Search

Investigates the allegation that Bulgarian nuclear physicist Viktor Ninov faked data in an experiment at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California that created two additional elements. Background on his career in nuclear physics; Overview of experiments conducted on the discovery of elements; Impact of the anomaly on Ninov and the rest of his research team.

The article discusses the discovery of the use of fabricated data in a 2012 study on dishonesty published by psychology and behavioral economics professor Dan Ariely. He is known for his books "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions" and "The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves." It cites the implication of the lack of transparency in psychology studies. Also noted are the reaction of his co-authors to the discovery.

Elisabeth Bik quit her day job as a microbiologist to search for research misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that South Korean scientist, Woo Suk Hwang, stands disgraced after a panel convened by Seoul National University concluded that many of his results of cloning human embryos had been faked. The University of Pittsburgh has not finished its investigation into Gerald P. Schatten's role in the fraudulent study, which has now been retracted from the journal "Science." Schatten is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, as well as of cell biology and physiology, at Pitt's School of Medicine.

The article focuses on false scientific claims of researcher Woo Suk Hwang in South Korea, regarding stem cell lines. His research is reported in the May 2005 issue of the journal "Science." The announcement that a South Korean researcher created stem-cell lines from cloned embryos united scientists in hope. Now revelations of fraud have researchers investigating his work. Hwang reported that his team had created 11 lines of stem cells from cloned human embryos. The stem cells were purportedly tailored from the DNA of individual patients, lending hope that researchers would soon be able to make personalized stem cells for patients suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and other illnesses. The test results indicate that the stem cells actually came from fertilized eggs rather than cloned embryos. Gloom, embarrassment, and a sense of national shame shrouded South Koreans as they learned that nine of the 11 cell lines were faked and that the other two lines needed to be analyzed further.

Reports that Academic investigators in Germany are expecting to spend several months trying to solve a case of scientific fraud committed by two German researchers. How Friedhelm Herrmann and Marion Brach are implicated as the key figures in the crime; Number of known papers they published with falsified information; Plans of Herrmann to sue the medical dean at the University of Ulm; Reasons why the investigation will take so long. INSET: German research council to issue guidelines to prevent....

The article reports on the reliance of the federal government on universities and colleges to detect, investigate and judge scientific fraud and misconduct on campuses in the U.S. Evidently, several federal agencies have developed policies that place primary responsibility on universities for monitoring alleged cases of scientific misconduct. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are among them.

The article reports on the development of guidelines called the "Framework for Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal With Fraud in Research" by universities and science organizations in the U.S. to help research institutions handle incidents of scientific fraud. Institutions will be able to draw up their own research-fraud procedures. Fraud is defined as plagiarism and the falsification of data.

The article discusses concerns that the existing ethics regulations do not prevent scientific or research fraud from occurring at universities. Statistics relating to scandal occurring at colleges are mentioned, including that only one percent of misconduct witnessed by university scientists is reported to the U.S. government. Possible reasons why very few allegations of misconduct are reported are mentioned, including the fact that universities police themselves, a lack of action by the U.S. Congress regarding ethics regulations, and people not wanting to publicize academic fraud cases.

The article focuses on the reaction of South Korea to the revelation of false scientific claims of researcher Woo Suk Hwang regarding stem cell lines. Hwang, the South Korean stem-cell researcher at Seoul National University who reportedly cloned the first human stem cell and the first dog, was flying high only two months ago, both in the international arena of science and as an honored citizen of his own country. Researchers, physicians, and ordinary people around the world pinned their hopes on the bold claims that he made about his research, that it might lead to cures for myriad illnesses and disabilities. South Koreans viewed Hwang as the embodiment of their hope to become a "world class" democracy and their desire to leave decades of military dictatorship behind them.

The article reports on allegations of professional misconduct against U.S. sociologist Alice Goffman in regard to the publication of her book "On the Run; Fugitive Life in an American City." Topics addressed include an outline of the specific complaints raised against her published work, the larger implications of such controversies on the ethnography method, and suggestions for best practices for other researchers seeking to learn from the incident.

Profiles an internet computer network mailing list devoted to exposing and ridiculing instances of scientific hubris or error. Origins, membership and mailing address; Maintenance of an updated file on related literature and other publications dealing with suspect science and dubious claims it makes.

Features the legal problems of the Office of Research Integrity in the Public Health Services. Difficulties in litigating research misconduct; Dropping of charges against HIV discoverer Robert Gallo; Mismatch between standards and procedures; Doubts on the commitment of Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala to ferret out misconduct.

Focuses on the consequences of the government's policy of releasing the names of people found guilty of scientific misconduct. Re-focused attention on government's role in policing researchers; `Federal Register' published by the Public Health Service; Range of reactions; Conference on plagiarism; Punishment; Secrecy as the enemy of justice; Rehabilitation of guilty scientists; Suppression of data.

Argues for a better understanding of the standards and process that the Public Health Service Office of Research Integrity used to investigate chief of the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology Robert Gallo. Use of the term `scientific misconduct'; Lack of a formal evidentiary hearing and articulated burden of proof; Purpose of the regulations for investigation; Fifth Amendment.

Reports that Bernadine Healy, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, has expressed the willingness of her agency to make some changes at the Office of Scientific Integrity, which investigates scientific misconduct in federally supported biomedical research. Reason why the office has been the target of criticism from many quarters; Plan to split the office into two branches, one to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct and another to review the evidence gathered.

Reports that college officials and lawmakers say a draft report on a controversial case of alleged scientific misconduct may put more pressure on universities and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to deal with misconduct charges aggressively. Draft report by the Office of Scientific Integrity in the NIH; Allegations of wrong-doing by researcher Thereza Imanishi-Kari.

Reports that David Baltimore, president of Rockefeller University, retracted in March 1991 a scientific paper that has been the centerpiece of a three-year Congressional investigation into scientific fraud in the U.S. Key issues of interest; Analysis of pertinent topics and relevant issues; Implications on higher education.

Discusses scientific misconduct. How assertions on scientific misconduct are unscientific; Routine data; Structural aspects of universities that lead top scientists to minimize the existence of problems and to ignore the possibilities of misconduct; The repercussions for scientists accused of misconduct; How scientific leaders should respond to federal rules on misconduct.

Announces that Bernard Fisher, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, has been cleared of scientific-misconduct charges by the US Office of Research Integrity. Charges that Fisher published the results of study on breast cancer knowing that it contained falsified data; Discovery that one of his researchers altered patient records; The decision to use the data as inspiring investigations by the cancer institute and the university

The article reports that former University of Pittsburgh professor Stephen E. Breuning was indicted by a grand jury for falsifying medical research to obtain a federal grant, and for impeding federal investigation into his research. Breuning was alleged to have faked written research results in 1982 and 1983. He then allegedly lied in 1985 to a National Institute of Mental Health panel investigating his research.

The article reports on the controversy surrounding the ability of federal and university systems to investigate fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. One of the cases being questioned by the United States Congress is a paper published in a 1986 issue of "Cell" and written by several authors including David Baltimore of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Thereza Imanishi-Kari of the Tufts University. Baltimore, Imanishi-Kiri and their co-authors are accused of presenting a grossly misleading paper.

The article reports on the need of universities investigating allegations of scientific misconduct to take special care to protect the rights and reputation of both accuser and the accused in the U.S. The institution has to be careful that the whistle blower is not damaged professionally by bringing charges to the school's attention. On the other hand, universities and whistle blowers may be subject to slander or defamation charges filed by researchers accused of wrongdoing.

The article advises university administrators on how to detect, investigate and report cases of scientific fraud and misconduct. One should be cautious and find out who is paying for the research that is suspected to be fraudulent. Individual should tape all hearings related to an internal investigation and make transcripts of the tape. It is also important to establish guidelines on scientific misconduct and put them in employees' contracts, faculty handbooks and students' rules of conduct.

The article reports that Harvard University's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute researchers, Claudio Milanese, Ellis L. Reinherz and Neil E. Richardson have published a letter retracting the research they had published in the "Science". In their letter, the researchers admitted that a molecule they previously said they had discovered does not exist. Meanwhile, "Science" published a news article in which Milanese admitted that he had tampered with data.

The article reports on a study by Walter W. Stewart and Ned Feder, scientists at the United States National Institutes of Health, on scientific fraud in the United States. Stewart and Feder focused on the conduct of the co-authors of John R. Darsee, a cardiology researcher who fabricated and falsified much of his research work for medical schools. Their study was not published because of publishers' concerns over possible libel litigation.

Reports on the release of guidelines for universities and colleges to prevent investigating incidents and fraud in health research which received federal support by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Rules posed by the agency to institutions on responding to research fraud; Concern of institutions on the guidelines; Criticism made by the agencies against Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts for its failure to inform them about the misconduct of its researcher John R. Darsee.

The article focuses on a report prepared by the Association of American Universities which urges universities to adopt certain policies to promote intellectual honesty and proper handling of researchers charged with fraud or misconduct. Stanford University in California and the Harvard University in Massachusetts have already used guidelines to manage alleged misconduct of researchers. It suggests that research directors must examine the records of researchers to avoid some cases of scientific misconduct.

The article reports that researchers and administrators at research universities in the U.S. have been concerned with the increasing interest of Congress in scientific misconduct. Most of the officials say that fraud by researchers is rare and that lawmakers have been misinformed about its extent. Researchers may face increased regulation of federally supported work if the damage is not repaired.

The article reports on a hearing in the United States Congress in 1989 in which forensic experts from the US Secret Service said that they doubted the authenticity of data contained in the laboratory notebooks of Nobel Laureate David Baltimore and professor Thereza Imanishi-Kari. The two scientists and their co-authors in a scientific paper they published in the journal "Cell" in 1986 have been accused of fraud and misrepresentation of data in relation to the paper.

The article reports that the National Association of Social Workers has decided not to take disciplinary action on the fraud research articles submitted by William M. Epstein in the U.S. The members of the executive committee of the association planned that the deception involved in the experiment created to test their peer-review practices did not represent a breach of the code of ethics of the organization. Finally, a hearing was held specifying that Epstein had committed an ethical violation.

The article reports on the recommendation by a panel appointed by the Institute of Medicine organization to examine ways of reducing fraud and sloppy science in the education industry in the U.S. The panel recommends that universities adopt specific strategies to encourage honest, careful and responsible research. The recommendation includes a setting up of formal courses in responsible research for all science students.

The article reports that a group of scientists, journal editors, lawyers and policymakers has made recommendations that could give universities in the United States a bigger role in encouraging proper scientific conduct. The recommendations were made following several Congressional investigations triggered by a number of reports of scientific fraud.

The article reports on the academic controversy surrounding accusations of research fraud against the Japanese scientist Haruko Obokata of the Riken Center for Developmental Biology in 2014. Details are given noting the allegations against Obokata, their implications on the quality and reliability of Japanese scientific research in general, and further allegations that Riken has disciplined her unfairly.

The article discusses the regulations involved in universities and university researchers spending federal research grants, focusing the regulation oversight of those expenditures by auditors. Topics include federal audits on the way university research grants are spent at several universities in the U.S. including Johns Hopkins University and Florida State University, as well as efforts by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to prevent research fraud.

The article discusses researchers implicated in a 2012 fraud lawsuits and settlement against the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline. It looks at the scientific fraud of an article about the antidepressant Paxil written by Martin B. Keller with Karen D. Wagner and David T. Feinberg which was published in a 2001 issue of the "Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry." Topics include the role of corporate money in scientific research, and its conflict with safety.

The article presents in introduction to a section on scientific controversies at Purdue University. Two cases are considered. In the first, a physicist has been accused of fraud and been the subject of a Congressional hearing, to the obvious detriment of his career. In the second, medical innovations were shelved while Purdue and its corporate partners had to take time to deal with lawsuits.

The article discusses how in an official request for documents from Purdue University, a U.S. House of Representatives committee has questioned the credibility of the university's investigation into research misconduct by Rusi P. Taleyarkhan, who is one of the school's scientists. The article explains that the focus of Purdue's inquiry was not to determine whether Taleyarkhan had achieved bubble fusion, which he claimed to have done, but whether he had ghost-written a paper by two students, Yiban Xu and Adam Butt, confirming his own work. According to the article the Congressional committee is calling into question whether Purdue's investigation was meticulous enough, and whether they followed proper federal guidelines when conducting their inquiry.

The article examines how physicist Rusi P. Taleyarkhan's attempt to create bubble fusion effected his professional career and the science community. In 2003, Taleyarkhan published a paper that detailed an experiment he conducted that created a cheap, small-scale form of fusion, using collapsing bubbles of ordinary acetone, the same solvent used in nail-polish remover. According to the article Taleyarkhan's paper led to him attracting research partnerships, grants, and requests from universities for him to conduct his research at their schools. The article explains that shortly after Taleyarkhan began his bubble fusion experiments reports began circulating that Taleyarkhan's data was inaccurate and possibly false. The article discusses how Taleyarkhan's research was then discredited.

