Senator “unsatisfied” with ORI’s response on recovery of tainted grant money

ori logoMarch has come in like a lion for the folks at the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

The agency’s director, David Wright, stepped down late last month for reasons that even now remain unclear. And in what seems to be an unrelated development, ORI has managed to draw the ire of Sen. Charles Grassley, who has been among the staunchest watchdogs over federal research integrity.

According to the Des Moines Register, the Iowa Republican

is unsatisfied with how federal administrators responded to his questions about a multimillion-dollar case of research fraud at Iowa State University.

Retraction Watch readers will recall that the case involves AIDS researcher Dong-Pyou Han, whose faked data helped him and his colleagues win nearly $15 million in government grant funding. The case has resulted in one retraction so far, and Grassley has already questioned why Han wasn’t charged with criminal offenses.

Now the Register is reporting that Grassley was unimpressed with ORI’s response to his request for an explanation of how the ORI goes about recouping grant money tainted by misconduct — a reasonable question, we agree. From the article, describing a letter posted at the Register site:

The letter includes long citations of federal regulations, but Grassley spokeswoman Jill Gerber said it doesn’t directly answer many of the senator’s questions. For example, she said, it doesn’t say whether federal officials ever try to recoup money in such cases, or what the agency intends to do with unspent grant money that was awarded to the ISU research team.

“They just parroted the regulation at us and then later said they referred it to (the National Institutes of Health),” Gerber wrote in an email to the Register.

In an example of things coming full circle, the signature on the ORI’s response to Grassley belongs to Donald Wright, who assumed the role of acting director of the agency in the wake of David Wright’s departure — and from whom the latter Wright (they’re no relation) took over in the first place.

34 thoughts on “Senator “unsatisfied” with ORI’s response on recovery of tainted grant money”

    1. Two Wrights ignore fixing a wrong. Here is the proof.

      Deputy Assistant Secretary
      Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy and Accountability
      U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
      Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 336-E
      200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
      Washington, D.C. 20201

      April 3, 2014

      Dear Ms. Gunderson:

      Documents recently obtained through the University of Washington Office of
      Public Records show that the spoliation and withholding of evidence occurred during the
      investigation of Dr. Scott J. Brodie for alleged scientific misconduct. These recently
      produced documents show that data was deleted during the investigation from one of the
      key computers used by Dr. Brodie (hereinafter “SB Residence”). The data deletion
      occurred during the University of Washington’s investigation, and thus, predated the
      administrative law judge’s decisions, the decision to debar Dr. Brodie, and those of the
      federal courts in this matter. The spoliation of Dr. Brodie’s research records denied ORl,
      and Dr. Brodie key evidence.

      “Spoliation” refers to the destruction or material alteration of evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation which denies respondent access to evidence from which it could develop its defenses adequately” Henderson v. Tyrrell, SO Wash. App. 592, 604-07, 910 P.2d 522, 531-32 (1996); See also, Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d
      583, 593-94 (4th Cir. 2001).

      In ORI’s investigation of misconduct the “[a]uthentication of a scientific image
      requires access to the original data.” ORI’s instructions to investigators emphasize that
      electronic media, such as the images from computer hard drives need to be “reflective of
      the actual results”, and “shown to have originated with a particular individual.” These
      instructions are part of the institution’s obligation, and that of ORI, to preserve all
      research records.

      See Office of Research Integrity, ORI “Forensic Images Samples”, 4th bullet point, for
      the quick examination of scientific images, available at (last
      visited Jan. 29, 20!3).
      http :/ /www.
      (see Slide #3),
      0Name%20of’/o20Research%202010.ppt,(see Slide #52),
      http:/ /healthj, vol17 no4.pdf, p.3, ORI and OHRP Compliance
      Oversight: Recent Cases and Initiatives, Health Care Compliance Association’s
      “RESEARCH Compliance Conference (Apr. 22,2010, audio mp3)

      Recent documents produced by UWOPR show that documents were apparently
      destroyed. Mr. Diem admits that a computer was purchased for Dr. Brodie; that the
      computer was not set up or used in the lab; and, that it was sent directly to Dr. Brodie’s
      home. Exhibit l, p.4. Mr. Diem also admits that the computer apparently was not
      returned to the lab “until after the investigation began.” !d. Mr. Diem was able to clearly
      identify the computer. Mr. Stensland, who worked with Mr. Diem, admits that the
      computer “did mysteriously appear in the lab after the investigation started.” Exhibit 1, p.

