Ten years after a neuroscientist was fired from his job at a Veterans Administration Medical Center, he has won a challenge of the decision.
Wayne State University, where the researcher, Christian Kreipke, was studying traumatic brain injury, fired him in February 2012 following a research misconduct investigation that found he had faked data. At the time Kreipke had a dual appointment at the John D. Dingell Veterans Administration Medical Center in Detroit.
Kreipke maintains that Wayne State investigated him in retaliation for asking questions about how the university administered grant funding. He filed a whistleblower lawsuit after he was fired alleging that the university had committed grant fraud against the federal government, to the tune of $169 million. In 2014, a judge dismissed the case.
In 2018, Kreipke was banned from receiving U.S. government funding for five years, after he went to court to challenge the Office of Research Integrity’s findings that he engaged in research misconduct. His challenge was unsuccessful, and the ban runs until July of this year.
Following another research misconduct investigation, the VA terminated Kreipke in October 2013, when his temporary appointment expired. The agency also banned him from receiving internal research funding for 10 years.
Kreipke, who has been working in the auto industry, appealed the actions, which he alleged were retaliatory, to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative judge ruled in his favor in an initial decision in 2017. The VA asked for a review of that decision, which the board upheld in its final decision, issued May 16.
According to the final decision, the VA had the “ultimate burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel actions in the absence of [Kreipke’s] protected disclosures.”
The board affirmed the administrative judge’s initial decision that the VA did not meet this burden, even when considering the retraction of four of Kreipke’s journal articles which the agency submitted as additional evidence. The final decision stated:
to the extent that the agency has submitted the retractions to impeach the appellant’s credibility, it has not shown that this evidence is new and material.
Kreipke has now had six articles retracted, by our count.
The board’s final decision ordered the VA to rescind its termination of Kreipke’s appointment and a grant that was active at the time, as well as the 10-year funding ban, and to give him back pay with interest.
“No money can restore the 12 years or more he has lost out of the field of scientific research to clear his name,” Shereef Akeel, Kreipke’s lawyer, told us. He said:
Unfortunately, the damages that he has suffered are devastating and long lasting. As an upcoming scientist, who was making scientific breakthroughs in his field, to be retaliated in such a horrific manner for blowing the whistle simply shocks the conscious. Every American needs to know what happened to Professor Kreipke so it never happens again.
The John D. Dingell VA Medical Center in Detroit has not responded to our request 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].
All fraudsters take note… if you accuse your institution of fraud, you yourself can’t be fired for fraud because it would be retaliation.
This will simply embolden the bad scientists, adding another get-out clause to the several they already have available. Not a good day for science.
Yes, a bad day for science, but seems not so bad for lawyers…
I believe it’s even worse than that: if my understanding is correct, this case is against a VA hospital, but his alleged whistleblowing was against a university. Even so, the judge in the ORI case thoroughly debunked the whistleblowing claim as entirely and plainly concocted ex post facto. Nonetheless, Why does the VA, but not Wayne State University, get dinged for supposed whistleblowing against the university but not against VA? The logic is entirely full of holes
Where do these Merit Systems Protection judges get their law degrees? It seems that, even though the ORI judge erred by finding the guy guilty only of reckless misconduct, at least he saw through the ridiculousness of some of the arguments.
I don’t understand the basis for this decision. It appears uncontested that Dr Kreipke presented fraudulent data at a VA research day and included fraudulent data in grant applications to VA. This was established by identifying the original image files on his computer and showing that they did not match the data in the grants. I am a VA investigator/employee with an academic appointment at an affiliated university. If I did this I would expect to be fired. Does the judge think that all VA investigators make up their data but Dr Kreipke was somehow discriminated against because he got caught making up data at the affiliated university which then reasonably prompted VA to undertake their own investigation? Does the judge also think that all of this should be negated because it was “retaliation” for his whistleblowing. What about balancing this against the need to protect science and the integrity of scientific research from people like Dr Kreipke who make things up?
I think the question is more about employment law than about the fraudulent science. A judge has to apply the law, and if the law does not consider such fraud sufficient reason for immediate firing, then he has to judge in favour of the fraudster. It *should* be the law that universities are *required* to fire fraudulent researchers, but that is not the case yet.
Exactly- obviously now anybody considering doing some fraud just needs a whistleblower complaint on file as a get out of scientific jail free card…
Wait, this guy works as an Engineer in the Ford from 2015. His LinkedIn profile says he has a PhD in neuroscience. How’s that possible?
In America engineering isn’t the same as other places. You can be an “engineer” with a high school degree.
I am a licensed engineer in the state of Florida. In Florida and every other state that I am aware of, one must graduate from an ABET accredited program in engineering. Then pass the NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering exam followed by working in the field for at least 5 years under a licensed engineer. At that time one must sit for another examination for licensing.
Please tell me where one can advertise and work as an engineer with a high school degree.
Well, I think most states have a statute like Maryland’s. It says
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) an individual who practices engineering while performing official duties as an officer or employee of the federal government;
(2) a regular employee of a public utility company while providing engineering services to any facility of the company that the State or federal government regulates to safeguard life, health, and property;
(3) an officer or employee of a corporation, while the officer or employee practices engineering under the conditions authorized under § 14-302 of this subtitle;
The section 14-302 exemption includes manufacturers and firms that do R&D for the federal government. So IBM or Ford can hire engineers without regard to registration for almost all engineering tasks.
I’m not registered but I have had multiple jobs in the federal government with engineer in the job title.
