A former Harvard postdoc who was found guilty of faking data at Oxford as a student did the same thing at Harvard, according to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
We first wrote about Helen Freeman in February, when we covered a retraction in Cell Metabolism that said the UK’s Medical Research Council had found that she committed misconduct while working as a student at Oxford. Today, a Federal Register notice from the ORI reports that Freeman faked images in a manuscript submitted to Nature while she was working on federally funded grants at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
From the ORI’s report:
ORI found that [Freeman] engaged in research misconduct by knowingly and intentionally falsifying three (3) figures and/or legends and one (1) supplemental movie legend in a manuscript submitted for publication to the journal Nature (Freeman, H.C., Kong, D., Sidman, R.L., & Lowell, B. “Inhibition of UCP2 Prevents Neurodegenerative Diseases in Mice.”).
Specifically, ORI found that Respondent:
- falsified Figure 6 and its legend in a manuscript submitted to Nature by claiming that the experiment represented histological and rotarod results from 5 week old pcd3J-/- mice treated with saline or pcd3J-/- mice treated with genipin when the genotype, treatment conditions, numbers of mice used, and mice age were not as claimed; these falsified data also were presented to a colleague for use in related experiments
- falsified Figure 4, Supplementary Figure 3, and Supplementary Movie 1 and/or its legends in a manuscript submitted to Nature by claiming that the knockout of UCP2 rescues the ataxic phenotype of pcd3J-/- mice when she knew this to be false.
Freeman agreed to have her research supervised for three years, and not to serve on NIH peer review committees for the same amount of time.
In addition to the Cell Metabolism retraction, the Oxford lab where Freeman studied had a related correction and two unrelated retractions of which Freeman was not an author.
Speaking of the ORI, tomorrow is the last day to apply for the job of director, a post open since David Wright resigned noisily in February.
Once a crook always one.
I nominate Edward Snowden as ORI director. We need courage there.
It’s not up to ORI; it’s up to the HHS general counsel’s office and these folks.
http://www.hhs.gov/ash/leadership/index.html
That’s called “kicking the can down the road”
It’s called understanding how the law works. But there’s one more to apply, and Edward just said he “really wants to come home!”
Actually, with the risk of being charged with treason, as evidenced by Johnn Kerry’s statements “This is a man who has betrayed his country”, and “Edward Snowden is a coward, he is a traitor and he has betrayed his country. And if he wants to come home tomorrow to face the music, he can do so.” I am not so sure that Snowden thinks of the US as his home any longer. After all, he did say “If I could go any place in the world, that place would be home.” It is Kerry who suggested that Snowden come “home” (US), but probably only to arrest him, seeing that extradition is so complex: “He should man up and come back to the US.”
Maybe Kerry should get ORI fixed and more functional.
Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-says-wants-return-us-034811315.html;_ylt=AwrTWfxafYdTdA4AcyvQtDMD
http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-mentions-constitution-22-times-nbc-interview-152409795.html;_ylt=AwrTWfxafYdTdA4AbivQtDMD
It doesn’t matter how the law supposed to work for the government/university complex.
I found a bit inconsistent the penalty pronounced by the ORI, and a report of the case published in the “Time Higher Education”, which reads:
“As she [Dr. Freeeman] was no longer active in research, no formal sanctions against her had been initiated.”
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/former-members-misconduct-causes-third-retraction-for-lab/2011262.article
If she is no longer involved in research, what kind of activity will be “supervised for three years”?
“If she is no longer involved in research, what kind of activity will be “supervised for three years”?”
She might go back into research during the relevant period.
The real questions are whether Oxford with rescind her degree and will the university investigate the lab where there have been multiple retractions?
So, the researcher who admitted faking data was based in a laboratory where there have been other retracted papers which she was NOT involved with.
“Frances Ashcroft is the Royal Society GlaxoSmithKline Research Professor at the University Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford and a Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford”
http://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/team/group-leaders/frances-ashcroft
And who is responsible? Who permitted her to send the paper to Nature?
Stewart. I assume you refer to the paperS submitted to Nature.
Does anybody know who co-authored those papers and, most importantly, who was the corresponding author for each one?
Not the same…different case, different paper, same researcher…that story refers to retractions of papers reporting research conducted in the UK. In the US, if she works for any PHS-funded or hopeful funding recipient, her work is to be supervised. You have to read the Federal Register notice. ORI got her for a paper that was never published that funded by NIH’s NIDDK.
Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, the ORI notice is linked in the post above and is also available here:
http://docs.regulations.justia.com/entries/2014-05-29/2014-12442.pdf
and is consistent with your explanation.
surely everyone’s research should be supervised to some degree, but its usually just the positive results which are supervised, and retractions are done solo.
Irony alert–There is a book titled, “Helen Freeman; or, Always be truthful.”
Did Helen Freeman receive salaries, research grants and travel grants to conduct those studies (Oxford and Harvard)? If yes, the equation is quite smple: PAY IT BACK! The rest, including ORI’s “decision” and any retractions, are loose change.
And the Boston Globe has obtained a heavily redacted, but still fairly damning, internal report from Harvard about Marc Hauser’s manipulation of data and other transgressions.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/29/internal-harvard-report-shines-light-misconduct-star-psychology-researcher-marc-hauser/maSUowPqL4clXrOgj44aKP/story.html?rss_id=Top-GNP
Your link to the Federal Government job posting for ORI Director https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/368552900 is remarkable for what is MISSING
in its statement of requirements for applicants:
“Mandatory Technical Qualifications:
1. Experience in Federal research policy and regulatory matters is highly desirable, as is substantial experience and skills in working with committees and advisory bodies in developing options and consensus positions for policy and regulatory matters.
2. The position requires frequent communication with scientists, university administrators, high level Federal officials, and members of Congress. Therefore, the incumbent must have demonstrated ability to develop and maintain cooperative relationships with various government and non-government groups, and individuals.
3. The incumbent must have demonstrated the capability for effective written and oral communications, including the conduct of seminars and presentations, and testifying at hearings.
4. The position requires a demonstrated management capability and supervisory experience.”
IT DOES NOT SAY THE DIRECTOR MUST BE TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED IN THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH AS WELL AS THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS.
The United States Congress mandated by law in 1993, establishing ORI under federal statutory authority at 42 U.S. Code §289b (NIH Revitalization Act, 1993), that ORI be “an independent entity in HHS . . . headed by a Director, who shall be . . . experienced and specially trained in the conduct of research, and have experience in the conduct of investigations of research misconduct.”
A colleague on SciFraud just posted an additional comment that the HHS posting of eligibility requirements for the ORI Director demands that the applicant: “Must possess a Doctor of Medicine or Doctor of Osteopathy degree.”
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/368552900
Thus, A Ph.D. scientist would not meet the eligibility requirement posted – being ORI Director would now require an M.D. or a D.O degree!
None of the regular ORI Directors (Lyle Bivens, Ph.D.; Chris Pascal, J.D.; and David Wright, Ph.D.) in the 22 years since ORI was created, had a medical degree. Less than 10% of ORI cases involve medical research, and the ORI cases are almost all focused on misrepresentation of data.
Excluding a Ph.D. scientist is outrageous — as well as a violation of the Congressional NIH Revitalization Act (the law at 42 U.S. Code §289b), which created ORI and demanded that ORI be “headed by a Director, who shall be . . . experienced and specially trained in the conduct of research and have experience in the conduct of investigations of research misconduct.”
Sorry, Ivan, I missed the heading that noted that Ph.D.s can apply under a different posting:
This is an interdisciplinary position and can be filled in either of the following series: 0601 – General Health Science; 0602 – Medical Officer
NOTE: When applying for the General Health Science, 0601 series, you must apply under vacancy announcement number HHS-OS-SES-14-1108965.
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/368552900
Ignore or delete the above posting
My SciFraud colleague found the other HHS posting for ORI Director:
https://WWW.USAjobs.gov/GetJob/PrintPreview/368584100
“Job Title:Director, Office of Research Integrity
Department:Department Of Health And Human Services
Agency:Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
Job Announcement Number:HHS-OS-ES-14-1108965
[. . .]
Education Requirements
To meet the minimum requirements for this position, you must have
successfully completed a full four-year course of study at an
accredited college or university leading to a bachelor’s or higher
degree that included a major field of study in an academic field
related to the health or allied sciences appropriate to the work of
the position
– – –
So you do not need a Ph.D. to apply for ORI Director — but as I noted earlier,
HHS DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT THE DIRECTOR MUST BE TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED IN THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH AS WELL AS THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS:
The United States Congress mandated by law in 1993, establishing ORI under federal statutory authority at 42 U.S. Code §289b (NIH Revitalization Act, 1993), that ORI be “an independent entity in HHS . . . headed by a Director, who shall be . . . experienced and specially trained in the conduct of research, and have experience in the conduct of investigations of research misconduct.”
The take-away message: “HHS did not follow the law”. How on earth can ORI be trusted? If there is a breakdown of values (laws in this case) at the top echelon of the strata that are meant to monitor misconduct in US science, then why should we not be surprised that there are few strict penalties against a wider range of misconduct cases emerging from the US (US citizens, or imported labor)? These revelations further accentuate the sad departure of what was perceived as an extremely competent Director, David Wright, who resigned based on a disfunctional organization. As a non-US citizen, socio-political events that are observed looking from the outside in indicate that the US is in decline, strategically, and ethically.
ORI can be trusted, as it has been trusted for two decades (see my history paper above).
It is the recent political HHS officials who have not supported ORI – as David Wright has reported – versus all the prior OASH leaders who did support ORI before them back to its creation in 1992.