      In the December 3, 2003, email, Diem wrote:
      To all concerned:
      The computer with the Lab Med tags 1193702 and 30021731
      was ordered specifically for use by Scott Brodie at home. When
      it arrived in the T-293X lab it was transported to Scott’s house
      without being set up or used in that lab. It did not return to that
      lab or to the Rosen lab until after the investigation began. We
      have subsequently deleted most of Scott’s files and have using
      it for general Office software purposes.

      Significantly, Mr. Diem admits that: “We have subsequently deleted most of Scott’s
      files …. “Exhibit 1, p.4.

      The acts of Mr. Diem and others caused Dr. Brodie actual prejudice in the defense of his case. The deletion of data from Dr. Brodie’s computer prevented him from having the opportunity to access data that he had prepared, and unlike the SB Home computer, had been in his exclusive control. The deletions also made it impossible to refute claims by Dr. Mullins that many of the questioned images found in Dr. Mullins
      grants came from Dr. Brodie.

      A review of the inventories by Dr. Brodie’s wife, who has been assisting her husband in this matter, discloses that there is no reference to the SB Residence computer identified by Mr. Diem. The UW 2003 report, and its 2004 errata, moreover, do not appear to reveal that the data on Dr. Brodie’s computer was deleted after the investigation began. See Declaration of Elizabeth H. Glazatcheff, attached.

      Neither you as the debarring official nor the ALJ was aware that the spoliation of evidence had occurred during UW’s investigation or that data from Brodie’s home computer, “SB Residence”, was deleted during the administrative proceedings. The evidence relied upon by the ALJ came from a computer identified as “SB Home”, which is not to be confused with the computer from which Dr. Brodie’s data was deleted.

      It is now clear from the UW public records responses in 2013 that Dr. Brodie’s requests for his data could not be fulfilled because the records were deleted by UW employees.

      Evidence critical to Dr. Brodie’s defense was deleted during the course of the investigation. The fact of the spoliation was not known to Dr. Brodie, ORI or the ALJ.
      Dr. Brodie, accordingly, was never given his entire computer generated data or research data for his defense. In turn, the ALJ was misled into believing that Dr. Brodie was provided all his information necessary to defend against the claims of misconduct.
      Dr. Brodie, requests that you reopen this matter and rescind the debarment of Dr. Brodie.

      Signed by
      Counsel for Dr. Scott J. Brodie

  1. This suggests that ORI had limited oversight as to what it could or couldn’t do. I was under the impression that ORI had no legal power. It would be interesting to learn more about the structure and functionality of ORI, perhaps from the two Wrights, and possibly also Alan Price. Iguess, at the end of the day, ORI, its directors and its staff, and all those associated with it, need to be as accountable and transparent as the scientists they are investigating. The gaps I have read in both stories, the criticisms I have seen, and the lack of any explanation thus far for the resignation of the Director all point at something not quite right. As a non-US citizen, I only see things from a perceived external perspective. But, it would be really important for more US scientists to weigh in on this story, and preferably none with formal links to ORI (who clearly provide a biased perspective). This is because ORI is somewhat of a role model or blue-print for what other regulation agencies around the world should or could do. So, non-US scientists take this story and ORI seriously. Also because US laws and/or policies tend to filter outwardly to the rest of the world and laws passed by US Congress strangely have a ripple effect elsewhere around the globe.

    1. ORI should be replaced with an outside of PHS, oversight agency of non MDs/Phds. Rather JDs. The basic flaw with ORI is that it is a political body with no subpoena power! Its not a good global blueprint!

      1. Ed, much can probably be done to improve the structures now available in the US to investigate research misconduct. And a strong legal backing with, yes, full subpoena powers and other needed resources would be most useful. But, is it in the best interests of science to have nonscientists overseeing scientists’ work?

        1. The last sentence, indicated by a psychologist, is extremely ironic: “is it in the best interests of science to have nonscientists overseeing scientists’ work?”

          1. It is better to have smart people outside of the field examine research issues. As one who is well educated in
            science, psy. and business I would prefer that my work be judged by a panel of smart mothers than a scientific “expert”. Experts get lost in the caverns of their cerebrum and hopelessly confuse themselves on
            even simple issues. They are generally not as smart as they think or would want us to believe. Further they
            are victims of “groupitidy” —where the scientific tribe hangs together on even the worst ideas.

