Responsible Conduct of Research Integrity and Ethics Jason

Responsible Conduct of Research Integrity and Ethics Jason G. Ramage 1

What is Research Integrity? • the use of honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing, and evaluating research • reporting research results with particular attention to adherence to rules, regulations, and guidelines • following commonly accepted professional codes or norms https: //grants. nih. gov/grants/research_integrity/whatis. htm 2

Why Does it Matter? • Researchers rely on the results of others in order to make scientific progress. • Researchers rely on public support (through public investments or through voluntary participation in research) to further scientific discovery. • The public relies on scientific progress to improve lives. • Harm may result from dishonest or unethical researchers. https: //grants. nih. gov/grants/research_integrity/care. htm 3

Research Misconduct • Fabrication • Making up data or results and recording or reporting them • Falsification • Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented. • Plagiarism • Appropriating someone else’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Safe. Assign on the University Libraries website can help screen for potential, unintentional plagiarism

What about self-plagiarism? Self-plagiarism is the reuse of previously disseminated content passed off as new content, without giving notice that the material has been published elsewhere. e. g. taking a previously published paper and submitting it to another journal with little or no modification. Self-plagiarism is not considered research misconduct in 42 CFR 93 (Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct). However, it does violate the policies of most reputable peerreviewed journals.

https: //ori. hhs. gov/sites/default/files/2018 -06/mar_vol 24_no 1. pdf 6

https: //ori. hhs. gov/sites/default/files/2018 -06/mar_vol 24_no 1. pdf 7

Red Flags to Look For • Lack of transparency • “Revolutionary” findings that are too good to be true • Suspicious lab practices • Small lies may mean there are bigger lies nearby • Misleading statistics https: //www. the-scientist. com/? articles. view/article. No/44582/title/Scientific-Misconduct--Red-Flags/

• T – Temptation TRAGEDIES • How great would this look on my CV? • R – Rationalization • I’ll just leave out those data points; that experiment was flawed anyway. • A – Ambition • I want to get this published in Nature, not the Journal of Last Resort. • G – Group and Authority Pressure Beware of • E – Entitlement predatory • After all the hours I’ve spent on this work, I deserve to have it published no matter what! journals! • D – Deception • My department chair told me to! Everyone else is doing it! • I don’t need to run the experiments; I’m sure I would have got the results I expect anyway. • I – Incrementalism • Just this one time……… • E – Embarrassment • My boss will think I’m incompetent if I admit I don’t know how to run that experiment. • S – Stupid Systems • We get more credit if we can publish this as three separate papers, even though it really should all go in one. C. K. Gunsalus and Aaron D. Robinson. (2018). Nine pitfalls of research misconduct. Nature, Volume 557, 297 -299.

What Research Misconduct is NOT: • Disputes regarding honest errors or differences in the interpretation of data • Authorship disputes

Reporting Research Misconduct “All institutional members will report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the RIO, the DO, or their designees. Prior to submitting a formal charge, a potential complainant is encouraged to consult informally with the RIO, the DO, or their designees to consider whether the case involves questions of research misconduct, should be resolved by other University procedures, or does not warrant further action. ” – UA Research and Scholarly Misconduct Policies and Procedures Retaliation against complainants, witnesses, and committee members is not tolerated.

A finding of research misconduct requires that: • There is a significant departure from the accepted practices of the relevant research community; and • The misconduct must have been committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and • The allegations must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.

What would you do? Scenario 1: Your department chair has reviewed your data and thinks you should prepare a manuscript and submit it for publication. However, she suggests repeating some of the experiments in order to validate the data. When you do, you find you can’t replicate the original results. What do you do? Scenario 2: You’re chatting with a colleague about how stressed out you both are from your teaching load and research responsibilities. He off-handedly mentions that he made up some data to support a grant proposal, but said it was no big deal because he’s 100% sure those are the results he would have got had he actually run the experiments. What do you do? Scenario 3: You’ve won an award from a prominent business to study the effects of its product on human health. Your data show that the product may actually be harmful to people. When you present the results to the company, you’re asked not to publish them. What do you do? 13

Don’t be that guy! o Conducted research into the supposed anti-cancer properties of plant-derived chemicals (e. g. curcumin) o M. D. Anderson launched a review of his work in 2012 after ORI notified the institution that questions had been raised with respect to 65 of his published papers o Allegations included image manipulation (adding/subtracting features; cropping; stretching; rotating; flipping) to imply the same images represented different experimental conditions o As of April 2018, 19 of his papers have been retracted Bharat Aggarwal M. D. Anderson Cancer Center o He had once threatened to sue Retraction Watch for their reporting on his case University of Texas https: //www. houstonchronicle. com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/M-D-Anderson-scientist-accused-of-falsifying-6865704. php

Dong-Pyou Han - Iowa State University Ø Charged with falsifying HIV vaccine research; he manipulated samples of rabbit serum to make it appear that injections of GP 41 stimulated the production of antibodies against HIV Ø Han resigned from Iowa State after Harvard researchers, trying to validate his findings, discovered human antibodies in the rabbit samples Ø In 2013, ORI implemented a three-year ban on pursuing federal grants for Han and the university repaid $500, 000 to the NIH Ø He was also sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison and ordered to repay $7. 2 million in grant funds that had been received based on falsified data https: //www. washingtonpost. com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/07/01/researcher-who-spiked-rabbit-blood-to-fake-hiv-vaccine-results-slapped-withrare-prison-sentence/? noredirect=on&utm_term=. 11 c 17 f 71 ae 86

Yiheng Percival Zhang Virginia Tech v Accused of defrauding the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the university of > $1. 1 million v Allegedly filed grants for research that had already been completed in China and withheld grant funds from the university (included in his grants was a stipulation that gave the university 30% of funds received from NSF and DOE; the university actually received 18%) v Was arrested in September 2017 and is awaiting trial; currently free on bond v Also being sued in civil court by a former employee of Zhang’s startup company; suit alleges that Zhang used confidential trade information, developed in part by the plaintiff, to benefit a company owned by the Chinese government http: //www. roanoke. com/news/education/higher_education/virginia_tech/virginia-tech-professor-arrested-charged-with-defraudinggovernment/article_f 2 d 6 cb 1 a-b 504 -5 a 30 -a 0 cb-bf 448 fd 524 fd. html http: //www. roanoke. com/news/crime/blacksburg/former-virginia-tech-professor-subject-of-congressional-probe/article_857257 d 9 -adbf-5 b 2 f-83 df 36897298593 e. html

Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment • A conflict of interest exists when a university faculty or staff member may have the opportunity to influence university administrative, business, or academic decisions in ways that could lead to personal gain, give improper advantage to self or others, or interfere with objective preservation, generation, or public dissemination of knowledge. • A conflict of commitment arises when a faculty or staff member’s time and effort given to outside activities and interests interferes or competes with his/her obligations and responsibilities to the university. 17

Examples of potential COI/COC • Consulting activities – note that 9 - and 12 -month faculty who are meeting their university responsibilities may be allowed to commit up to 15 work days per semester to outside interests including consulting • Externally reimbursed travel – reporting is required for those sponsors who reimburse travel in excess of $5000 in a calendar year • Significant financial interest – may include compensation exceeding $5000 in the past 12 months from a publicly traded company; equity/ownership worth ≥ $5000 in a publicly traded company; any equity/ownership in a non-publicly traded company • Teaching at another college or university – note that tenured and tenure-track faculty must receive approval from the Provost prior to teaching at another college or university 18

When a COI/COC is identified, a Conflict Management Plan (CMP) must be prepared and approved by the Conflict of Interest Review Committee. A template for a CMP can be found on the RSCP website. The key is transparency! On an annual basis, the Conflict of Interest/Commitment Disclosure and the Annual Report on Outside Employment (if applicable) must be filled out. 19

CITI Training • Online training is available through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) at www. citiprogram. org. Log in through the institutional account (University of Arkansas Fayetteville) using your UARK ID and password. • Available options include: • Biomedical Responsible Conduct of Research • Humanities Responsible Conduct of Research • Physical Science Responsible Conduct of Research • Social and Behavioral Responsible Conduct of Research • Each course comprises seven modules covering: - Research Misconduct - Data Management - Authorship - Peer Review - Mentoring - Conflicts of Interest - Collaborative Research • NIH, NSF, and USDA may require RCR training for some awards.

You’ve got questions? We’ve got answers! Contact Information Jason Ramage Director, Research Compliance 479 -575 -2105 ramage@uark. edu MLKG 1424 West MLK Jr. Blvd Fayetteville, AR 72701 https: //research. uark. edu/units/rscp Be sure to visit our website and subscribe to the RSCP listserv!