“These findings are unjustified.”
That’s how a biologist at the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Chicago described the conclusions of a federal investigation that found she had faked images and inflated sample sizes in published papers and a grant application. The biologist, Hee-Jeong Im Sampen, has been banned from conducting VA research.
Sampen, also a research professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, said that “any errors that occurred involved discrete erroneously-placed figures or images” that “in no way undermine our basic conclusions and findings.”
Calling the episode a “long and hard battle for me,” Sampen sent us these comments:
These findings are unjustified. They impose responsibility vicariously for claimed misinformation in scientific figures. In other words, conclusory charges of “misconduct” are repeatedly made based on my supervisory role. In the committee’s view, the person who actually caused the misinformation (unintentionally) to be placed is irrelevant. Tagging me as accountable for a lab member’s error, and calling it research misconduct, is so much easier. Fundamental principles of what constitute “misconduct” have been ignored.
In addition, the entire investigation has been a travesty. Witnesses with whom I was forbidden from communicating offered evidence against me in secret interviews. At the same time, the investigation committee was given unfettered ability to meet with witnesses and prompt unfavorable testimony. The fact that such conduct occurred speaks to the utterly decrepit institutional procedures in place that allowed it to happen. No witness was ever subject to questioning on my behalf. Nor were questions asked seeking to elicit answers favorable to me. Favorable responses that, by chance, happened to be made were disregarded. Similarly, the written statements I offered from former lab members and colleagues who know me best and who attested to my integrity, have been given no consideration whatever.
No evidence was provided under oath! Fact issues thus abound throughout the proceedings. Yet no impartial decision maker has ever evaluated the evidence to determine the actual facts. Rather, the investigation committee made routine inferences against me on a wholesale basis and largely ignored my written responses. The committee’s conclusions then were rubber stamped by VA administrators who raised no questions and heard no witnesses. In fact, I requested but was denied a hearing on the allegations. Likewise, my request simply to meet with VA administrators was denied.
Finally, I would add that the misconduct findings are made with respect to a tiny fraction of the huge volume of data generated by our lab. (I have authored or co-authored nearly 200 publications over 25 years.) I do not say that to justify any errors that may have occurred in our publications. I regret and am embarrassed by each and every error. But any errors that occurred involved discrete erroneously-placed figures or images. They in no way undermine our basic conclusions and findings. No allegation asserts otherwise, and our findings may be readily replicated.
In other words, the scientific validity of my lab’s research and findings have never been questioned. Unfortunately, the Federal Register report, while generous in the negative aspersions it casts, makes no mention of the important contributions our work has offered the scientific community – contributions that far overshadow the technical errors that were the subject of the investigation.
In short, the VA’s reported findings appear to serve some VA administrative purpose and led to my termination, but they lack validity from a legal, ethical, and practical scientific perspective.
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 The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
I’m afraid I don’t understand what “discrete erroneously-placed figures or images” means. Were corrections requested by the authors when the errors were pointed out?
I would point out that the findings did not mention “erroneously-placed figures or images.” Rather the findings mention “Fabricating/falsifying images inflating the “n” (sample size) values.”
Perhaps Dr. Sampen could share the investigative report and her written responses so unbiased readers could see the support for her statements above.
Typo: “Fabricating/falsifying images AND inflating the “n” (sample size) values.”
“In the committee’s view, the person who actually caused the misinformation (unintentionally) to be placed is irrelevant. Tagging me as accountable for a lab member’s error, and calling it research misconduct, is so much easier.”
Almost like managers and supervisors are responsible for the actions of their subordinates.
RONG
200 papers in 25 years? That is an average of 8 a year, or a paper every month and a half. Does anyone else find that concerning? How would you have time to eat or sleep or do anything else?
That’s a productive lab, but not at all outrageous. Big science at work.
The saying of innocent until proven guilty. Even if there are findings of falsification of data and inflated sample size from the federal agency, she should be granted a hearing or a meeting with the VA so that she could have her side heard. It is only fair after that that they should proceed to ban her and retract her work.