The vice chancellor for research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s medical school has admitted to plagiarizing text in an NIH grant application, according to a U.S. federal watchdog.
Terry Magnuson, who serves as the Kay M. & Van L. Weatherspoon Eminent Distinguished Professor of Genetics at UNC-Chapel Hill as well as vice chancellor for research, “engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly plagiarizing text” from two guides, material from a company that makes sequencing kits, and a review article, according to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.
[See an update on this post.]
Magnuson submitted the plagiarizing grant application on March 1, 2021. He has received NIH funding as recently as August, and over his career has been a principal investigator on more than $50 million in grants from the agency.
In announcing Magnuson’s reappointment as vice chancellor last year, UNC provost Robert Blouin said:
Terry is a top-notch scientist who possesses strength, compassion and goodness that permeates the research ecosystem at Carolina. Notably, under Terry’s leadership, Carolina’s research enterprise has grown each year and now exceeds more than $1 billion in research awards and spending annually.
Magnuson, who agreed to “have his research supervised from February 25, 2022-January 5, 2024,” did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He earned $625,000 in 2019, according to public records.
The finding of misconduct is the first of 2022 for the ORI, which last year made just three findings.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
That’s a (relatively) fast turnaround. Does anyone know if the NIH runs grant applications through plagiarism detection software? Or was this spotted by a reviewer?
Oh come on, Magnuson had 1 grant in 2021 with detected plagiarism, and all NIH grants are scanned for plagiarized content. It’s likely that a lab member wrote this grant (when I worked at UNC-CH many were), especially given the rapid conclusion of the investigation and that the HHS penalty was just supervision. If there was scientific fraud or if Magnuson had plagiarized the grants himself, the HHS penalties would have been much much worse. Read the HHS ORI report and you’ll see that this is actually a case of “failure to cite or quote properly,” and the plagiarism was from techniques publications. I’m not saying these are harmless, but they pale in comparison to data misrepresentation and fabrication, both of which would have been found by HHS in this grant if present. It’s questionable whether someone else would have gotten the grant, considering that it was only technique application information that was plagiarized. I wish more people would read the details prior to expressing their indignation, and I wish these details were in the news publications. I am upset that this incident is getting so much press just because of Magnuson’s position and salary (his is typical of a PI of his position and expertise at a big university). Meanwhile, people who find actual scientific fraud get ignored or ostracized (or worse), data questioned on pubpeer rarely gets retracted, and junk science gets posted on Biorxiv. My perspective comes from 20+ years in academic science, 3 years of which were working for fraudulent scientist, and 2 years of an ongoing HHS investigation as a result (ie the pseudonym).
It’s likely getting a lot of press considering the issues UNC-CH has with their athletes and false courses within the last decade. Hard to claim academic credibility as a top university when your research coordinator is committing plagerisim in addition to decades worth of fake classes. Doesn’t bode well for the ‘public Ivy’ image UNC puts out when they have two major academic scandals inside a decade
This, right here. I’m a longtime member of UNC’s School of Medicine. This behavior is so disheartening for faculty, post-docs, students, and staff who takes pains to adhere to ethics in research. And morale at UNC has really taken a hit because of these ethical and leadership failures. That Magnuson has not stepped down from the VC for Research position or that UNC has apparently not asked him to do so is baffling. UNC’s tepid action here essentially sanctions this behavior at a time when the University needs to distance itself from appearances of “cheating” and publicly recognize the importance of ethics in research. What would have happened to a faculty member, post-doc, or student had they been discovered to have committed plagiarism? I’m so angry about this.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe someone should take a look at this effort certification since he became Vice Chancellor for Research. Someone is getting cheated for sure.
Severely disappointed by the lack of response from UNC.
This. I worked for Terry a few years back. The guy is a saint. The plagiarized material is from a sequencing kit and some technical documents. It’s not like Terry is out there posting fabricated data – this was likely an oversight by a post-doc/research assistant professor that Terry failed to catch. Calling him a grifter or suggesting that his successes are “ill-gotten”(below) based on this is outrageous.
Good to know he is a saint. Then he should lead by example, do the right thing & resign as vice chancellor for research. An institution cannot foster a culture of excellent research if the person at the top is tainted. Surprised UNC does not see that…
I wouldn’t call this taint. It is unclear from the HHS ORI report whether Terry did this, or whether it was a post-doc or other lab member who did it. That his name is at the top of the grant means that he has ultimate responsibility, but it is a bit unreasonable to expect that he would catch plagiarized content from a lab member – this is what the automated plagiarism detection tools are for. The proposed supervision pre-submission seems like an adequate fix to me. The HHS report indicates that the plagiarized content is from a review and an illumina sequencing protocol. This is hardly the scandal it is being made out to be.
“If there was scientific fraud or if Magnuson had plagiarized the grants himself, the HHS penalties would have been much much worse.”
I fully agree that the applied sanctions are wholly inadequate. At the very least, he should be fired from his position as vice chancellor. The possibility that he let someone else do the actual writing I don’t think matters much. He still put his name on the application.
So is the NIH going to claw back this grifter’s ill-gotten gains and award it to the applicants who lost out to him? Perhaps they had something valuable to offer but we may never know. Meanwhile, our boy makes out, well, like a bandit.
ill-gotten? come on. This isn’t fraudulent data, its a lab member who failed to cite an illumina protocol, and a PI that didn’t catch it.
Carl, this is not his direct research fraud. However, the scientific practices (post-doc or his lab persons write HIS grant) should be stopped.
Sounds like someone at UNC needs to re-read the plagiarism policy: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/plagiarism/
“Because it is considered a form of academic cheating and constitutes a serious violation of the University’s Honor Code, the usual punishment for a student found guilty of plagiarizing is suspension for one semester and an “F” in the course.”
Should faculty / deans who plagiarized be placed on unpaid leave for one semester and banned from the campus, including no access to UNC email?
Well, that’s what (I assume) he was paid. Perhaps there were some original authors of text/figures/results in some of his publications who actually earned a share of that?
Well, I feel like the ways how academic reports report academia news are more and more like how paparazzi report celebrity gossip stories. Looks to me, neither of them really cares about the truth but would like to use a sensational title to attract attention. I am seriously disappointed.