The University of Iowa found a cardiology researcher violated multiple of its policies, including harassing his former mentees when they tried to leave his lab to establish labs of their own, according to an investigation report obtained by Retraction Watch.
The researcher, Kaikobad Irani, left the school last month with a six-figure settlement, and has a new job lined up, Retraction Watch has learned.
Irani studies the molecular mechanisms of the function and dysfunction of blood vessels. He’s listed as an inventor on four patents, including an active one regarding a compound that could lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
One of Irani’s active grants names the Providence VA Medical Center as the awardee organization. A spokesperson for the VA Providence Healthcare System confirmed Irani “is in the process of onboarding and is expected to begin working around November.”
The organization declined to comment on the University of Iowa’s findings without seeing the report, which we could not share with them based on the conditions under which we obtained it.
In a statement, Irani told Retraction Watch he “faced a campaign of retaliation” after reporting a faculty member working in his lab for “extensively falsifying and fabricating data.” He also reported other researchers to federal authorities for failing to report conflicts of interest on grant applications to the National Institutes of Health, he said. Through his attorneys, he declined to name the faculty member he reported for research misconduct.
“I was prepared to move forward with a lawsuit, but determined that it was in the best interests of both myself and the University to sever the employment relationship,” he said.
The University of Iowa report, addressed to associate provost for faculty Lois Geist and dated March 24, 2022, describes an investigation by University Human Resources executive Jan Waterhouse and Steven Varga, an associate dean for the university’s Graduate College. Based on a “preponderance of evidence” standard, the investigation found Irani’s behavior violated the university’s policies on harassment, professional conduct and use of information technology resources.
The harassment described in the report included delaying giving a former mentee the specially-bred mice the scientist needed for over half a year. When Irani did provide the animals, they weren’t the right strain. The delay, followed by unsuccessful experiments and the need to redevelop the line of mice from scratch, set the young scientist back two years and made publishing papers and applying for grants complicated, according to the investigation report.
In another incident, the officials said Irani reported a different former mentee for research misconduct over a mislabeled image in a grant application, despite initially telling the young scientist the error was trivial.
Irani also sent anonymous harassing emails, the university investigation found, got the university to revoke his mentees’ keycard access to his lab when they still had materials there, and appeared, uninvited, outside the home of one of the young scientists on at least two occasions.
Irani declined to meet with the investigators, according to the report.
“The March 2022 investigative report was never discussed during the severance negotiations and had nothing to do with my voluntary resignation,” Irani said in his statement. “Its findings are largely based on false unsubstantiated allegations made by persons whom I had earlier reported in good faith.”
Earlier this year, the university agreed to pay Irani $350,000 in exchange for his resignation and agreement not to sue the institution, according to settlement documents posted online. The university also agreed to suspend any ongoing proceedings regarding Irani, and work to transfer his grant funding to his new institution.
The settlement mentions an “oversight review” by the Office of Naval Research’s Inspector General and the possibility the university may have to repay grant money “in connection with research conducted by” Irani.
The University of Iowa did not respond to our requests for comment.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution 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].
It is unbelievable that after all the harassment, he is still able to work in a federal institution
Yes, this sounds very fishy!
A rush to judgement. Where is this mysterious investigation report that is not shared much less the evidence behind it?
Ask Irani to share it as evidence of his innocence.
@Selma, @Ruben, @Flavio: You seem the be the same person repeating the same irrelevant demand: “Ask Irani to share the report to prove his innocence”. One cannot ask Irani for a report that is not his to share! The report belongs to the University of Iowa. You need to ask them for the report.
Besides, it is the university who has made accusations. Legally speaking, Irani does not need to prove innocence. He is already assumed innocent unless the University of Iowa can prove otherwise.
First of all, I’m Selma, and I have no connection to Ruben or Flavio. Your accusations are unfounded, as usual. Again, I suggest asking Irani to share the report, he can follow the same steps he used when he reported the other researchers’ misconduct.
Welcome to the government, where leadership is lacking, burnout is very common, a total lack of transparency.
Ask irani to be transparent and share the report
This sensationalized tabloid story is a disgrace to journalism. It is clickbait rather than trying to get to the truth. Did the reporter even authenticate this university report? How so? Even if the report is authentic, did the reporter try and get at the veracity of the allegations? It appears from his statement that this researcher was a whistleblower and made a stir at the university by reporting integrity and conflict of interest violations. This most likely did not endear him to university authorities (remember, it’s the university that is the recipient of NIH grants and is held responsible for violations of rules and regulations of these grants). Therefore, the university authorities could have motive to retaliate against him. He claims that the persons who made allegations against him had also been apparently reported by him, so they could be retaliating as well. We need to see the actual evidence not believe snippets of a report.