A PhD in neuroscience doesn’t mean you can’t do other things. It’s still a science-based PhD.
Kreipke was fired from Wayne but his misconduct did not reach the level of fraud committed by Fazlul Sarkar. Remember him? Yet, Sarkar was not fired by Wayne. Instead, he kept his job for one more year after the investigation! And Sarkar was also not indicted by ORI or banned from getting federal grants in spite of having many more NIH/DOD grants and having committed more fraud than Kreipke, based on the number of retractions. Neither WSU nor ORI took serious action against Sarkar. Why? It doesn’t add up.
Due to the academic research community’s preferences (ala 1993?) ORI’s focus has been necessarily on who can be proven to have actually (knowingly) falsified the research (“fingers” required, so-to-speak.)
And in fact there was a PHS finding in what you refer to as the Sarkar case. There is a far better example of a troubling “no-finding” for a past PHS case with multiple retractions, however!
From the Village Presbyterian Church Bulletin, Vol 72, No. 3: Our guest organist, Dr. Christian Kreipke, moved to Overland Park in October 2019 due to his position with Ford Motor Company. Prior to Kansas City, Christian lived in Louisville, Kentucky, where he attended Highland Presbyterian Church. Upon the news that he was moving to Overland Park, the head pastor immediately told Christian to check out Village Presbyterian. His is so glad he did! Christian studied organ with Professor Ray Ferguson at Wayne State University prior to attending medical school in Cuba. After a 12 year career in medicine, Christian then joined Ford Motor Company as a launch engineer and now serves as the chief talent ambassador to Ford, globally. No matter what he does, Christian still feels most at home at either the piano or organ bench.
Now he attended medical school in Cuba! A 12 year career in medicine!
Dr. Brookes: you are absolutely and directly on target.
“It’s a witch hunt, the likes of which we’ve never seen before…”
“It’s a hoax.”
“Political vendetta!”
“…chief talent ambassador to Ford, globally.”
Well I’m presidential talent ambassador to American Motors, universally!
Seriously, what is “talent ambassador to Ford? And what is it: launch engineer or talent ambassador? Or Ford Pro brand manager? (“https://stnonline.com/multimedia/watch-ford-pro-at-act-expo/)
I may have read the Detroit News article incorrectly but it seems the first two protected disclosures were made 6 and 8 months prior to the university making allegations of research misconduct.
My recollection is that the judge in the ORI case dissected the whistleblower claim and found the following:
1. In ALL the evidence used to assert whistle blowing status, there was NOT A SINGLE specific comment that addressed grant fraud by the university (e.g.: “I find no overt allegation of grant fraud in the section Respondent drafted. It is suggested in the report that WSU may interpret federal guidelines regarding disallowable costs too strictly. The report also suggests some possible irregularities at WSU based on interpretation and/or application of applicable federal regulations related to effort reporting. R. Ex. 22 at 6. I find in the passage Respondent drafted no specific allegation of grant fraud or any misconduct related grant administration.”)
2. The timeline of ALLEGED disclosures was such that the judge deemed there was no basis for a claim of retaliation (e.g.: “Based on the chronology and the Streamlining Task Force’s report, any assertion that the WSU research misconduct investigation was initiated in retaliation for Respondent’s allegations of improprieties with grant funds reported in the June 27, 2011 task force report is simply not credible.”)
Apparently, the ORI judge independently reviewed the evidence in the case and decided there was no whistle blowing and that Dr. Kripke had engaged in research misconduct. What is incongruous is that based on actual analysis of the evidence, one judge thoroughly dismisses claims of whistleblower status, while another court accepts the claims on their face and rules that the respondent was a victim of whistleblower reprisal.
I don’t know what the Detroit News article you referenced said, but the judge in Kreipke’s ORI case dissected the timeline and documents that Kreipke used to allege reprisal. That judge thoroughly debunked Kreipke’s claim. The early documents had no mention of grant fraud. Kreipke’s ONLY assertion of grant fraud came in his false claims act suit and that happened long after his misconduct proceedings occurred.
As a member of the Research/Publishing Integrity community, I would like people to be aware of the following: while a respondent or his/her representatives may make comments and statements at any time in the process–from accusation through adjudication–the other side (universities, research institutes, investigation committees, etc.) is typically bound by confidentiality rules. Respondents may release anything, while the investigation documentation is kept confidential. As a result, what is seen in the public domain, such as newspaper articles, radio stories, etc., is typically one-sided, in favor of respondents.
To REALLY know what the truth is, one needs expertise and motivation and access. It takes effort. In the present case, I looked at some unretracted papers published by this person’s group. You might find it interesting to look at Neurological Research, 2007, Volume 29, June. Most of the articles in this issue were from the same group and if you look at the figures, read their legends and the articles, you might be surprised by the extent of figure re-use and their descriptions. Of course, a review of these articles does not reveal who was responsible, only that some troubling materials were published. To know more, we would need access to investigation documentation.
Regarding access, we can only look at materials in the public domain. To get a more complete picture of the case, one would also need to know what is in private documents, such as grant applications.
Years ago (probably around 2015?), when my fiancee was a neuroscience PhD student, she came across the Kreipke group papers in “Neurological Research” and noticed problems with much of the data presented in them. She raised the issue with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, the managing editor, the publisher. She asked for at least an expression of concern so that others would be aware and not waste time and effort as she did. The managing editor replied that he “would look into it” and get back to her. There has been no communication from the journal, and apparently no action, since then.