Title | An Instance of Fraud |
Long Title | An Instance of Fraud |
Contributor/Contact | John Banja, PhD? (jbanja@emory.edu) |
Contributor Details |
John Banja, PhD? Director, Section on Ethics in Research Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 |
CTSA | Emory |
Case Study Provided |
Some years ago, a graduate student obtained some funding from an external, private source that would support his stipend, enable him to travel, and, very importantly, allow him to purchase supplies (e.g., cells and reagents) for his research. This funding came as a considerable relief because the University had recently had to assume significant budget cuts in research programs, and the student anticipated needing some expensive materials for his research. As the student tried to move his project forward, however, he was stymied by the PI (who was also the lab director) who refused the student’s requests for supplies and reagents. The PI explained that “the funds are no longer there,” and that the student should cease making inquiries regarding the nature and amount of his grant monies. The student finally approached the Dean of Research and explained his concerns. The Dean’s response was much in line with the PI’s: That the University has had to cut budgets, that the PI has the authority over expenditures, that everyone must make do in these hard times, and that the student should simply accept these limitations and be grateful he still has his entire stipend. The Dean also noted that the PI is one of the University’s most valued faculty members and that any public accusations against him would be intolerable. The student tried one more strategy: He requested and received a full audit of his grant from the lab’s financial administrator. As the student reviewed an itemized list of purchases charged to the grant, he noted multiple travel expenses, costs for reagents and cells, and some other items that were never used in his project. The student returned to the Dean’s office with these findings. The Dean became very upset and said, “You had no right to request this. It is very clear to me that you are not the kind of team player we expect our students to be here. By doing this, you should know you have jeopardized your career here and anywhere else for that matter.” Traumatized by the exchange, the student wondered what to do next. |
Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Topics |
Ethical values behind the scientific standards for data acquisition_management_sharing and ownership, Variations in lab practices—legitimate and illegitimate variations |
Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities Topics |
Power relationships and the potential problems they involve, Scientific responsibilities of the mentor, Addressing challenges and problems in the mentor–trainee relationship |
Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Topics | No publication practices and responsible authorship topics |
Peer Review Topics | No peer review topics |
Collaborative Science Topics | No collaborative science topics |
Research Misconduct Topics |
Significance of misconduct, Other serious deviations from scientific best practices, Regulations and policies addressing misconduct, Responding to observed misconduct |
Conflicts of Interest, Law and Policy Topics | No conflicts of interest_law_and policy topics |
Human Subjects | No human subjects |
Citation | |
URL | http://www.actsi.org/areas/erks/ethics/index.html |
RCR Keyword | Research Misconduct, Grant, Lab Partners, Mentoring, Students |
Other RCR Keywords | Authority; Budget Cuts; Cells; Dean of Research; Expenditures; Fraud; Full Audit; Graduate Student; Lab Director; Lab’s Financial Administrator; PI; Private Funding; Purchase Supplies; Reagents; Stipend; Team Player; Travel |
Type of Case | |
Source for Topic Areas | Du Bois, J., & Dueker, J. (2009). Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49-70. |
References | |
Other |