Ask Irani to share the report
Regardless of whether the allegations against this researcher were proven to be true or false by the university (even if the allegations that he “delayed giving mice” and the mice “weren’t the right strain” are true, does this qualify as “harassment”? Maybe in Iowa it does!), there is a serious legal angle here. HR investigations and reports are confidential records in employee personnel files and not subject to public disclosure unless required by law enforcement. Public disclosure of this so-called “report” was most likely illegal. I would advise the researcher to look into causes of action such as invasion of privacy, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, just to name a few. The university is in legal jeopardy. Unlike RW that is protected by the first amendment for publishing this story, the first amendment does not protect university for committing illegal acts. Good luck defending this one!
@legalmind, I assume you’re well-versed in legal terminology. I need your help identifying some issues.
Let’s consider a scenario where a mentor delays providing mice to a mentee, causing significant setbacks in the mentee’s research. When the mentor finally agrees to provide the mice, he gives the wrong strain. As a result, the mentee loses almost three years of work, having to recreate the mice and start over. This not only severely impacts the mentee’s career but also represents a misuse of taxpayer funds, as public money is spent twice to produce the same mice. What legal terminology would apply to these actions, and how might they be defined in court?
Additionally, if a mentor sends anonymous harassing emails to his mentees, causing emotional distress, anxiety, and depression, what legal actions could these behaviors fall under? How would these actions be defined in court?
Sam: the answer to your questions is that the actions you describe, that purportedly took place, would not fall under any violation of code. These actions, even if true, are NOT illegal. They do not qualify as “harassment”. Any judge would throw such a case out. Universities blow these actions out of proportion and operate outside the law, with no one holding them accountable, unless you take them to court. There have been countless allegations, and “findings” by university panels against students and faculty that would never stand muster in a court of law. I hope that helps.
So, ruining someone’s career isn’t illegal? And wasting taxpayer money isn’t against the law?
Thank you for your input. However, it’s important to clarify that while certain actions may not seem illegal under a narrow reading of the law, there are legal frameworks and protections in place that extend beyond traditional harassment laws. Here’s why the actions described might still fall within the realm of illegality:
1. Broad Legal Definitions of Harassment:
Under both state and federal law, harassment is not limited to physical actions or threats. It can include repeated or persistent behaviors, verbal or non-verbal, that create a hostile, intimidating, or offensive environment. The specific circumstances matter. For instance, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits gender-based discrimination in educational settings, and this includes sexual harassment, which can be verbal or non-verbal. The threshold for what constitutes harassment legally might be broader than what one would expect from traditional criminal standards.
2. University Policies Are Legally Enforceable:
Universities are required by law to maintain policies that comply with federal and state anti-discrimination and anti-harassment statutes, such as Title VII, Title IX, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If a university finds that certain actions constitute harassment or discrimination under these laws, those findings are legally binding within the scope of the university’s authority. While universities may have broader policies than the law requires, their decisions are often grounded in legal mandates.
3. Civil Liability and Torts:
Beyond criminal law, many actions that don’t constitute crimes can still result in civil liability. For example, tort claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation might apply to the actions described. Courts frequently deal with cases where actions, though not criminal, have caused harm or created a hostile environment and resulted in compensable damages.
4. Legal Standards for “Harassment” or Misconduct :
In employment and educational contexts, harassment can be evaluated based on whether the behavior is “severe” or “pervasive” enough to alter the conditions of the workplace or educational environment. Courts have upheld cases where actions might not seem severe in isolation but, taken together, create a hostile environment. For instance, repeated unwanted attention, disparaging comments, or exclusionary behavior can qualify as illegal harassment.
5.University Accountability:
It’s worth noting that universities are bound by certain legal obligations, particularly in handling complaints related to harassment, discrimination, and misconduct. Federal funding for institutions can be contingent upon compliance with laws like Title IX. University decisions might be reviewed in court, but that doesn’t inherently make the initial findings “illegal.” Legal precedent supports the idea that institutions must enforce policies that protect students and faculty from harassment, and they have legal obligations to investigate and address such claims.
In summary, actions that might not seem illegal at first glance could still fall under various legal provisions, particularly in educational settings where federal anti-discrimination and harassment laws apply. Dismissing the potential for these actions to be unlawful overlooks the broad scope of legal protections designed to safeguard individuals in academic environments.
I hope this provides some clarity.
Agreed. This illegal invasion of privacy and breach of contract is another reason to believe the university is retaliating.
A long tradition of whistleblower retaliation by university of Iowa
https://casetext.com/case/hegeman-v-kelch
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa/hawkcentral/2017/05/04/jane-meyer-wins-1-43-m-case-against-iowa/310303001/
It always seems to involve a bully boss mistreating his mentees. I wish those poor students could take action and press charges against both the UI and their former boss.
Apparently, he was funded by NIH, VA and the navy. Did any of these federal institutions take any actions to stop him? Apparently not because he was able to secure a job in a federal instotutions
Correct me if I am wrong, the university of iowa proved that he violated her policies by harrassing his mentees and yet the university payed him money and agreed to stop all the investigations against him?????
I feel there more into this story.
Exactly! I am sure many facts have not come to light. I am skeptical about this story and want to know what really happened
It might very well be just that the university’s lawyers decided that 350 k$ and getting rid of him was significantly cheaper than litigating the case. These decisions are often made on purely financial grounds rather than necessarily on doing the right thing.
That might be the case, but why didn’t they tell on Irani’s misconducts to his next employer?
Any employer carefully investigates a job applicant’s history and CV, right? This includes contacting his former employer for comment. Why couldn’t the University of Iowa discourage Irani’s next employer from hiring him?
I agree with @Factcheck that there is much more to this story than it seems.
> That might be the case, but why didn’t they tell
> on Irani’s misconducts to his next employer?
>
That 350 k$ settlement is bound to include a non-disparagement clause that prevents each side from bad-mouthing the other, which will prevent them from doing that.
It is of course possible that the guy is innocent and was framed, but if my long experience of academia is any guide, that’s rather less likely than the university having paid off a true offender to become someone else’s problem.
@FFT, I agree that the university was obligated not to badmouth Irani officially. But couldn’t they secretly tell on him, off the record, to his new employer?
Maybe they feared of that too. But I know many employers who receive off-the-record negative information from the job applicants’ former employers. And if they are dissatisfied, they make a silly and vague excuse to reject him. No one knows that the previous employer has secretly badmouthed his employee.
Yet I agree that Irani might be guilty too, i.e., the scenario you mention is one of the valid ones.
It might also very well be that university lawyers decided that because they didn’t have the facts to support their case
completely agree. This situation highlights that institutions don’t truly care about scientific integrity or the well-being of their employees—they’re only concerned with their own interests
It’s concerning that the university of Iowa reached a settlement agreement with a faculty member who has been involved in clear cases of harassment and research misconduct. Such actions raise serious questions about accountability and transparency, especially when evidence points to unethical behavior. This is even more troubling when it involves federal funding and taxpayer money, as the public deserves assurance that their contributions are being used ethically and responsibly. This decision sets a troubling precedent for handling misconduct in academic settings.
why would University of Iowa pay 350,000 to someone if it had proof he “harassed”? They could just fire him for cause! Unless he had something damning about University. I have a strong suspicion the facts are not known or reported.
He “agreed not to sue the institution”. Which tells me there was good reason institution gave him all this money and made the agreement. Institutions don’t pay out that kind of money to someone who violates their policies, if that’s what he really did. Doesn’t make sense.
All of this suggests to me that he’s as corrupt as the university, and that hush money was involved
Yes that too might be the case. This sounds plausible that all parties involved (Irani, his students, and the Uuniversity of Iowa) are corrupt to some degree. I think it would be best if someone could force them to go to court and bring their evidences to light. God know how many cheating students and professors (perhaps even including Irani) would be fired and penalized. 😀
Check irani pubpeer and you will know
Although the University concluded: “based on a preponderance of evidence, the investigation found Irani’s behavior violated the university’s policies on harassment, professional conduct and use of information technology resources”, yet he claimed in his statement that “its findings are largely based on false, unsubstantiated allegations.”
How was he allowed to refuse to meet with the investigators after all of this?
This individual poses a serious threat to the scientific community and should not be employed by any institution, especially the VA.
@Sven, This RW article is misleading. It’s first line reads the university “found”. It should say the university “claimed” not “found”. How are you (both Sven and RW) so sure that the University of Iowa is telling the truth? Let’s recap:
–
1. They “claimed” (not found) Irani has done many serious violations.
–
2. Yet despite this, they couldn’t fire him right away.
–
3. Irani on the other hand has proof that he has reported misconduct by his students etc.
–
4. Who happen to be the same ones who have later reported Irani’s so-called misconduct! 😉
–
5. Irani calls this a retaliation campaign. No one has said anything yet to refute his claim about this being a retaliation campaign.
–
——————— Like a boos! ———————-
–
6. When asked to attend the investigation meeting, Irani showed them the finger instead, like a boss!
–
7. Yet they couldn’t do anything about receiving the finger.
–
8. Instead of firing him because of his serious so-called violations and also his finger, they just came up with some investigation “results”.
–
9. Irani “claimed” that results were false and substantiated allegations.
–
10. Yet the university couldn’t prove Irani wrong by showing any evidence to back up their “findings” (read their claims). This alone suffices to call their so-called investigation bullshit.
–
——————- A true badass! ——————-
–
11. In the end, the University of Iowa couldn’t fire him. They couldn’t even make Irani resign despite all his so-called violations!
–
12. Not just that. They even feared Irani could effectively sue them for millions of dollars because of moral damage and defamation etc.
–
13. So THEY paid him a very large amount of 350K to save their asses. If he was the culprit, how come THEY paid him??!!
–
———————— Epilogue ————————
–
14. Irani instantly found a new job elsewhere.
–
Any wise person will ask this:
–
If Irani is so evil, why and how his next employer don’t see this despite all the fuss? They have definitely contacted the University of Iowa for comment on Irani and his past check, right? Yet they came to the conclusion that Irani is more than fine.
–
The very fact that the University of Iowa can’t say shit about Irani to his new employer alone means that (1) the University of Iowa has NOTHING against Irani and (2) the University of Iowa may be suffering from serious corruption and systematic misconduct that need to be investigated.
–
–
–
You still think the University of Iowa is the good guy in this story?
Those would be patent applications, not issued patents.
Will he be mentoring other students? Once a harasser, always a harasser.
Unbelievable! Unbelievable! Make your researchers uncomfortable in the academic environment, make them feel unsafe in front of their homes, harass them in their academic careers, make their experimental environments unsuitable to make their research unsuccessful… And for all this, you get 350 thousand dollars in a deal with the university and continue your research at another institution. Did I read that right? This Iranian professor should have been federally investigated and held accountable in court after this report, let alone given 350 thousand dollars! If only a small fraction of these things were done by an ordinary American citizen, they would have little chance of saving themselves in court. What makes this professor so privileged?
ORRRRR they are lying about him!
Or university officials realized that the “preponderance of evidence” standard that they used to find Irani violated university policies etc. put them clearly in the bullseye for a major lawsuit against the university and themselves with the potential that they might have to pay Irani millions and decided that a $350K payout and non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreement was the best way to deal with the situation.
Ask irani to share the report to prove his innocence
ORRRRRRR they are saying the truth 🙂
ORRRRRR they trumped up charges and treated him unfairly to retaliate against him for reporting malfeasance in federal grants awarded to them. I would be very interested in seeing what he reported to the feds and how his whistleblowing put university in the crosshairs of federal authorities. There have been several cases prosecuted by DOJ where university has had to pay out millions of dollars (some times tens of millions, like Duke) for grants awarded to them that has falsified data, or grants where COI have not been disclosed (Like Cleveland Clinic and Stanford)
Shoddy reporting. We don’t see the key investigation report. We are to take everything on faith. We don’t see the evidence university investigation had and what kind it was? Key facts are needed to make informed judgement
The VA won’t hire post docs or graduate students or allow their funding to support people in training at this career stage so unless he has a position at the academic affiliate of the Providence VA which I assume is Brown University his mentoring days are effectively over. He will have to restrict himself to harassing whatever staff he can hire with his grants and without the possibility of hiring people through the academic affiliate he will be stuck with hiring through the VA or possibly a nonprofit research foundation at the providence VA if they have one.
“His mentoring days are effectively over”? This reminds me of cancel culture and the ‘me too’ bullying movement, where anybody can accuse any victim of anything without needing to provide any evidence; and the stupid society will blindly believe the accuser instead of asking her for evidence.
If I were Dr. Irani, I would sue those students and the University of Iowa, and legally obligated them to either prove their claims of “harassment” with evidence or pay me lots of damage money.
“His mentoring days are effectively over”? It would be a much bigger loss to the society than to him. We should cherish, keep, and protect our innocent geniuses who are being bullied by cancel culture.