          2. Since I have been growing vegetables in my backyard for years and have done some hybridization experiments of my own I should consider referring to myself as a plant scientist. Perhaps then I’ll get a little more respect from jATdS.

        2. “But, is it in the best interests of science to have nonscientists overseeing scientists’ work?”

          For my undergraduate thesis in structure based drug design, I had an “outside the discipline” member on my thesis committee that judged me for the oral part of the exam. Mine was a Spanish professor, her job was to ensure I could explain my work properly to someone who is decidedly not a scientist. It was a test of my ability to explain, without jargon, the basic jist of my thesis work.

          It is hard to explain what we do for a living, but I think our living is really starting to depend on it. Self-regulation of science by scientists is starting to erode due to a range of complex factors; one of which is that there are a *lot* more scientists around these days and the competition is quite fierce.

          I’m not saying put the lawyers in charge of everything (heavens forfend)- but perhaps we can use their advice to help develop a more robust framework for punishing the miss-use of Federal research dollars and misconduct in Federally funded labs. Also, I have a few buddies that did science degrees in undergrad and then went and got JDs– maybe the ORI could look into finding people with both legal and scientific skill sets……? Just a thought.

          1. “I’m not saying put the lawyers in charge of everything (heavens forfend)”

            Couldn’t agree more. Please don’t insert lawyers into this any more than you must. Lawyers really are useful for a lot of things, but overseeing science isn’t one of them. I agree that science seems to be losing its way, but legal values and legalistic procedures are not an answer. In fact, they are a major part of the problem. I’ve been both lawyer and scientist, and the world views are simply incompatible.

            On the other hand, putting Spanish teachers in charge might make sense…

          2. Very thoughtful, Allison — but ORI has already has Public Health Service Office of General Counsel legal counsels assigned to work closely with the ORI scientists on their findings — see their names and contact information at the bottom of this ORI webpage:

            However, it is not the OGC or ORI staff who have the authority to “punish the misuse of Federal research dollars — as noted below, that authority is vested in the HHS OIG, NIH institutes, and US DoJ.

        3. Very interesting

          Think of the legal/court system in the US as an example of oversight: The fate of defendants is in the hands of 12 non experts (not legal experts). Why then should we not want to do the same for scientific misconduct cases?

          1. The jury system has introduced the niche of the Expert Witness, so we acknowledge some degree of expertise is required…however the Expert Witness is rarely truly independent (bought and paid for by prosecution or defense). Unfortunately juries seem to try to exclude scientists and the like, which is a pity.

    2. Well, JamieJATdS, it is true that ORI has limited “oversight” meaning “authority” from Congress and HHS — even though ORI has legal authority to make findings of research misconduct and impose administraitve actions on those who falsify, fabricate, or plagiarize research. But as I noted below, ORI NEVER was given by Congress or HHS any authority to recover funds, impose fines, or subpoena documents or persons — Congress and HHS left that authority with HHS/NIH funding agencies and HHS Office of Inspector General.

      In fact, ORI scientists are totally “accountable and transparent” in that they are bound by the HHS regulations and related administrative policies and procedures in proposing and making findings of research misconduct against those who falsify, fabricate or plagiarize research — and all of their findings are published — with names, institutions, facts and basis for all misconduct findings — in the U.S. Federal Register, NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts, and ORI’s Newsletter, Website, and Administrative Actions Bulletin Board.

  2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. (feel free to ignore this if you are getting tired of reading it).

    Criminal charges are unlikely to stick, even in this case. Scientific fraud turns on the state of mind of the scientist. Did the scientist believe what they wrote was true at the time they wrote it? In an criminal trial the prosecution would have to show that the scientist did not. That would be very nearly impossible.

    Recovery of spent research funds would be essentially impossible since the university can show, in detail, that the money was spent on what they said it was spent on. Unless a PI has been able (somehow) to pocket the research funds, there would be no chance of recovery.

    Cooperation with the ORI is predicated on the notion that it is investigating scientific ethics, not criminal violations. If you face possible charges, then you need not cooperate with the investigating body, and you cannot be compelled to.

