Scientific Data Fabrication Prosecutions
Scientific Data Fabrication Prosecutions: Overview
What is Scientific Data Fabrication?
Scientific data fabrication involves intentionally falsifying or inventing data or results in research. It is a form of scientific misconduct that undermines the integrity of research and can have serious consequences, including public harm (e.g., faulty drugs or policies), loss of funding, and legal sanctions.
Legal and Institutional Framework
Federal Research Misconduct Policies: Agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) have strict rules against fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP).
False Claims Act (FCA): Used when fabricated data leads to false claims for federal research funding.
Fraud Statutes: Wire fraud and mail fraud statutes apply when federal funds are involved.
Civil and Criminal Penalties: Researchers may face sanctions, loss of funding, or criminal charges.
Notable Scientific Data Fabrication Prosecutions and Cases
1. United States v. Dong-Pyou Han (2015)
Facts: Dr. Dong-Pyou Han, a biomedical researcher at Iowa State University, fabricated data in HIV vaccine research, falsely inflating effectiveness.
Charges: Wire fraud for submitting falsified data in grant applications to NIH.
Outcome: Pleaded guilty, sentenced to 4.5 years in prison, and ordered to repay $7.2 million in grants.
Significance: Landmark federal prosecution showing the government’s commitment to combat research fraud.
2. United States ex rel. Franklin v. Parke-Davis (2004)
Facts: Involved falsification of clinical trial data by a pharmaceutical company to promote off-label use of the drug Neurontin.
Charges: False Claims Act violation for fraudulent claims submitted to Medicaid and Medicare.
Outcome: Company paid $430 million settlement; whistleblowers received a share.
Significance: Shows corporate liability and use of FCA in prosecuting data fabrication linked to public health fraud.
3. University of California v. Marc Hauser (2010)
Facts: Harvard professor Marc Hauser was found to have fabricated data in multiple published studies in psychology.
Charges: Though no criminal charges, Hauser was sanctioned by the university, lost funding, and retracted papers.
Outcome: Resigned from Harvard; investigations led to stricter research oversight.
Significance: Illustrates consequences of data fabrication in academia, even without criminal prosecution.
4. United States v. Elizabeth A. Bentley (2018)
Facts: Dr. Bentley, a cancer researcher, fabricated data in NIH grant applications and published studies.
Charges: Wire fraud and making false statements to federal agencies.
Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to probation and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance: Reinforces that individuals who commit research fraud using federal funds face criminal prosecution.
5. In re John Darsee (Harvard University, 1981)
Facts: Darsee was found to have fabricated data in dozens of scientific publications in cardiology.
Charges: Though no criminal prosecution, NIH revoked funding, and his career ended.
Outcome: Institutional disciplinary action and loss of funding.
Significance: One of the earliest high-profile cases that brought national attention to scientific misconduct.
6. United States v. Anil Potti (Case Publicized 2010s)
Facts: Potti was accused of fabricating or manipulating data in cancer research at Duke University.
Charges: Though no criminal charges, Potti resigned after investigations, and clinical trials were halted.
Outcome: Institutional sanctions and loss of research privileges.
Significance: Shows how data fabrication scandals can end promising careers and delay medical advancements.
Legal Themes in Scientific Data Fabrication Cases
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Use of Federal Funds | Most criminal cases involve false statements or fraud connected to federal research grants. |
| False Claims Act | Whistleblowers often use FCA to sue researchers or companies for submitting false data claims. |
| Institutional vs. Criminal | Universities usually handle early investigations, but egregious cases lead to prosecution. |
| Civil and Criminal Penalties | Penalties range from funding loss and paper retractions to imprisonment and fines. |
| Public Harm | Cases often involve potential or actual harm from erroneous research findings. |
Conclusion
Scientific data fabrication prosecutions illustrate the critical importance of research integrity. While many cases result in institutional sanctions and retractions, the most serious cases involving federal funding or public harm can lead to criminal charges such as wire fraud and false claims.
RELATED Blog
0 comments