Irani was found to be harassing students based on a preponderance of evidence. Both the students and the university should consider pursuing legal action against him.
I do agree they should sue Irani and forcefully bring all the evidence from all parties to light.
But from reading this RW story, how did you conclude so confidently that there is “a preponderance of evidence” against Irani? I am interested in your reasoning for such a conclusion.
You keep insisting that the RW story is misleading. However, unless you provide counter-evidence to support your claim, it remains unsubstantiated. I will continue to rely on RW Watch—it’s as simple as that. 🙂
@Real Fact, 1. You are not even relying on RW. What you do is to just SELECTIVELY read RW to your liking. For example, RW has also this part where Irani says:
“Its findings are largely based on false unsubstantiated allegations made by persons whom I had earlier reported in good faith.”
Why don’t you rely on that part of RW??!! If you want to rely on RW, you must see all its parts, not just the parts you like.
———————————
2. So you admitted that you don’t have any “preponderance of evidence”. All you have is this RW article –and not even all of this RW article, but only the parts you like.
———————————
3. I am calling this RW story misleading because in its title and its text, it misleadingly assumes that the university found Irani guilty while it should accentuate that the university only claimed that he is guilty.
See my reply to @Sven for more details. Also see comments by @JK and @Saeed Doroudiani.
While I appreciate Retraction Watch for exposing this incident of serious scientific integrity violation, I wonder what it has to do with the purpose of Retraction Watch. No retraction is mentioned in the article. If his misconduct led to retractions, it should be specified explicitly; otherwise, this article seems out of place on a blog dedicated to reporting retractions.
The problem is that when universities (not unique to UI) weigh potential bad publicity versus proper ethical behavior they always act to avoid the former. I know first-hand of a case in which a university investigated and found scientific misconduct but when the guilty party accepted a new position and then resigned, the investigation went nowhere. It should have been reported to the NIH and to the new employer, but to do so would certainly have meant the offending scientist would have hired a lawyer and sued. The facts would have damned that person, but it would have cost the university a lot of money in legal fees and some of the publicity would have been bad since there is little fact checking in much of what goes public. The only solution here is the NIH. The penalties for misconduct should have teeth. For the scientist: loss of current NIH funding; five-year ban on new funding; and no service on NIH review panels afterwards at any time. For universities and other institutions: manditory reporting of misconduct to the NIH with failure to report accurately would be one-year loss of all NIH funding. For the research community: add questions about past or current disciplinary investigations and their resolution as a condition to submitting applications (much like conflict of interest). This won’t clean up predatory publishing or retractable papers, but it will certainly decrease the contribution that NIH funding makes to scientific misconduct. BTW, I think the NIH is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It has a powerful position and is the only vehicle that might be used to start cleaning things up, at least in the US.
@Nomor Frawd, In the case you know first-hand, did they also pay the person who had committed misconduct 350K to leave?
When employer settles with employee to not sue it usually means the employer did something wrong that it is afraid puts it in legal jeopardy.
– “left the school last month with a six-figure settlement”
– “listed as an inventor on four patents”
– “he “faced a campaign of retaliation” after reporting a faculty member working in his lab for “extensively falsifying and fabricating data.” He also reported other researchers to federal authorities for failing to report conflicts of interest on grant applications to the National Institutes of Health”
Above facts indicate that Kaikobad Irani is a tallented scientist who shed a bit light on research misconduct in his institution, making them angry.
The University, as expected, didn’t like their prestige, ranking, income (NIH Funds, etc.) being harmed.
They forced him to shut up, but he did not.
Then, the University caused trouble for him by fabricating “violated multiple of its policies, including harassing his former mentees” etc. (oh, an udergrad summer student reported him LOL)
Irani still did not give up on fighting with academic fraud: “also reported other researchers to federal authorities …”
The University decided, to prevent more troubles, offered Iran a settlement behind closed door to silence him.
Irani was so nice and kind to his institution accepting the settlement, otherwise more cases in that institution could be uncovered.
Shocking that many above comments jumped in judgment and conculsion of imaging Irani as an evil academic who harrased somebody somewhere at some time in the lab without consideration of “six-figure settlement” the University offered him. Why? Because ALL his allegations were right and personal accusations false.
Which employer gives “six-figure” to a harrasing predator, as they portraited him?
Defamation?
Funding organizations (NIH, etc.) need to investigate ““extensively falsifying and fabricating data.” in research grants applications from that University, faculty, institution.
What are described in this article are 4 patents when they are in fact patent applications. No issued patents. Anyone can file a patent application – it doesn’t prove they have invented or discovered anything and the application can be rejected by the patent office. A scientist in academia should be judged by their publication record in peer reviewed journals.
You can publish numerous papers and still be a harasser. Having patents and publications doesn’t entitle anyone to harass others or sabotage their mentees’ careers
Well of course. I was responding to the notion that his “patents” indicate he’s a “talented” scientist.
It’s disturbing that you’re mocking a summer student for reporting Irani for harassment. Does this imply that Irani is immune and untouchable when it comes to being reported by a summer student? Just wow
Does Dr Irani have an appointment at Brown University (the academic affiliate of the Rhode Island VA)?
VA is not in the business of training graduate students or post docs so the only way he could get these kinds of trainees would be through the academic affiliate.
If yes, brown university should be aware of him beeing a harasser
One of the comments raised the question of why the institution didn’t inform Irani’s new institution off the record. A professional institution would never engage in such behavior.
Following this report, perhaps the University of Iowa should formally send the findings to Irani’s new institution to ensure he is no longer allowed to mentor or harass students
Currently, the University of Iowa doesn’t have “findings” to formally send anywhere. They only have unproven “claims” right now.
But if they can prove their claims in court, then they’ll have “findings”. If so, I agree they should formally send their findings to Irani’s new employer.
how do you know that the university doesnt have finding?????????
please clarify
Read my 3rd sentence! That’s how.
The claims were proved according to the report. You don’t have any evidence they were not
@Curious, I do have evidence that they have not proven anything. The evidence is right there, within this RW article. Read it.
On the other hand, this RW report has never ever said that the University had any proven evidence. Read it.
Your 3rd comment doesn’t make any sense since the UI found him guilty with preponderance evidence
I was prepared to move forward with a lawsuit, but determined that it was in the best interests of both myself and the University to sever the employment relationship. I am so touched, I feel I want to cry LOL 🙂
After reading the article and reviewing the comments, I have some observations to share from a neutral perspective:
Some comments defend Dr. Irani by highlighting his achievements as a scientist, including his patents and publications. However, this article isn’t focused on his professional accomplishments. It’s possible to be a talented scientist while also engaging in harassment (I’m not making any specific claims here).
Other comments argue that the RW story is misleading and lack proof of Dr. Irani harassing his mentees. While this claim may be valid, what counter-evidence supports this assertion?
RW is a reputable platform that wouldn’t publish a story without solid evidence. If RW didn’t find compelling evidence in the university report, they wouldn’t have published the story (again, I’m not taking sides).
The report states that Irani provided the wrong strain of mice after a significant delay and sent anonymous emails to other students. I doubt these claims would be made without supporting evidence, such as genotyping to verify the strain of the mice or tracing the IP and domain of the anonymous emails. If the university failed to follow basic procedures to substantiate their claims, then yes, Dr. Irani could be right that there’s no evidence. If he believes the university didn’t adhere to proper protocols, he should contact RW to present his counter-evidence.
It’s claimed that Dr. Irani exposed misconduct by researchers and faced retaliation from the university. This is a common issue in many institutions trying to protect their reputation. If this is true (though I’m not claiming it is), Irani should approach the NIH with concrete evidence against those researchers.
What stands out to me is Dr. Irani’s refusal to meet with the investigators. This raises concerns, as a refusal to engage can suggest an attempt to hide something (I’m not asserting that he is hiding anything).
It’s puzzling why the university didn’t inform his new institution about the harassment allegations. Were they trying to distance themselves from Irani at all costs to avoid having a harasser in their department (again, I’m not claiming he is)?
The report is said to have been created by the institution as retaliation against Irani. However, this report was made two years before the settlement agreement, and as Irani noted, it was not part of the discussion or the deal. This timeline weakens the argument that the report was fabricated for retaliatory purposes.
@Non bias: “While this claim may be valid, what counter-evidence supports this assertion?”
You should study law 101.
Legally speaking, there is no need for any counter-evidence. The innocence of all people is automatically assumed unless proven otherwise. It is behoove on the accuser (the University of Iowa) to bring evidence for proving their accusations! It is not the other way around! Dr Irani has no obligation to disprove anything, nor do we need any counter-evidence to prove him innocent. Hi is by default innocent unless proven guilty.
A failure of the accusing party (UI) to prove their accusation automatically means their defeat in court, without Dr Irani needing to raise a finger to disprove anything using any counter-evidence.
@ “this RW is misleading” Let’s take a step back, remain professional, and consider this story from an unbiased perspective. I don’t know Irani, nor do I have any connections to the University of Iowa; I’m trying to be reasonable. The university has presented evidence indicating that Irani engaged in harassment, including delays in providing mice, supplying the wrong strain, and sending anonymous harassing emails. This suggests they have proof.
If Irani claims that this evidence is invalid, he needs to provide counter-evidence to support his position. Therefore, the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable here, as he has been identified as a harasser. Unless he can refute the evidence, it stands that he is indeed a harasser.
Unless you have seen this so-called “evidence” and “proof”, your argument falls apart. I certainly haven’t seen it, and it’s not in the RW story. Perhaps you can tell me where to find it.
Ask irani to show them to you
Irani saw it first hand, ask him to share the report
@Non bias, I too don’t know Irani or UI. I too am completely unbiased and completely professional. In my reply to your comment, I just said one of the most fundamentals laws (if not the most fundamental one):
Someone is automatically innocent by default unless proven otherwise. Simple as that. There is no need for any counter-evidence to prove that he is innocent.
Example:
If you accuse me of, say, stealing your money, I will say “prove it by evidence”. You say “let’s be unbiased; you too bring your counter-evidence that you didn’t steal my money”!
Point is I don’t need to bring counter-evidence to prove I didn’t steal your money. It is behoove on you, and on you ONLY, to prove your claim that I stole your money. If you can’t, the case is closed, without me raising a finger to disprove your claim.
My previous reply to you is very simple and straightforward. Nothing biased or strange about it. 🙂
UI proved by evidence that Irani si a harrasser.
Presumption of innocence is a concept specific to a court of law. There is no such requirement outside the court. There’s no law that requires that you act like someone is innocent if you suspect they aren’t. If you are concerned that someone is engaging in unethical or harmful behaviour you have every right to protect yourself or your organization.
UI proved Irani guilty for harrasing his mentees. Therefore, all your arguments are baseless and useless.
Another conclusory statement that is lacking evidence.
I agree that everyone is considered innocent until proven otherwise. However, the University of Iowa has provided evidence that Irani is guilty of harassing students, and he should be banned from the academic field as a result.
Ruben: “However, the University of Iowa has provided evidence that Irani is guilty of harassing students, and he should be banned from the academic field as a result.”
Were is this “provided evidence”?
It’s honestly baffling how hard he’s trying to defend a harasser with such weak and silly arguments. Claiming that “this RW story is misleading” shows just how desperate the defense is. The University of Iowa found, with preponderance of evidence, that Irani is a harasser—plain and simple. There’s no debating this fact. Trying to spin the narrative with flimsy arguments doesn’t change the outcome or the integrity of the investigation.
What’s worse is how his defense completely ignores the core issue: Irani’s actions, which have been thoroughly investigated and proven, are inexcusable. It’s as if he’s throwing anything at the wall to see what sticks, but none of it holds water. In the face of solid evidence from the university, this attempt to muddy the waters just feels like a desperate bid to shift focus away from the undeniable truth.
It’s sad, really, to see someone go to such lengths to protect a person who has been found guilty of harassment.
Asking for evidence and looking at both sides of the story is not “weak and silly arguments” or “attempt to muddy the waters”. It is trying to get to the truth.
Ask Irani to share the report
What if that young scientist made up the story of Irani appearing outside their home?
If that story was fake, will this mean “faculty harassment”? Is there any law to protect faculty members against bully students?
What happens if a mentor harasses or bullies their students? Are there any laws in place to protect students from bullying and harassment by their mentors?
@Selma, hasn’t it happened to you that if Irani was such a bad person and they proved him guilty, why didn’t they fire him? Why did they pay him?
Aren’t these a little bit strange?
Very strange indeed and defies the narrative that he is the culprit. Only explanation is university got him to dismiss whistleblower retaliation complaint and not make any new ones that would put university at legal risk of a big payout. If there wasn’t merit to his complaint they wouldn’t have paid him.
Failing to appear before investigators suggests the accusations might be valid. This report was from 2022. If there was no evidence, why didn’t Irani sue the UI back then?
On PubPeer, several claims have been made regarding the work of Irani, particularly focusing on issues related to image manipulation and data integrity in published research. These claims typically point out instances of improperly manipulated images in figures, raising concerns about the validity of the findings presented in his papers.
In response to such claims, Irani provided no explanations or corrections, and institutions may conduct investigations to ensure the integrity of the research.
For more specific details about the claims and their contexts, I recommend checking the latest discussions directly on PubPeer, as these conversations can evolve and may include updates from the authors or their institutions.
It seems Irani was so focused on pursuing misconduct among other researchers that he overlooked his own.
This comment from @Amir Khan intrigued me, so I looked into Kaikobad Irani’s pubpeer. It’s really concerning to hear about the issues with image manipulation and data integrity in Irani’s work. These kinds of allegations strike at the core of trust in scientific research. When something like this comes to light, especially when there’s no response or effort to clarify from the researcher, it raises serious red flags. It’s not just about one study being flawed—it undermines the credibility of the entire body of work.
In cases like this, it seems crucial for institutions to take these claims seriously, but beyond that, given the potential scope of the problem, I think agencies like the NIH should get involved. If research funded by public money is compromised, there’s an obligation to ensure that the findings are legitimate and that any misconduct is addressed. The NIH has the reach and authority to conduct a thorough investigation and make sure there’s accountability. If we don’t prioritize the integrity of the research process, it impacts not just the scientific community but also the public trust in the outcomes of this research.
I think the smartest move UI made was to let him go and pass all his issues on to another institution to handle—like a boss.
For those wondering why the UI did not act sooner. Those who work in academia should know how complicated it is to fire a tenured faculty at a public university. I am puzzled by the comments insisting on his innocence until proven guilty, as well as claims that he has no obligation to provide counter-evidence. The UI has already proven that he is guilty “Based on a “preponderance of evidence”, the investigation found Irani’s behavior violated the university’s policies on harassment, professional conduct and use of information technology resources.” So let’s stop going in circles here and bury our heads in the sand. Regarding claims that Irani was easily hired by another institution, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It appears he simply transferred from the VA in Iowa to another VA facility. His VA appointment is tied to a grant ending in December 2024 (which can easily be verified as it is a public record), so we’ll see what happens after that before jumping to conclusions.
If it’s PROVEN that a mentor intentionally delays providing mice to their mentee, deliberately gives them the wrong strain, sends offensive anonymous emails, or stalks them on social media, are there any laws to protect the student from such harassment? Can an expert help answer this question?
@Mat: Yes, there are laws and protections in place to address harassment, and the situations you described could fall under various legal categories depending on the specifics of the case.
1. Workplace Harassment and Hostile Environment: If the mentor-mentee relationship is in an academic or professional setting, this could be considered workplace harassment, which is illegal under various labor laws in many countries. In the U.S., for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits harassment in the workplace, and universities often have their own policies to protect students from such behavior by faculty or mentors.
2. Cyberstalking and Digital Harassment:: Sending offensive anonymous emails or stalking someone on social media can constitute cyberstalking or online harassment. In many countries, including the U.S., the U.K., and the EU, there are specific laws to address these issues. For example, in the U.S., the federal Cyberstalking law (18 U.S.C. § 2261A) makes it illegal to harass or stalk someone using electronic communication.
3. Deliberate Obstruction and Research Misconduct: If the mentor intentionally delays research progress by providing the wrong resources (e.g., wrong strain of mice), this could be considered research misconduct or sabotage. Universities typically have strict policies on research ethics and integrity, and such behavior could result in disciplinary actions against the mentor.
4. Legal Protections and Remedies: The mentee may have several avenues for recourse:
– Filing a complaint: with the university’s human resources department or research ethics board.
– Seeking protection under anti-harassment laws: (state or federal, depending on jurisdiction).
– Reporting cyber harassment: to authorities if the stalking or emails violate criminal law.
– Taking civil action: if the harassment causes emotional distress or career harm.
5. Whistleblower Protections: In some cases, if the mentee reports the mentor’s unethical behavior (such as providing the wrong strain of mice), whistleblower protection laws might apply to protect them from retaliation.
The comments defending him seem to be going in circles, making it pointless to continue debating. A better approach would be for them to reach out to the university itself for clarity, as it’s unlikely anyone here has access to the necessary details (which are probably not publicly available). So, there’s no need to focus on Irani’s claims or what his students have said. What matters is the outcome of the investigation conducted by the UI. If they don’t have all the facts, he won’t be incriminated. As for those who distrust the process, they should understand that the investigative committees are composed of many faculty members with no conflict of interest—much like a court of law in the U.S. If that’s not reassuring enough, then maybe they aren’t looking for the truth after all.
I wonder if Dr. Irani was doing similarly bad things at Pittsburgh before he moved to Iowa.
RW needs to dig more into his past in Pittsburg.