    These ‘reforms’ of the ORI that are sometimes talked of are in fact the nightmare scenario where politicians, lobbyists, political appointees, party donors, and others will have extensive powers to interfere with, harass, and intimidate scientists whose work they don’t like. Be careful what reality you are reaching for. Misconduct in science is very small potatoes. It is completely insignificant compared to, say, defense procurement or corrupt agricultural subsidies. But these changes could fundamentally alter the relationship between the independent scientific community and the government.

    1. Yes, indeed there is much corruption. So the excuse becomes “I an not as bad” —-a sorry state of self justification. We should seek the best not the less worse!

      1. No. I’m saying that you are proposing a fundamental rewrite of the conditions of scientific research in order to prevent a tiny amount of misconduct, and without considering the value of lost independence.

        1. Publish or perish, grantsmanship, gaming the system, research harm to subjects—-Yes, there is a lot of
          independence to lose!

    2. Right, Dan, ORI investigates allegations of research misconduct in cooperation with research institutions where the alleged misconduct occurred. No one can be compelled by ORI to testify; only institutions can compel its employees to cooperate with investigations, or face possible sanctions or dismissal.

      You are correct that recovery of funds by NIH and granting agencies is difficult and seldom pursued, since grants are given as “assistance” to institutions (very rarely to individual grantees), and findings of misconduct often involve only a small fraction of the money spent in the research. The U.S. Government through its Department of Justice can pursue False Claims Act (qui tam) suits, with the potential for recovery of grants and triple damages, but they are very costly in time and effort by DoJ Assistant U.S. Attorneys, HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) agents, and ORI staff or outside expert consultants (like me), so there is a high threshold to enter them (e.g., the potential for recovery of a million dollars or more, or jail time for deliberate fraud).

      NIH and HHS decided back in 1989 not to have its OIG (whose agents are rarely trained in science) to try to investigate allegations of misconduct in science and research, so they created the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) within NIH, which was moved up to the HHS level in 1992 as the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). See my 2013 paper on the history and politics of these difficult years:
      Accountability in Research 20 (5-6), 291-319 on September 18, 2013 [© Taylor & Francis], available online at:

  3. As a chief research fraud investigator in ORI from 1992 to 2006, I recall Senator Grassley raising similar questions two decades ago, and the answer is still the same (I do not understand why his spokesperson Gerber cannot understand that direct answer from the Acting ORI Director (see his linked letter to Grassley, quote below) — EXPLAINING THAT ORI DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO RECOVER GRANT FUNDS OR TO IMPOSE FINES — ONLY THE HHS FUNDING AGENCIES, LIKE NIH, AND THE HHS OIG WORKING WITH THE US DOJ, CAN RECOVER THE FUNDS THAT THEY PROVIDED TO INSTITUTIONS:

    “ORI imposes administrative actions against the guilty Respondent, not the recipient of the grant funds, which is typically the institution. ORI always notifies the funding agency about the findings of research
    misconduct in projects funded by their grant programs and assists the funding agency regarding recovery of funds from the recipient institution. Specifically, ORI notifies the Agency Research Integrity Liaison Officer (ARILO) at the funding agency whenever ORI makes findings of research misconduct. . . .After notifying the funding agency, ORI will work withthe agency, when requested, to help them determine whether to seek recovery of funds from the recipient institution. ORI staffhas worked with funding agencies to establish the proportion of the grant funds that were involved in supporting the false research. . . and ORI can assist the funding agency in its assigning a dollar value to the portion of the grant funds that were used to generate those false data.”

      1. Yes, one of my senior scientists convinced officials at a New York institution to voluntarily return funds for salary paid to an investigator who had falsified his credentials (and had been overpaid because of them) on an NIH grant. We did assist NIH institutes in analysis of other possible recoveries; but you will have to ask them at NIH about any recovery of grant funding that they actually pursued and succeeded in (they do not report to ORI). States also have the authority to recover funds misspent by individual state employees.

  4. Some interesting reading at about Sen. Grassley. Also interestingly, unlike many other politicians listed at, not a single hit for Sen. Charles Grassley. Grassley’s Wikipedia page is also impressively informative, and his senate page is also full of very (positively) revealing reformist and accountability-related stories (, most likely because of his positions on the Senate Finance and Judiciary Committees. At least with respect to hawkish criticism of handling of certain issues (ORI inclusive?), perhaps we should heed to what this gentleman has to say? I also simply cannot understand why no one at ORI provides a formal explanation nor updates on its web-site:
    (and to answer the vegetable-growing question above, it takes much more than hybridizing a few vegetables in a backyard (which basically probably indicates that some pollen was added to the stigmas of some flowers) to become a seasoned plant scientist, although I am quite curious to see if any mutants may have been plucked from those crops in that valiant breeding effort).

    1. You should also do some reading about It is anything but. It is funded by the Franklin Center and a related web of right wing organizations.

      ORI is a new target for Grassley but keep in mind ISU is in his home state. He and Herb Kohl were the main drivers behind NIH’s recent overhaul of its conflict of interest policies. Grassley also pushed for the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, although he voted against it because it was part of the Affordable Care Act.

      What kind of “formal explanation” and “updates” are you looking fro on ORI’s website?

      1. I am neither Republican, nor Democratic, or anything in between. I also think there are as many faults with the Obama Administration as there were with the Bush Administration. Therefore, polictics aside, which is understandably impossible in science, it doesn’t really matter if a radical right-wing group set up the, or a group from the Bahamas called the Banana Group for Political Movement. At base, what is important is that there exist watchdogs that can scrutinize the contributions given to politicians in the USA. This is an important aspect because money is, without a doubt, one of the most centralizing corrupting factors, anywhere on this planet. That is why, when we try to understand a retraction, we also need to try and grasp the money trail, not only by the author, but also by the author’s institute, and any links to that institute. And this applies to science and to science-related sites. One could consider, in a way, PubPeer to be a science watchdog. Are you questioning who funds PubPeer, or are you more interested in the factual veracity of its content? The topic of this story is ORI, and one central theme is why it received funding, for doing what exactly, and how efficiently that funding was used, or abused. How was hard-working taxpayers’ money used? It appears as if the exact same questions were being asked about ORI exactly 20 years ago, just before Alan Price stepped in:

        In that sense, I would really like to read Alan Price’s 2013 Accountability in Research to see how history may have been interpreted. I thus encourage supporters of ORI, and its critics, to pick up the Price paper and examine every single line meticulously, to ensure that the facts are correct. This is to say, Theresa Defino, that I am not interested to know a site is funded. What I am interested in knowing is if the facts they present are correct. Just in the same way I am interested to know if the facts presented by Alan Price are factually correct in his 2013 paper. As equally as I am interested in Miguel Roig’s work. This is because, as academics, we should be drawn to the truth.

        I decided to surf for “criticisms of the Office of Research Integrity”, and I found some revealing sites, which I recommend you read. Of course there were several more, but the astute blogger will pick these up as the bread trail that I leave here: (the comments are more interesting)

        I did pick up on this site in my search: (and I hope that Alan Price, in his historical analysis of ORI, also focused on one of the most important aspects of a tax-payers-funded organization, the effective use of funding, in essence giving the reader a dollar-by-dollar analysis). Money is part of history, after all.

        Finally, while searching the “criticisms” of ORI, one of the top hits was to a UAF web-site:
        When one scrolls down to the reference section, and clicks on the following reference:
        • Office of Research Integrity (1994): Working definition of plagiarism. Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 3(1).

        The following message appears: “Page not found. The requested page could not be found.”

        What now should happen is that someone with a good understanding of ORI, except for an insider such as Roig or Price, needs to critically evaluate Price’s recent historical paper, in a post-pubklication peer review, and to assess if the facts and comments, or analyses, are consistent with what is being said on other web-sites, other literature, and even by the criticisms leveled at ORI by the agency’s director, David Wright, in his resignation letter.

      2. Sourcewatch looks like an entirely disreputable source of information, ironically. The article you posted links to biased cesspools of left-wing propaganda such as and Media Matters as “references.” Give me a break.

  5. As a general response to the question of who should judge the work of scientists: what sets scientific research apart from anecdote is that it is systematic. We attempt to control for all possible variables. But, PhD or not, the human mind is limited and fallible. Artifacts, which become apparent only later, can easily slip into experiments. To you, as the researcher, the experiment was the best that you could do at the time. To someone on the outside, it is irreproducible hogwash. Someone with bench experience (e.g. another scientist) is better positioned to differentiate between honest error like this and out-and-out fraud than would be someone without that experience (e.g. a lawyer). In any case, my view is that science is a process that depends upon dissemination of results through the literature, and that open dialogue in the collective pursuit of truth is what makes it fun and exciting. Obviously fraud should not be tolerated, but if I ever come to feel truly threatened by the possibility that an honest error could land me in serious trouble with a pack of legal hound dogs out for blood, science will lose its appeal for me and I’ll be leaving academia for good (and I bet many others would do the same).

    1. Well said, Mitch. I have seen just that in my 17 years as an ORI official and 8 years as a private consultant and investigator. As you aid,, “Someone with bench experience (e.g. another scientist) is better positioned to differentiate between honest error like this and out-and-out fraud than would be someone without that experience (e.g. a lawyer) — or a non-scientist-type Office of Inspector General (OIG) federal agent. ORI scientists do not want respondents, who are often found not to have committed research misconduct, to, as you say, “feel truly threatened by the possibility that an honest error could land me in serious trouble with a pack of legal hound dogs out for blood.” ORI regulations require universities and other research institutions to have investigations conducted by persons with the expertise needed (often in a related field or in the use of the methodology involved in the questioned research).

    2. “who should judge the work of scientists”. Peers. How should it be different. That is what is used for any jury.

  6. The Shelton v Florida case basically did away with the intent rule (intent does not have to be proven) except in capital cases. I don’t have to prove that you intended to rob it when you entered that bank with a gun and robbed it, I don’t have to prove you as an accountant intended to embezzle that money.
    In what I read of this case the researcher took a government grant to do work, later they admitted falsifying his work.
    So why didn’t ORI or NIH turn this case over to the justice department for prosecution and recovery.
    From my perspective so much pressure has been put on researchers to “publish or perish” by their labs/universities that some have succumbed to the temptation to fudge the data, because publishing companies are not likely to publish studies with “no findings” but instead want to publish papers with ground breaking things aka: “bling”
    It is symptomatic of our broken society tv shows like the “jersey shores”, “honey boo boo” “house wives series” all are dysfunctional people but they get the publicity (while normal everyday hard working people get no notice), why would researchers be any different.

  7. ORI seems to me to be acting fine within its legal remit, and I’ve gotten good responses from them.
    it is worth reviewing ORI case summaries. It would be interesting to study the earlier cases and see what happened to people’s careers.

    Another constraint: the ORI, IGs, IGs and DoJ all have staffs and budgets, and inherently must prioritize complaints. People might also check NSF closeout reports. and note that for any of these:
    a) Correcting the scientific record is one kind of goal.
    b) Imposing penalties is another
    c) Getting funds restitution is another
    d) Jail time is possible, but hard and rare.

    Some examples:
    11/30/12 ‘Former Penn State Professor Charged in $3 Million Federal Research Grant Fraud’

    09/17/12 ‘Cornell University Guilty of Misusing HIV Grant Funds’

    06/01/12 ‘When Good Money Goes Bad,” Examples from the EPA’
    p.3 ‘Professor Settles Civil complaint … a false claims case …’
    p.4 ‘University Agrees to Pay $2.5 Million to Settle False Claims Allegations.

    06/28/11 Luk Van Parijs, prompt confession avoids jail
    ‘Former MIT professor spared jail for grant fraud’

    08/31/05 ‘United States: Research Misconduct: New Enforcement Actions and Developments’
    ‘ii. Mayo Foundation Pays $6.5 Million To Settle Grant Fraud Charges

    12/10/94 ‘Uconn professor, associate guilty of science grant fraud’,2346812

    06/10/92 ‘UCLA Professor Gets 2-Year Prison Term in Research Grant Fraud’

    Finally, there is the case described here with the relevant NSF Closeout. From studying hundreds of these, I’dsay the NSF was rather peeved, but the subject had essentially fled to Australia. it’s hard to imagine that it would be cost-effective to hgave pursued that one.

    1. I am not clear about your citation list, John — suggesting one review NSF OIG research misconduct findings — and then saying to look at “some examples” (which are citations to prosecutions and/or recovery by Federal agencies of their funds — but none of which involve NSF recoveries.

  8. Fraud is rampant in society. Are politicians who do not fulfill promises to their voters required to pay back their salaries and benefits? Recall that Dr. John Ioannidis wrote an article, “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”, so we are looking at only the tip of the iceberg, and ORI would not be able to handle all the cases. It is a thankless job, so it may be hard to find good people, but a lot of unemployed scientists are out there…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.