The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is a federal regulatory authority housed within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. While perusing through the case updates on the ORI website, I came across a case involving a former graduate student. As a graduate student myself, this case interested me so I decided to investigate further.
Highlights from the case are as follows: A former graduate student, Logan Fuford, at the University of Cincinnati (UC) was accused of intentionally falsifying data in a cancer research study (Office of Research Integrity, 2020). Fulford was accused of altering several images and figures to fit his conclusion that the protein “FOXF1 promotes prostate cancer” (Marcus, 2020). The case was ultimately settled without an admission of responsibility (Office of Research Integrity, 2020). Fulford, now a senior researcher at IQVIA, a Multinational Research Firm, accepted ORI restrictions and required supervision for future research conducted over the next two years (Office of Research Integrity, 2020; Marcus, 2020).
Settlement of the case without admission of guilt allows Fulford to remain a senior level researcher in the scientific community. His falsified research can still be found on research gate along with the complete list of co-authors. The ORI summary of this case made no mention of co-authors or whether they were held responsible for Fulford's actions.
Moreover, the fact that Fulford was a graduate student when the falsification took place leaves one to wonder if his faculty were knowing conspirators? It is difficult to imagine that a faculty member would be complicit in falsifying data. However, it is also difficult to imagine that a graduate student would be able to successfully hide it from them. The possibility of a faculty member collaborating in the falsification of data opens the door for more ethical questions.
Should faculty be held accountable for their graduate student’s research misconduct?
The University of Cincinnati’s Research Misconduct policies, in accordance with Public Health Science policy states, “[s]upervisors of research shall bear responsibility for the ethical conduct of research in their own unit as well as the laboratories of their collaborators” (University of Cincinnati,p. 2, 2008). This policy suggests that Fulford's faculty could be held responsible whether or not they were known conspirators.
The University of Cincinnati has yet to make a public statement on the case which concluded in May of 2020. Perhaps, the settlement has convinced university administrators that there is no need to take further action. Nonetheless, it is disheartening to consider that another graduate student might be supervised by the same faculty as Fulford. Or that Fulford himself will publish another possibly unreliable scientific study that will go into circulation.
References
Case Summary: Fulford, Logan | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity. (2020, May 19).
Ori.Hhs.Gov. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-fulford-logan
Marcus, A. A. (2020, May 21). Former grad student faked cancer research data, says
federal watchdog. Retraction Watch.
research-data-says-federal-watchdog/
Office of Research Integrity - Overview. (2008, January 29). Research.Uc.Edu.
https://research.uc.edu/support/offices/office-of-research-integrity/overview