarized because they were under pressure to complete experiments or finish grant applications or book chapters. A research fellow in surgery at Harvard University medical school, Martin Bak, said he had inserted fabricated data in a draft manuscript only to annoy a colleague.
Harvard’s investigating committee didn’t find that answer credible. The university’s investigation found Dr. Bak had fabricated data, and it notified the state medical board and publishers of two of Dr. Bak’s abstracts about the findings. Dr. Bak, like many others sanctioned by universities and the federal integrity offices, resigned.
Russell P. Saneto, assistant scientist in the division of neurosciences. A center investigation found he had used the same photographs of cells to represent different sets of data in published papers.
Institutional sanctions: Pertinent journals were notified of the findings, and Mr. Saneto resigned from the center in Beaverton, Ore.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from serving on P.H.S. committees for three years. For the same period, any institution submitting a grant application involving Mr. Saneto must certify the application’s reliability and monitor the research.
Rakesh Singhai, research associate in neuroscience. A university investigation determined that Mr. Singhai had altered and fabricated data.
Institutional sanctions: Mr. Singhai committed suicide before a formal misconduct allegation was made, but after his supervisor asked for his original data.
Public Health Service sanctions: No action taken, because of Mr. Singhai’s death.
George E. Eagan, senior histology technician in the department’s Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research in Albany, N.Y. After a confession by Mr. Eagan, a center investigation found that he had altered experimental results by adding snake venom to tissue samples.
Institutional sanctions: Mr. Eagan resigned.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from receiving federal grants and contracts for three years.
Herbert K. Naito, head of the foundation’s section of lipids, nutrition, and metabolic diseases. A foundation investigation found Mr. Naito had committed plagiarism in three articles.
Institutional sanctions: The foundation asked for and received Mr. Naito’s resignation.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from serving on P.H.S. advisory committees for three years and required for the same period to certify the reliability of his grant applications to the agency.
Paul P. Demediuk, adjunct assistant professor of neurology. A university investigation found Mr. Demediuk had fabricated data in two published papers, an unpublished paper, and an unpublished book chapter.
Institutional sanctions: Mr. Demediuk resigned. The university notified relevant journals of its findings.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from receiving federal grants and contracts for three years.
Hiroaki Shimokawa, advanced research fellow in internal medicine. A university investigation found Dr. Shimokawa, who was visiting the laboratory from Japan for an academic year, had altered data.
Institutional sanctions: Dr. Shimokawa had left the laboratory when the allegations were investigated.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from receiving federal research and training support for three years.
L. Cass Terry, professor of neurology at the University of Michigan, now chairman of the department of neurology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. A University of Michigan investigation found Dr. Terry had plagiarized a manuscript sent to him for review, and had plagiarized portions of his doctoral thesis, grant applications, and book chapters.
Institutional sanctions: The university notified editors of Dr. Terry’s publications of the results of its investigation; those holding copyrights whose works had been plagiarized; Dr. Terry’s former thesis adviser; McGill University, where his doctoral thesis had been submitted; and the Medical College of Wisconsin.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from serving on PHS committees for five years and required for the same period to certify the reliability of his grant applications to the agency.
David H. Van Thiel, professor of medicine, surgery, and psychiatry. A university investigation found that Dr. Van Thiel had plagiarized from review articles in a book chapter that he wrote.
Institutional sanctions: The university revoked Dr. Van Thiel’s tenure. He is still employed in the medical center’s organ-transplant program.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from serving on PHS committees for three years and required for the same period to certify the reliability of his grant applications to the agency.
Martin Bak, research fellow in surgery. A university investigation found Dr. Bak had fabricated data for a draft manuscript and published abstracts.
Institutional sanctions: Dr. Bak resigned. Abstract publishers and state medical board were notified of the investigation’s findings.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from receiving federal grants and contracts for three years.
Arnold Rincover, associate professor of psychology. A university investigation found Mr. Rincover had committed plagiarism, proposed work he had previously published as new research in a grant application, and falsified data in two grant applications.
Institutional sanctions: Mr. Rincover resigned.
Public Health Service sanctions: No sanctions were imposed, because no NIH action had been taken in the case from 1984 to 1989 and because Mr. Rincover had not applied for or received PHS support since 1984.
Lonnie Mitchell, professor of psychology, and Jerusa Wilson, chairman of the department of psychology. A National Institute of Mental Health investigation found that Mr. Mitchell had, in a grant application, represented “as his own a training program developed by another scientist for another institution.” Mr. Wilson was found to have inadequately supervised the grant application’s preparation.
Institutional sanctions: Letters of reprimand were sent to both professors.
Public Health Service sanctions: Mr. Mitchell was barred from serving on P.H.S. advisory committees for five years; both Mr. Mitchell and his institution were required for the same period to certify to the agency the integrity of his grant applications and the research projects he had under way. Mr. Wilson was prohibited from serving on P.H.S. advisory committees for three years.
Douglas O. Nelson, associate professor of physiology. A university investigation found that Mr. Nelson had fabricated data for two published abstracts and had submitted a document with the forged signature of a graduate student to the investigating committee.
Institutional sanctions: Mr. Nelson was denied tenure and resigned. The university terminated his three grants in progress.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred from serving on PHS advisory committees for five years and required for the same period to certify the reliability of his grant applications to the agency.
C. David Bridges, professor of ophthalmology. An NIH investigation found that Mr. Bridges had taken experimental results from a manuscript sent to him for review and submitted those results for publication under his own name.
Institutional sanctions: Mr. Bridges resigned from Baylor before it began its investigation. He is now a professor of biological sciences at Purdue University.
Public Health Service sanctions: He was barred for five years from receiving federal grants and contracts and prohibited for ten years from serving on PHS advisory committees; all current PHS support was terminated.
Philip A. Berger and Stephen M. Stahl, professors of psychiatry. A National Institute of Mental Health investigation found that Dr. Berger had misrepresented the status of research subjects in nine papers. Dr. Stahl was the lead author on two papers the investigation found to be “seriously misleading.” Both men were also found guilty of plagiarism in writing a book chapter.
Institutional sanctions: Stanford University notified all journals in which misrepresented research was published and the state medical board. Dr. Berger resigned; Dr. Stahl left for a position at the University of California at San Diego.
Public Health Service sanctions: Dr. Berger was barred from receiving federal grants and contracts for three years and from serving on any PHS committees for five years; Dr. Berger and any institution supporting him were required for five years to certify the reliability of Dr. Berger’s grant applications to the agency. Dr. Stahl was prohibited from serving on PHS committees for five years, and for the same period of time any institution employing Dr. Stahl would be required to monitor his grant applications and research.
Note: Includes cases of scientific misconduct in which sanctions have been imposed by the Public Health Service since the establishment of the Office of Scientific Integrity and the Office of Scientific Integrity Review in March 1989. The cases are listed according to the date on which the results of the investigations were accepted by the Assistant Secretary for Health, with the most recent case listed first.