About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Case Western dermatology department hit with second ORI sanction within 6 months

with 9 comments

karnik

Karnik

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has sanctioned an assistant professor of dermatology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland for plagiarizing from a grant application she was reviewing — which feels like a scientific version of insider trading — and a number of published papers.

According to the ORI’s findings, Pratima Karnik

engaged in research misconduct by plagiarizing significant portions from research grant application R21 AR061881 that she had reviewed for NIAMS, NIH, and inserting that text into her submitted grant application R01 AR062378-01. Respondent also plagiarized significant portions of text from the following scientific articles and one U.S. patent application available on the Internet:

  • BMC Med Genomics 4:8, 2011
  • J Am Col. Cardiol 52:117-123, 2008
  • Nature 457:910-914, 2009
  • J Autoimmun 29:310-318, 2007
  • U.S. Patent Application No. 20090047269 (published Feb. 19, 2009)
  • Toxicol Pathol 35:952-957, 2007
  • BMC Med Genomics 1:10, 2008
  • Open Systems Biology Journal 1:1-8, 2008
  • Endocrinology 146:4189-4191, 2005.

Karnik is the second dermatology researcher at Case Western to be subject to ORI sanctions this year. In February, Bryan William Doreian, a former postdoc, was found to have falsified data in several papers. (The ORI announced the Karnik case Tuesday, and The Scientist was the first outlet we saw report it, but we haven’t had time to cover it until today.)

We haven’t seen a single department struck by this kind of lightning before, but that’s not terribly surprising given how few cases ORI reports on each year — about a dozen. That means it’s really impossible to say whether the cases are related or whether this is simply coincidence. Karnik – one of whose studies of genes for a type of baldness has been cited 40 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge — does not seem to have published with any of Doreian’s co-authors.

The case does not appear to involve any retractions. Karnik agreed to have her work supervised for two years, and not to serve on any NIH peer review committees.

While the latter sanction is typical in many ORI cases, it seems particularly apt here given that Karnik seems to have committed the scientific version of insider trading that many scientists shudder to think about: Stealing from someone else’s grant application. Typically those fears are about a reviewer taking your ideas and running with them, then either getting a head start or recommending rejection of the grant. But plagiarizing is also stealing, of course.

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

August 9, 2013 at 2:30 pm

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. No suspension from federal grant support for x years ???

    Don

    don

    August 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm

  2. If that is all what you get for a horrible act of misconduct, I am almost tempted to do it, although I will have a very hard time looking in the mirror every morning

    Schmuck

    August 9, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    • Do not buy any mirrors then, it is what these cheaters do.

      The amount of s*it going on in science starts to be overwhelming and very dangerous. So dangerous that I am starting to have identity crisis on the lines of “everything is a lie, we are making up s*it” (I am an “old” postdoc). I guess it is time to clean the house, use a guillotine and organize a new system because the old one it is not working for most of us (although it’s pretty lucrative for a few bunch).

      Have a lovely day

      Núria Gonzàlez

      August 14, 2013 at 11:33 am

  3. Ph.D. from a pioneer institute in India. Anywhere anytime…

    Ressci Integrity

    August 14, 2013 at 1:01 pm

  4. Pioneers in plagiarism….

    Roy

    August 14, 2013 at 2:12 pm

  5. There should be a BAN on such kinds of “researchers”…

    Roy

    August 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm

  6. Sadly, this happens a lot. Nothing like finding out a grant reviewer is working on your project after their panel rejected the application.

    John

    August 23, 2013 at 4:55 am

  7. Why isn’t this researcher being kicked out?

    AJ

    September 9, 2013 at 7:02 am

    • absolutely. it appears that the misconduct was only in the grant applications so far…

      Ressci Integrity

      September 23, 2013 at 8:29 pm


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,910 other followers

%d bloggers like this: