Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:43:29.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Consequences of Research Misconduct: False Investigators and Grant Proposals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Eric A. Fong ,
Allen W. Wilhite ,
Charles Hickman  and
Yeolan Lee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a survey on research misconduct, roughly 20% of the respondents admitted that they have submitted federal grant proposals that include scholars as research participants even though those scholars were not expected to contribute to the research effort. This manuscript argues that adding such false investigators is illegal, violating multiple federal statutes including the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. §1001), the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §3729), and False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Claims (18 U.S.C. §287). Moreover, it is not only the offending academics and the false investigators that face civil and criminal penalties because administrators may also be liable if they sign off on proposals and are in a position to know that false investigators might be included. Policy recommendations that should reduce the use of false investigators include changing institutional cultures, better training and oversight of the responsible conduct of research, and, most importantly, making all grant reviews double blind.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue 2: Opioid Controversies: The Crisis — Causes and Solutions , Summer 2020 , pp. 331 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fong, E. A. and Wilhite, A. W., “Authorship and Citation Manipulation in Academic Research,” PLoS One 12, no. 12 (2017): e0187394, available at <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394> (last visited May 5, 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 U.S.C. §1001 (2006); 31 U.S.C. §3729 (2009); 18 U.S.C. §287 (1986).Google Scholar
Jacob, M. M, “Under Repair: A Publication Ethics and Research Record in the Making,” Social Studies of Science 49, no. 1 (2019): 77-101, at 78-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., and Martinson, B.C., “The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists' Work and Relationships,” Science and Engineering Ethics 13, no. 4 (2007): 437-461; Fanelli, D., “Negative Results are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries,” Scientometrics 90, no. 3 (2012): 891-904; Martinson, B. C., Crain, A. L., Anderson, M. S., and De Vries, R., “Institutions' Expectations for Researchers' Self-Funding, Federal Grant Holding, and Private Industry Involvement: Manifold Drivers of Self-Interest and Researcher Behavior,” Academic Medicine 84, no. 11 (2009): 1491-1499.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D., “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data,” PLoS One 4, no. 5 (2009): e3573, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738; Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., and Oransky, I., “Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam,” Nature 515, no. 7528 (2014): 480-482; Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., and Fontanarosa, P. B., “Prevalence of Articles with Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals,” JAMA 280, no. 3 (1998): 222-224; Martin, B. R., “Whither Research Integrity? Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism and Coercive Citation in an Age of Research Assessment,” Research Policy 42, no. 5 (2013): 1005-1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. B., and Fan, F. C., “Financial Costs and Personal Consequences of Research Misconduct Resulting in Retracted Publications,” eLife (2014): e02956, DOI: 10.7554/eLife.02956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Fong and Wilhite, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services 42CFR Parts 50 and 93, Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule, Federal Register (17 May 2005).Google Scholar
§3729, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Act of March 2, 1863, 12 Stat. 696 (1863).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
§3729(1)(G), supra note 2.Google Scholar
United States ex rel. Rose v. Stephens Inst., 901 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2018).Google Scholar
Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016).Google Scholar
United States v. Luce, 873 F.3d 999 (7th Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
U.S. ex rel. Feldman v. van Gorp and Cornell University Medical College, 697 F.3d 78 (2nd Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
Ex rel. longhi v. Lithium Power Techs., 575 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
Hubbard v. U.S., 514 U.S. 695, 706 (1995).Google Scholar
Public Law (Pub. L.) 80–772, 62 Statues at Large (Stat.) 683, (1948).Google Scholar
§1001, supra note 2.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Anghaie, 1:09-CR-3 (N.D. Fla. 2011); U.S. v. Keller-mann, 992 F. 2d 177 (8th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Thomson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68759 *; 2015 WL 3440858 (D. So. Dakota 2015).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Ding and Zotova, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88320 (E.D. Pa. 2016).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Calhoon, 97 F.3d 518 (11th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Delgado, 668 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
Milton v. U.S., 8 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir 1993).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Curran, 20 F.3d 560, 565 (3rd Cir 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Fong and Wilhite, supra note 1.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Calhoon, supra note 23.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Gilliand, 312 U.S. 86, 89 (1941); U.S. v. Des Jardins, 722 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Fitzgibbon, 619 F.2d 874, 878 (10th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Calhoon, supra note 23.Google Scholar
See Fong and Wilhite, supra note 1.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Chen, 324 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995).Google Scholar
Gallini, N. and Scotchmer, S., “Intellectual Property: When is it the Best Incentive System?” Innovation Policy and the Economy 2 (2002): 51-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proposal and award policies and procedures guide, NSF, 17-1 OMB Control Number 3145-0058 (2017).Google Scholar
See Fong and Wilhite, supra note 1.Google Scholar
U.S. ex rel. Daniel Feldman v. Wilfred van Gorp and Cornell University Medical College, 697 F.3d 78 (2nd Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Hsia, 176 F.3d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
See Fong and Wilhite, supra note 1.Google Scholar
U.S. v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (U.S. S. Ct 1984); U.S. v. Heuer, 4 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Ross, 77 F.3d 1523 (7th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Shaffer, 199 F.3d 826, 829 (6th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Anghaie, supra note 20; U.S. v. Anghaie, 633 Fed. Appx. 514 (11th Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
U.S. v. Ding and Zotova, supra note 22.Google Scholar
Boutron, I. and Ravaud, P., “Misrepresentation and Distortion of Research in Biomedical Literature,” PNAS 115, no. 11 (2018): 2613-2619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Fanelli, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Steen, R. G., “Retractions in the Medical Literature: How Many Patients are Put at Risk by Flawed Research?” Journal of Medical Ethics 37, no. 11 (2011): 688-692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Stern et al., supra note 6; Michalek, A.M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., and Trump, D. L., “The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study,’ PLoS Medicine 7, no. 8 (2010): e1000318, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318; Gammon, E. and Franzini, L., “Research Misconduct Oversight: Defining Case Costs,” Journal of Health Care Finance 40, no. 2 (2013): 75-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sovacool, B. K., “Using Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 5 (2005): W1-W7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegemann-Boehl, S., “Misconduct in Science and the German Law,” Science and Engineering Ethics 6, no. 1 (2000): 57-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, S. and Lemmens, T., “Legal Remedies for Medical Ghost-writing: Imposing Fraud Liability on Guest Authors of Ghost-written Articles,” PLoS Medicine 8, no. 8 (2011): e1001070, available at <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001070> (last visited May 5, 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Fong and Wilhite, supra note 1.Google Scholar
See Stegmann-Boehl, supra note 49.Google Scholar
Vasgird, D. R., “Prevention Over Cure: The Administrative Rationale for Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research,” Academic Medicine 82, no. 9 (2007): 835-837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar