U.S. News: Universities and Federal Agency Fight Over Probes Into Scientific Research

"Research universities and hospitals are pushing back against a federal agency's proposal to boost oversight of investigations related to fraud and plagiarism.

At a time of high-profile cases at schools including Stanford University, Harvard Medical School and the University of Rochester, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) -- a part of the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees more than $40 billion in research funds -- is calling for more transparency in research-misconduct investigations. Some resisting institutions say their processes are adequate and changes would stifle academic inquiry and sow distrust among researchers. Their opposition might kill the plan.

ORI issued its proposal in October and invited the public to weigh in. The agency received nearly 200 comments.

Institutions say they should remain in control, including determining at what stage they can fairly dismiss charges, whether witness interviews need to be recorded, what to disclose publicly about those found to have violated conduct rules, and who should coordinate the probes.

The agency's proposed change "appears to reflect an unwarranted distrust of the research community and risks undermining confidence in the process among scientists, which in turn will have a chilling effect on self-regulation and reporting by researchers," Harvard Medical School's Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct wrote to the agency.

Some, including the University of Pennsylvania, called for ORI to start over.

In reviewing misconduct probes, ORI relies on universities' material, which critics, including lawyers who represent whistleblowers, say limits the government's ability to independently assess wrongdoing.

"Most organizations don't self-investigate very well," said Eugenie Reich, a Boston-based whistleblower attorney who focuses on research fraud. She said ORI should have the legal authority to conduct its own investigations, including demanding evidence, a step the proposed new rule doesn't suggest.

ORI oversees research on the biology and treatment of disease, funded primarily by the National Institutes of Health. At the National Science Foundation and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which fund research in engineering, space and physics, research misconduct is overseen by the agencies' inspectors general. The debate over who should police researchers has escalated in recent years. Scientists acknowledge that peer review fails to spot fraud or faked data submitted to journals. Rather, errors in published studies are often caught by volunteer researchers.

They post their critiques on public forums such as PubPeer -- where commenters had scrutinized former Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne's papers for years before the university began its probe in 2022. 

Tessier-Lavigne resigned as president last year, after a review determined he didn't personally engage in research misconduct but had lapses in oversight of his labs and didn't correct some papers immediately when errors were found. Tessier-Lavigne acknowledged responsibility for work in his lab and remains on the Stanford faculty.

He declined to comment.

One main point of contention is whether Health and Human Services should be allowed to publish the results of institutions' investigations if the government agency doesn't itself determine there was bad behavior. ORI also wants more formal reports at the initial stage of a review.

Complainants and those accused of misconduct, as well as editors of academic journals and others, say the institutional investigative process is slow and opaque.

"At the end of the day, I think institutions have to show their work," said C.K. Gunsalus, who studies leadership and academic integrity at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. She has argued for misconduct reports to be public. Universities rarely release the final reports, citing privacy needs.

Confidentiality is paramount to a fair investigation, institutions say, to protect complainants from retaliation and researchers from premature reputational damage. Others say that after accusations arise, the confidential nature of the investigations causes problems.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist Ram Sasisekharan, cleared of misconduct more than three years after allegations arose, said he struggled with not being able to fight back publicly because of confidentiality restrictions.

"I don't want to see this happen to anyone else," he said. Brian Hughes, a member of MIT's governing board, said the secrecy provides too much cover for bad actors looking to take down competitors." [1]

1. U.S. News: Universities and Federal Agency Fight Over Probes Into Scientific Research. Korn, Melissa; Subbaraman, Nidhi.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 29 Mar 2024: A.3.