The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

Nearly ninety percent of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

10.7287/peerj.preprints.1577v4 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Lisa Loikith ◽

Robert P Bauchwitz

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Agencies ◽

Physical Sciences ◽

Department Of Health ◽

Nearly ninety percent of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

10.7287/peerj.preprints.1577v3 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Lisa Loikith ◽

Robert P Bauchwitz

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Agencies ◽

Physical Sciences ◽

Department Of Health ◽

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

The essential need for research misconduct allegation audits

10.7287/peerj.preprints.1577v2 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Lisa Loikith ◽

Robert P Bauchwitz

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Research Misconduct ◽

Research Integrity ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Agencies ◽

Physical Sciences ◽

Department Of Health ◽

The percentage of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States that are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record is near 90%. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we describe the laws that empower federal agencies which can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) is overseen by the NSF's OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits as to the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Federal audit standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the handling of research misconduct, would allow a determination as to whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. Specifically, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.

Science, Politics, and the Pandemic

Current History ◽

10.1525/curh.2020.119.820.303 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 119 (820) ◽

pp. 303-309

Author(s):

J. Nicholas Ziegler

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Biomedical Research ◽

Scale Up ◽

Political Leadership ◽

The United States ◽

Scientific Advice ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

Effective Policy ◽

Scientific Expertise ◽

The Uk

Comparing the virus responses in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States shows that in order for scientific expertise to result in effective policy, rational political leadership is required. Each of these three countries is known for advanced biomedical research, yet their experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic diverged widely. Germany’s political leadership carefully followed scientific advice and organized public–private partnerships to scale up testing, resulting in relatively low infection levels. The UK and US political responses were far more erratic and less informed by scientific advice—and proved much less effective.

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Scientific integrity resource guide: Efforts by federal agencies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, and academia in the United States.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.726871553.793526839 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

David Allison

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Nonprofit Organizations ◽

The United States ◽

Federal Agencies ◽

Scientific Integrity ◽

Resource Guide ◽

Professional Societies

THE TEN-STATE NUTRITION SURVEY: A PEDIATRIC PERSPECTIVE

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.51.6.1095 ◽

1973 ◽

Vol 51 (6) ◽

pp. 1095-1099

Author(s):

Charles U. Lowe ◽

Gilbert B. Forbes ◽

Stanley Garn ◽

George M. Owen ◽

Nathan J. Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

New York ◽

South Carolina ◽

Selection Process ◽

The United States ◽

Food Utilization ◽

Nutrition Survey ◽

Dietary Recall ◽

Department Of Health ◽

The Individual

In 1967 the 90th Congress of the United States attached an amendment to the Partnership for Health Act requiring the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to undertake a survey of "the incidence and location of serious hunger and malnutrition–in the United States." In response to the legislative mandate the Ten-State Nutrition Survey was conducted during the years 1968 through 1970. The sample was selected from urban and rural families living in the following ten states: New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, California, Washington, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and South Carolina. The families selected were those living in some of the census enumeration districts that made up the lowest economic quartiles of their respective states at the time of the 1960 census. During the eight years after the 1960 census the social and economic characteristics found in some of the individual enumeration districts had changed, so that there was a significant numer of families in the surveys with incomes well above the lowest income quartile. Thus, it was possible in analyzing results to make some comparisons on an economic basis. Thirty thousand families were identified in the selection process; 23,846 of these participated in the survey. Data regarding more than 80,000 individuals were obtained through interviews and 40,847 of these individuals were examined. The survey included the following: extensive demographic information on each of the participating families; information regarding food utilization of the family; a 24-hour dietary recall for infants up to 36 months of age, children 10 to 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating women, and individuals over 60 years of age.

Arizona Reopening Phase 2: Rise and Fall of COVID-19 Cases

Medical & Clinical Research ◽

10.33140/mcr.06.023 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (5) ◽

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Longitudinal Study ◽

Health Services ◽

The United States ◽

The State ◽

Acquired Immunity ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Department Of Health ◽

The World ◽

Data Source

Of the United States 50 states, Arizona is the sixth largest in size. It is about the same size as Italy. After three months of Arizona Reopening Phase 2, the COVID-19 cases had surged. In early January 2021, ABC and NBC News reported that Arizona has the highest new cases per capital in the world. This longitudinal study examined the Arizona’s Reopening Phase 2 surge in cases. The study examined the changes in the numbers of testing given, new COVID-19 cases, cases that required hospitalizations, deaths, and vaccines given. The data source used was from the Arizona Department of Health Services COVID-19 dashboard database. During the last third of seven-month study period, Arizona’s case numbers declined as the number of those infected recovered and acquired immunity and the state residents became fully vaccinated increased.