Amid efforts by the Trump administration to “put an end to fraudulent and wasteful spending” and “enhance” accountability, two key offices charged with investigating fraud and holding scientists and institutions accountable for federal spending have seen top leadership depart.
At the National Science Foundation’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the changes start at the top: Inspector General Allison Lerner is departing, and Megan Wallace, currently assistant inspector general for Investigations at NSF, will become the acting inspector general, effective March 1.
Deputy Inspector General Ken Chason is also departing. The acting deputy will be Catherine DelPrete, who is NSF’s general counsel to NSF’s inspector general, according to her LinkedIn profile.
The changes were confirmed by Nadine Lymn, communications director of the National Science Board, which appoints and supervises NSF’s inspector general.
Meanwhile, Retraction Watch has learned that most — if not all — research investigators at the National Science Foundation’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) will also be leaving their jobs.
Some of the departures, at the OIG and the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), are voluntary, while others were part of the mass government firings carried out earlier this month.
They leave concerning reductions in personnel at both offices, which serve an integral role when it comes to ensuring the integrity of how government funding is spent, said Paul J. Coleman, a consultant who worked for NSF’s OIG for more than 20 years, hired as its first investigator shortly after OIG was created in 1988. “Without having people do oversight, we’re hurting ourselves, we’re hurting our own society,” Coleman said.
Aliza Sacknovitz, the deputy director of research integrity and administrative investigations, announced on LinkedIn that she would be leaving her position as of February 28. Sacknovitz did not reply to a request for comment.
Dwayne Meadows, an investigative scientist in the division, posted on LinkedIn that he opted to take the deferred resignation buyout offered to all federal employees earlier this year. Meadows declined to comment.
Lisa Vonder Haar, NSF OIG’s chief of staff, would not confirm these or other departures, citing Privacy Act concerns. She added, “Regardless of staff departures, we will continue to provide independent oversight of the U.S. National Science Foundation to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of its programs and operations and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse.”
The departures will likely leave the OIG’s open research investigations in flux.
Last week, NSF fired about 10 percent of its staff, or 168 employees, Politico reported February 20. The move was “the first of many forthcoming workforce reductions,” Micah Cheatham, NSF’s chief management officer, told staffers in a February 18 meeting at the agency, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Politico’s E&E News.
The mission of NSF’s OIG is “to provide independent oversight of the U.S. National Science Foundation to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of its programs and operations and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse.” Most recently, an audit of $12.1 million in costs incurred on 20 NSF grants to Northeastern University found evidence of mismanagement, leading the institution to agree to repay more than $600,000, Inside Higher Ed reported February 18. Other investigations into potential misconduct have led to retractions and debarment from NSF funding.
There have also been some notable changes at ORI, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A comparison of ORI’s current staff page with a February 13 archive version reveals two key changes.
Ning Du had been acting director of ORI’s Division of Investigative Oversight since October, according to an announcement on the ORI website, and had been with the agency since 2018, according to her LinkedIn profile. She is no longer listed among the ORI staff.
Joya Patel, previously listed as ORI’s communications and external engagement director, is also missing from the current staff listing; she confirmed in a LinkedIn post she was one of thousands of federal employees fired in mid-February.
Both Patel and Du declined to comment.
With a staff of just around two dozen, ORI oversees research integrity and misconduct for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and several other HHS agencies. The Division of Investigative Oversight — now down to six scientist-investigators — reviews institutional inquiries and investigates possible research misconduct.
ORI has had a fair amount of turnover, particularly in its leadership. In 2017, its director Kathy Partin was removed from her post after clashes with ORI staff and those at other agencies. During her tenure, Susan Garfinkel, then-director of the Division of Investigative Oversight, left her post for a position at Ohio State. In January, Garfinkel announced she was returning to ORI as a senior adviser to the director. She told us by email that she currently retains this role, “but the future is unknown at this time.”
Regardless of whether their departure was imposed or voluntary, several federal employees expressed pride in their time as a federal servant. “I leave the office immensely proud of the important work our little but mighty team that investigated research misconduct accomplished. We did good,” Sacknovitz wrote on LinkedIn.
A former government employee who asked to remain anonymous also expressed gratitude for the opportunities the job offered. “I’m thankful for the colleagues that remain, and I know that they have science’s best interest at heart and researchers’ best interest at heart,” the former employee said. “In my heart, I’m hoping that they actually get to do their job.”
But it’s not these agencies that will feel the biggest impact of the departures, Coleman said. “It’s going to be the scientific community. Most people who work at universities want to do the right thing and do the right thing, but there are bad actors,” he said. “If you don’t have people overseeing that area, then some of them might be able to avoid the consequences of their actions.”
This story was updated on Feb. 28, 2025 to include Lerner and Chason’s departure and comment from Garfinkel.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].
ori is a waste of tax$$$.
Could you please elaborate on that ? And maybe on the strategies / agencies that could tackle science fraud better than ORI does ?
It’s irksome that every comment I leave on this website requires approval by moderators, but garbage takes like the one above get through unscathed. As already responded, it would be useful if the owner of this knee-jerk reply could elaborate on exactly how ORI is a waste? Perhaps they could do some reading first, such as the study showing each retracted paper amounts to $400k of wasted grant funding (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25124673/). A handful of retractions equates to the entirety of the ORI budget, yet there are thousands of retractions every year – the latter where the waste is!
People who say ORI is a waste of taxes or that ORI is ineffective have obviously never worked with ORI. I’ve worked with ORI on numerous cases over a 10+ year period. The research integrity landscape would be much worse if it wasn’t for ORI’s work. They do so much more than just make research misconduct findings.
As someone working in research integrity and COI- I’m waiting for positions like mine to be pulled bc the feds are tugging at uni purse strings. So…. to remove fraud waste and abuse, we are firing all the people to work on it instead of looking at process and policy first? I mean why sound so logical during these illogical times…
To me, ORI’s work seems redundant with university ad-hoc integrity committees that investigate known incidences of fraud. For example, it was the UM that presumably put pressure on Lesne to resign, and not the ORI.
When did firing scientists, park rangers, air traffic controllers and ORI staff become a better idea than simply taxing billionaires?