ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesFraud

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

It’s Time to Get Serious About Research Fraud – UnDark (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | July 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on August 3, 2020
 

Only a small fraction of research misconduct ever comes to light. Independent investigative bodies could remedy that.

IN 2016, Sophie Jamal’s career took a turn for the worse. The bone researcher and physician was banned from federal funding for life in Canada after a committee found her guilty of manipulating data, presenting fabricated evidence to investigators, and blaming a research assistant for the fudged data. She was also ordered to pay back more than 253,000 Canadian dollars she had received in funding from the Canada Institute of Health Research. Then, in March 2018, she was stripped of her medical license.

Two years later, Jamal is back on the medical scene. According to The Toronto Sun, her medical license was reinstated after she presented evidence to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario showing that her misconduct was a direct result of her long-term mental health problems. She can now return to practicing as an endocrinologist, as long as she doesn’t conduct clinical research and continues therapy for her mental health problems.

Whether it’s fit for Jamal to return to treating patients is a matter for medical bodies and institutions in Canada to decide. What’s true is that scientists guilty of research misconduct often get away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist — that is, if they’re even caught in the first place. A survey of more than 1,100 researchers at eight European universities published earlier this year found that a large amount of research misconduct goes unreported, with early-career researchers the least likely to blow the whistle.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Friday afternoon’s funny – Catching participants with trickery0

Posted by Admin in on June 19, 2020
 

Cartoon by Don Mayne www.researchcartoons.com
Full-size image for printing (right mouse click and save file)

Tricking participants into exposing themselves to serious harm is a serious ethical breach.  Any use of overt deception should only be used with considerable justification.  In Australia this is reflected in the National Statement (2007 updated 2018)

When Your Supervisor Is Accused of Research Misconduct – The Scientist (Katarina Zimmer | June 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on June 7, 2020
 

Early career researchers face unique challenges when a senior collaborator becomes embroiled in allegations of scientific malpractice.

Evolutionary ecologist Kate Laskowski didn’t have a good start to her new faculty position at the University of California, Davis. She was just a few months in when, late last year, she received an email from a researcher who had some concerns about a study she had coauthored in 2016 with the prolific McMaster University spider biologist Jonathan Pruitt.

To avoid costly consequences, researchers should always carefully scrutinise data provided by collaborators – even if they are more experienced researchers.  We included links to 13 other useful reads.

As a graduate student at the University of Illinois, and later a postdoc at the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Germany, Laskowski had collaborated with Pruitt on a study of spider social behavior. The email noted that the raw data collected in Pruitt’s lab, then at the University of California, Santa Barbara, contained odd duplicate values in the columns of a spreadsheet that documented behavioral differences among individual spiders. After combing through the data herself, Laskowski ultimately came to the conclusion that the data, and the study based on them, weren’t trustworthy, and requested earlier this year that the American Naturalist retract the paper. She’d go on to retract another two, both of which she’d coauthored with Pruitt.
.

These studies—which supported the hypothesis that the behaviors of individual spiders are influenced by social interactions—would be the first of several of Pruitt’s papers to come under scrutiny from scientific journals, in a series of retractions and expressions of concern that has rattled the animal behavior research community and affected numerous collaborators, including many students and early-career researchers. “I’m in my first year of . . . my dream job,” Laskowski tells The Scientist. “I’ve been so excited to set up new projects, and then I’ve had to spend the past four months dealing with all of these old papers that I thought I was over and done with.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(EU) Greek scientist found to have de-frauded European Research Council – Science|Business (Éanna Kelly | May 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on June 6, 2020
 

ERC confirms it is seeking return of €190,000 in first case of fraud recorded at agency

OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud agency, this week confirmed an unnamed Greek scientist de-frauded the European Research Council (ERC) of roughly €190,000.

“A complex fraud involving a Greek scientist and her network of international researchers has been uncovered by investigators,” OLAF said.

The case involves a grant of €1.1 million from the ERC to an unnamed Greek university. The money was intended to finance a research project run by a young female scientist, whose father was employed at the university, and was said to involve a network of more than 40 researchers from around the world.

The fraud team became suspicious when it discovered how the international researchers involved in the research project were being paid.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0