医学科研伦理-课件(下)

PlagiarismDefinition:Theappropriationofanotherperson'sideas,processes,results,orwordswithoutgivingappropriatecredit.ORI'spolicyonPlagiarismexcludes:thelimiteduseofidenticalornearly-identical(general)phrasesthatarenotsubstantiallymisleadingorofgreatsignificancedisputesamongformercollaborators ORIfoundthattheRespondentengagedinresearchmisconductbyplagiarizingsignificantportionsfromresearchgrantapplicationR21AR061881thatshehadreviewedforNIAMS,NIH,andinsertingthattextintohersubmittedgrantapplicationR01AR062378-01.RespondentalsoplagiarizedsignificantportionsoftextfromthefollowingscientificarticlesandoneU.S.patentapplicationavailableontheInternet:Settlement:Tohaveherresearchsupervised;Sametootherinstitutes;Excludedfromanyadvisorycapacity;DefinitionsofmisconductResearchmisconductisdefinedasfabrication,falsification,orplagiarisminproposing,performing,orreviewingresearch,orinreportingresearchresults,accordingto42CFRPart93. IMPORTANT:ResearchmisconductdoesNOTincludehonesterrorordifferencesofopinion /grants/research_integrity/research_misconduct.htm?print=yes&/2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/the-baltimore-case/The“BaltimoreCase”Thedifferencebetweenmakingamistakeandcommittingfraudisoneofintention,andit’softenafineandobscureline.Thatbecameclearin1989,whenCongressopenedhearingsintoallegedmisconductbyTherezaImanishi-Kari,anassistantinthelabofNobellaureateDavidBaltimoreatMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.In1985,BaltimoreandImanisi-Karihadpublishedapaperdescribingtheirsuccessininjectingamousewithagenethataltereditsimmunesystemsotheanimalcouldproduceantibodiesagainstagivenbacteriaorvirus.Thefindingsraisedthepossibilitythatthehumanimmunesystemcouldbemodifiedinthesameway,enhancingourabilitytowardoffinfections.Apostdoctoralfellowworkinginthelabfailedtoreproducetheresults,however,andthoseconcernseventuallyledtotheCongressionalhearingsinwhichBaltimorestaunchlydefendedthework.Imanishi-KariwasfoundguiltyofscientificfraudandBaltimore’sreputationwastarnishedbyassociation,leadinghimtoresignfromhisnewpositionaspresidentofRockefellerUniversity.In1996,however,anappealsboardoftheNationalInstitutesofHealthre-analyzedthecaseanddeterminedthatthepaperdidnotcontainfraudulentdata,buterrorsthatbothco-authorslateracknowledged.Imanishi-KariwasexoneratedandBaltimorewentontohelmCaliforniaInstituteofTechnology./2012/01/13/great-science-frauds/slide/the-baltimore-case/LukVanParijs’caseFormerAssociateProfessorofbiologyattheMITCenterforCancerResearch.Afterinvestigatingforayear,MITfiredVanParijsforresearchmisconduct:fabricatingandfalsifyingresearchdatainapaper,severalunpublishedmanuscripts,andgrantapplications.InMarch2011,VanParijspleadedguiltyinaU.S.DistrictCourtinBostontoonecountofmakingafalsestatementonafederalgrantapplication.ThegovernmentaskedJudgeDeniseCasperfora6-monthjailtermbecauseoftheseriousnessofthefraud,whichinvolveda$2-milliongrant.AfterseveralprominentscientistsincludingVanParijs'formerpost-docsupervisorpleadingforclemencyonhisbehalf,on13June,VanParijswasfinallysentencedsixmonthsofhomedetentionwithelectronicmonitoring,plus400hoursofcommunityserviceandapaymenttoMITof$61,117-restitutionforthealready-spentgrantmoneythatMIThadtoreturntotheNationalInstitutesofHealthVanParijs'areaofresearchwasintheuseofsiRNAinstudyingdiseasemechanism,expeciallyinautoimmunediseases.HewasstudyingnormalimmunecellfunctionanddefectsinthesecellsduringdiseasedevelopmentVanParijswasfirstaccusedofmisconductin2004.VanParijshadapparentlyattributedresultspresentedatanMITsymposiumtotwopostdocswhohadnotobtainedthem.WhenfourpostdocsandagraduatestudentchallengedVanParijs,hewasunabletoexplainwhyhe'dmadetheclaims,sotheynotifiedMIT.Inresponsetotheseallegations,theMITclosedVanParijs'slab,terminatedrelevantgrantsandstoppedthesubmissionofpapers.Finally,inOctober2005,theuniversityfiredhim.Forinstance,VanParijsandotherspublishedimagesintheJournalofImmunologyinwhichtheyrepresentedtheresultsofatestfortheproteins,Bcl-2andβ-actin5.VanParijsthenusedthesameimagesinapaperpublishedbyImmunity4,butsayingthattheycamefromtestsfordifferentproteins,RasandRas-GTP./news/2009/090203/full/news.2009.74.htmlLukVanParijs’case–cont.Requirementsformakingafinding

ofresearchmisconduct

42CFR93.104Therebeasignificantdeparturefromacceptedpracticesoftherelevantresearchcommunity;Themisconductbecommittedintentionally,knowingly,orrecklessly;andTheallegationbeprovenbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.NOTE:TheRegulationimposesa6-yeartimelimitationforoccurrencesofresearchmisconducttobebroughttotheattentionofaninstitutionortheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices(HHS)(see§93.105)

NIH是如何处理misconduct的/all/2012/03/16/nih-and-research-misconduct/NIHProcessforHandlingResearch

MisconductAllegationsWhathappensifthereisafindingofresearchmisconduct?IfanindividualinvolvedinNIHfundedresearchisfoundtohavecommittedresearchmisconduct,theadministrativeactionsPHS/HHSmaytakeagainsttheminclude,butarenotlimitedto:终止接受联邦科研和协议资助的合法性,禁止参加PHS有关的委员会，评审组的一切活动。certificationofinformationsourcesbytherespondentthatisforwardedbytheinstitution,certificationofdatabytheinstitution,impositionofsupervisionontherespondentbytheinstitution,submissionofacorrectionofpublishedarticlesbytherespondent,andsubmissionofaretraction