BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XIX

Consequences of Unethical Conduct, Part 2

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea.

Case #6: “A university committee determined that a PI (principal investigator) had committed an egregious act of plagiarism by submitting a proposal to NSF that contained more than a page of text and ideas taken from a confidential research proposal submitted by others. The allegation was referred to the university by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) after verifying that it contained substance. The committee found that the copied material represented the scientific core of the NSF proposal. It concluded that the PI’s plagiarism represented very serious research misconduct, aggravated by the breach of confidentiality in the peer review process, and applied sanctions. On the basis of the evidence, we concurred with the university’s findings and accepted its report. Consistent with the university’s actions, we recommended the PI be debarred for two years from receiving any federal funds and, further, to protect the merit review process, we recommended that the PI be prohibited from reviewing any NSF proposals for three years.” –Executive Summary, Office of the Inspector General, Semiannual Report to Congress, September 2003

As this real case illustrates, the consequences of an ethical breach in a grant proposal are very serious given the high stakes and the number of stakeholders involved.

The confidentiality of peer review is a weighty responsibility in part because funding agencies rely on outside experts to report problems with grant proposals, just as publishers rely on outside experts to report problems with manuscripts. In other words, scientists are supposed to police themselves. Part of one’s duty as a reviewer is to report any possible ethical breaches one perceives. Indeed, one can argue that a reviewer behaves unethically if they do not report a possible problem they see.

The very premise of peer review is fraught with ethical tension. You are expected to review the best ideas of other scientists, yet you are not supposed to act on what you read. (Note that there are certain safeguards in place for those involved in the review process. For example, the reviewers of proposals are anonymous, and you can opt to exclude specific people from reviewing your proposals (or manuscripts) if there is a conflict of interest [e.g., direct competition, bias toward you, same institution, has read a prior draft for you].) Here is mokita again: Is it humanly possible to forget a brilliant or even a really good idea that pertains to the work you are passionate about and on which your livelihood depends!? What do you do if someone’s grant proposal hits upon an idea that you are currently working on? Are you tempted to “trash” their proposal (or manuscript) in order to buy yourself time to publish first?

President Jimmy Carter first authorized establishment of the OIG for Cabinet-level government departments (e.g., Commerce, Energy, Defense) in 1978. In 1989, an amendment to this law added OIGs for many Designated Federal Agencies including federal funding agencies such as NSF. The OIG is charged with investigating allegations of “research misconduct, fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement associated with NSF programs and operations” (http://www.oig.nsf.gov/pubs.htm). The OIG has the “statutory authority to subpoena or otherwise obtain all records, files, reports, documents, or materials needed to conduct audits, inspections, and investigations” (http://www.oig.nsf.gov/).

The website of the OIG encourages complainants to contact them directly (1-703-292-7100 or oig@nsf.gov). However, if a reviewer instead reports a potential ethical breach to the program project officer (PPO) handling the proposal, the standing instruction from the OIG to the PPO is to “contact [the OIG] and forward any correspondence regarding the allegation to [OIG’s] office.…we ask them to forward any additional information they may receive and explain to them that it is now a matter for the OIG to handle” (James Kroll, NSF OIG e-mail to Dina Mandoli, November 18, 2004). The OIG makes it clear that PPOs are not to have any further dealings with the matter. Indeed, during PPO training the OIG tells PPOs to be very cautious in bringing forth any allegations (Roger Hangarter, former NSF “rotator” PPO). This makes sense ethically because the PPO may well have a professional relationship with the parties in question (i.e., may have a conflict of interest) and, in any case, lacks the authority and resources to adjudicate or to engage in fact finding. If the allegations are determined to be “substantive” during careful preliminary review by the OIG, then and only then does the OIG launch a full investigation. “By substantive, we mean the evidence doesn’t have to fully prove the allegation—it just has to indicate that there appears to be merit to the allegation. The purpose of the investigation is to prove, by preponderance of the evidence, that the allegation is true” (James Kroll, NSF OIG e-mail to Dina Mandoli, November 18, 2004). The process by which OIG investigates allegations will be explored in a subsequent column.

Once an investigation begins in earnest, it must reach closure. I imagine that the process, like all serious charges, must be emotionally exhausting and time-consuming for the accused even if no unethical behavior is proven in the last analysis. This is one very good reason that the OIG follows a very careful process before following up on any accusation.

A basic tenet of science is to seek the truth while upholding lofty academic standards. How often have you heard “Oh, that is from so-and-so’s lab. He/she is good/bad”? We judge work in science not only for individual papers or proposals, but by the “track record” or reputation of the scientist(s) involved. That in itself may be a bit mokita.

As scientists, we spend our careers building our credibility, our reputations. As Shakespeare’s Cassio¹ discovered, reputations are a fragile commodity, hard to earn and easy to lose. That is why peer review of one’s work, livelihood, and passion are delicate issues indeed.

Next time: Overall structure of the OIG and some statistics from the NSF OIG.

Dina Mandoli
mandoli@u.washington.ed

¹“O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!” –William Shakespeare, Othello, the Moor of Venice (Cassio at II, iii)