The article reports on the results of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity concerning cloning of rhesus-monkey embryos. The investigation found that Jong Hyuk Park falsified data while working at the University of Pittsburgh as a postdoctoral fellow. The article also discusses the finding by a University of Pittsburgh panel that Gerald P. Schatten--the University of Pittsburgh professor who ran the laboratory that Park worked in from August 2004 to February 2006--was not guilty of fraud, but was guilty of research misbehavior.

The article discusses scientific fraud. A review panel that examined the journal "Science's" publication of two papers on cloning and stem cells by the disgraced scientist Woo Suk Hwang concluded that top science journals should develop stronger safeguards against fraud and should no longer rely on the assumption of trust that has governed science for centuries. The case that prompted the suggestions began in 2004 when Dr. Hwang, formerly a veterinarian at Seoul National University, and his colleagues published a paper alleging that they had cloned a human embryo and created a line of stem cells from the clone, which later turned out to be fraudulent.

The article reports that Eric T. Poehlman, former medical professor at the University of Vermont in Burlington, has been sentenced to a year and a day in prison for fabricating research data on federal grant applications. Prosecutors stated that Poehlmann studied aging, menopause and obesity and submitted 17 grant applications that were based on invented data. He pleaded guilty to lying on an application that won him a grant from the National Institute of Health in March 2005.

The article reports that Shanghai Jiaotong University in Shanghai, China, has announced that it has dismissed scientist Chen Jin from his academic positions for fabricating the development of computer chip. Chen Jin had deceived technological appraisal teams from the university and from national and local government agencies that had financially supported the Hanxin, or China chip, project. University officials said that they received a letter in December 2005 claiming that Chen's research was fraudulent and that they immediately began an investigation. The allegations first appeared on several popular Internet bulletin boards, and later on Sina.com, one of China's leading information portals. University officials invited the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Shanghai government to join the investigation. After a two-month investigation, a panel representing those agencies determined that Mr. Chen had faked the research on the Hanxin digital signal-processing chips, which it said did not perform as he had said they would.

This article reports that the Tokyo, Japan-based University of Tokyo has closed the research laboratory of a chemistry professor accused of fabricating test results in at least 12 published papers. An investigative committee appointed by the university reported late last month that at least 12 of the experiments cited by the professor, Kazunari Taira, in articles that had appeared in the journal "Nature" and other prominent international journals could not be replicated. Yoichiro Matsumoto, head of the committee, said that it would issue a final report in March 2006. A separate panel will consider possible disciplinary action against Taira and other researchers.

Reports on a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine to further educate college faculty and students to help deter scientific fraud as of July 2002. Information on the U.S. government's concept of scientific fraud; Suggestions on the prevention of scientific fraud; Effort of government agencies to address the issue.

Reports on the decision of the United States Department of Health and Human Services to suspend a policy requiring universities to educate researchers about federal rules concerning scientific fraud and other issues of research ethics. Criticism of the policy; Remarks from Representative W.J. Tauzin of Louisiana.

Focuses on a United States Department of Health and Human Services' proposed regulation that will require universities to provide due-process protections to whistle blowers who accuse co-workers of scientific fraud. Incident that led to the creation of such regulation; Stance of the Government Accountability Project; Views on the issue.

Discusses how studies about how often scientific misconduct occurs and why, and how to prevent it, was tackled at a conference of academics held in Bethesda, Maryland in November 2000. Details on the proposed policy requiring institutions to train researchers and graduate students about rules concerning scientific fraud; Statistical background on the prevalence of scientific fraud in the United States.

Reports that the Public Health Service's Office of Research Integrity has found nursing professor Gloria Clayton and researcher Farooq A. Siddiqui guilty of scientific misconduct. Fabrication of the existence of subjects and data connected to a mental health research; Penalties imposed on Clayton; Siddiqui's misrepresentation of data in a published article on leukemia research; Periodic reviews of Siddiqui's work.

Reports on the Justice Department's ruling on the alleged scientific misconduct of professors from the University of California and University of Utah. Case background; Use of the False Claim Act; Government's fight against fraud in scientific research.