{"id":192,"date":"2016-01-10T21:32:06","date_gmt":"2016-01-10T21:32:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/?p=192"},"modified":"2023-10-11T04:45:51","modified_gmt":"2023-10-11T09:45:51","slug":"frinvblog-implications-of-the-feldheim-eaton-nsf-research-misconduct-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amerares.com\/blogs\/frinvblog-implications-of-the-feldheim-eaton-nsf-research-misconduct-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Implications of the Feldheim Eaton NSF research misconduct case"},"content":{"rendered":"
The following comment was published January 10, 2016 on Retraction Watch website. (The original can be found here.)<\/a> It is important because it adds an additional example of the government research misconduct functions which we discussed in our manuscript, \"The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits<\/a>\", published in December 2015.<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
Journalist Joseph Neff noted in his article published earlier this week about this research misconduct case that:<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
\n
\u201cThe final NSF decision did not conclude that the scientists acted intentionally or recklessly, which would have resulted in a finding of research misconduct. That decision was a step back from the findings of the Office of Inspector General, the investigative arm of the NSF, which concluded in 2013 that Eaton, Feldheim and doctoral candidate Lina Gugliotti had acted recklessly and committed research misconduct.\u201d (The News & Observer, January 8, 2016<\/a>)<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
These results raise some additional questions regarding the research misconduct oversight system in general. First, why was the Office of Inspector General\u2019s (OIG\u2019s) finding of research misconduct softened by the NSF Director\u2019s office?<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
The statement by the NSF Director\u2019s Office in reversing the its OIG\u2019s finding of research misconduct seems very vague compared to the much more detailed and specific claims of the NSF OIG, as well as what has been published in the press by reporter Joseph Neff.<\/h5>\n
a) From the NSF Director\u2019s Office statement:<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
\n
\u201cAfter reviewing the evidence presented in the report, the OIG report, and [blacked out] rebuttal letter, we find that, while there are certain facts arguably supportive of recklessness, the record overall fails to provide the preponderance of evidence necessary for a determination that your actions associated with the research at issue were intentional, knowing or sufficiently reckless to rise to the level of research misconduct.\u201d<\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
Nevertheless, even the NSF Director\u2019s Office concluded:<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
\n
\u201cWhile your conduct may not support a finding of research misconduct, it does violate the NSF Act of 1950 (the NSF Act), as amended.\u201d<\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
And the Director\u2019s Office continued:<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
\n
\u201cIn this case, NSF has identified significant findings that you and your co-authors failed to disclose including: 1) a clear and consistent description of the composition of the used in Publication #1; and 2) the fact that data was not properly [blacked out] prior to Publication # 1. These omissions were as significant to the published research record in question as the significant findings that you did prepare and submit for publication.\u201d<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
So was this all really just a terrible one-time lapse by these scientists, or did the NSF\u2019s OIG provide evidence to make a case that more likely than not this was something more, i.e. at a minimum behavior exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of what the authors were publishing and claiming in grants?<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
Indeed, further statements from the NSF Director\u2019s Office seem to suggest a willful and continuing unwillingness of the accused scientists to respond to corrections with which the NSF Director\u2019s Office apparently agreed:<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
\n
\u201cYou chose not to follow the actions recommended by the investigation and failed to clarify fully the record. Taking into consideration the impact on the scientific record of ambiguous justifications and misleading terms, NSF now imposes that same requirement on you.\u201d<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n<\/blockquote>\n
b) From the NSF OIG\u2019s statements:<\/h5>\n
\u00a0<\/h5>\n
\n
1) \u201cOIG Investigation concludes that:<\/h5>\n