Sentences with phrase «findings of research misconduct»

A pair of Canadian scientists may be running out of options to save their laboratories, which have been permanently closed based on findings of research misconduct.

Respondent neither admits nor denies ORI's findings of research misconduct; the settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent.

How can we take seriously the daily hand - wringing about fraud, non-replication, and biased statistics when in so blatant a case of data manipulation (where flawed predictors were the basis for surgery and chemotherapy regimens) we read: «Respondent neither admits nor denies ORI's findings of research misconduct»?

We are pleased with the finding of research misconduct by the federal Office of Research Integrity related to work done by Dr. Anil Potti.

The following elements describe the type of behavior, level of intent and burden of proof required to support a finding of research misconduct:

(i) When the DOT oversight organization concludes an investigation with a determination of research misconduct, the DOT Office of the Senior Procurement Executive may notify any other sources of research that provide support to the respondent that a finding of research misconduct has been made.

A finding of research misconduct requires that:

Not exact matches

A joint investigation conducted by the State University of New York and the SUNY Research Foundation «found fraud and misconduct» by staff in a Buffalo State College graduate program, according to newly revealed correspondence between the campus president and the state inspector general obtained by The Alt through a Freedom of Information Law request.

The National Science Foundation has closed its investigation into Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann after finding no evidence of scientific misconduct related to his research.

The story got weird last week when we learned that Shunsuke Ishii, the chair of the RIKEN investigating committee that found Obokata guilty of research misconduct, is also under investigation for research misconduct.

► In April, we reported that stem cell scientist Haruko Obokata (the lead author of the two STAP — stimulus - triggered acquisition of pluripotency — papers in Nature) was found guilty of research misconduct by a RIKEN investigating committee.

In a final, anticlimactic twist in the story of Robert Gallo and the discovery of HIV, the US government's Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has withdrawn its finding that the AIDS researcher was guilty of scientific misconduct.

I feel sorry for Haruko Obokata, who has been found guilty of misconduct by her research institute in Japan (19 April, p 7).

I feel sorry for Haruko Obokata, who has been found guilty of misconduct by her research institute in Japan (19...

The Boston Globe reports today that Harvard University cognitive scientist Marc Hauser, who is on leave after a university investigation found evidence of research misconduct in his lab, will not be allowed to teach at the university next year.

Hauser, who resigned from his Harvard faculty position in 2011 after an internal investigation found him responsible for research misconduct, wrote in a statement that although he has «fundamental differences» with some of the new report's findings, «I acknowledge that I made mistakes.»

The ORI report states that Hauser «neither admits nor denies committing research misconduct but accepts ORI has found evidence of research misconduct.»

An investigating committee found numerous problems with the papers and concluded in a 31 March report that two of those, both in the article, constituted research misconduct.

Shunsuke Ishii, the chair of the RIKEN investigating committee that recently found stem cell scientist Haruko Obokata (first author on the Nature papers reporting the STAP results) guilty of research misconduct, is himself under investigation for research misconduct.

The government's Office of Research Integrity had earlier found Popovic guilty of «relatively minor» misconduct based on what the appeals board called a «handful of words and notations... in one heavily edited paper written by a scientist with limited English skills during a volatile period of scientific discovery a decade ago».

Beyond Washington, D.C., ORI has often been criticized for moving too slowly to close cases and for meting out relatively light punishments for those found guilty of research misconduct.

The panel «found substantial evidence that Kajstura may have committed research misconduct acting alone,» according to the court document, and recommended a full investigation of Anversa and Leri «on the theory that they negligently failed to investigate Kajstura's misconduct.»

Instead, it cited the process already in place to handle such disputes: ORI investigates reports of research misconduct at federally funded institutions, and if it finds a researcher has committed misconduct, it sends a «charge letter» outlining its finding and suggesting sanctions.

An investigating committee found the lead author, Haruko Obokata, guilty of research misconduct.

When the NSF - OIG completes an investigation and writes a report, they make a recommendation to the NSF administration, but it's the deputy director who makes the decision whether to declare a «finding» of research misconduct.

Anil Potti, M.D., Duke University School of Medicine: Based on the reports of investigations conducted by Duke University School of Medicine (Duke) and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Anil Potti, former Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 HL072208 and National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, grants R01 CA136530, R01 CA131049, K12 CA100639, R01 CA106520, and U54 CA112952.

As explained in the most detailed account of Wakefield's grotesque misconduct, it rested on the findings (as the BMJ noted) that Wakefield concealed and manipulated the terms of the research study, secretly conducted for a lawsuit, and that not one of the children was reported upon truthfully.

Pingback: Findings of the Office of Research Misconduct on the Duke U (Potti / Nevins) cancer trial fraud: No one is punished but the patients Error Statistics Philosophy

The respondent in a research misconduct finding may appeal through the RTCC to the Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

(2) In all other cases, the contractor may appeal the sanction or corrective action through the DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC) to the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, in writing within 30 calendar days after receiving written notification of the research misconduct finding and associated administrative actResearch and Technology Coordinating Council (RTCC) to the Deputy Secretary of Transportation, in writing within 30 calendar days after receiving written notification of the research misconduct finding and associated administrative actresearch misconduct finding and associated administrative action (s).

Inquiry is preliminary information gathering and fact finding to determine if an allegation, or apparent instance of research misconduct, warrants an investigation.

Pennsylvania State University has found no evidence of research misconduct on the part of Michael Mann, the prominent climatologist who is a leader in efforts to chart Earth's past temperature patterns and has been a longstanding target of groups and individuals fighting restrictions on greenhouse gases.

The National Science Foundation has found no evidence of research misconduct by Michael Mann, the Pennsylvania State University climatologist who has faced waves of attacks from foes of action to curb greenhouse gases.

The NSF review found no «direct evidence of research misconduct,» but it did conclude there were «several concerns raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used.»

Based on the findings of an investigation by Columbia University (CU) and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during its oversight review, ORI found that Bengu Sezen, former graduate student, Department of Chemistry, CU, engaged in misconduct in science in research funded by National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 Research Integrity (ORI) during its oversight review, ORI found that Bengu Sezen, former graduate student, Department of Chemistry, CU, engaged in misconduct in science in research funded by National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 research funded by National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 GM60326.

Generally, the ORI handles the details, sort of by default, but will work with these other agencies in the case that the PI is found to have committed research misconduct with respect to sanctions.

As you note, a simple perusal of the ORI website will clearly show the consequences of research misconduct findings.

Regardless of whether Mann's participation in Jones» deletion enterprise constituted research misconduct or not, this particular finding of the Inquiry Committee clearly does not follow from the information that they presented in their record.

We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.

«I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC.»

However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC.

ResearchGate — The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety.

After careful review of the evidence and thoughtful deliberation, the Investigation Committee finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by Dr Wang.

On July 1, Penn State found «no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann;» this would be followed by the National Science Foundation Office of the Inspector General finding «no research misconduct or other matter raised...»

HAMALENGWA — Findings of Professional Misconduct — While representing a difficult client who was charged with first degree murder, the Lawyer was eligible to bill the Ministry of the Attorney General for fees and disbursements pursuant to a Fisher order — The Lawyer's accounting, billing and docketing systems were deplorable and bore no relationship to his billings to the Ministry — The Lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by billing the Ministry for attendances at court when he had not attended or attended for less time than he claimed; overbilling for legal research; billing for services that were not properly billable as legal services; overbilling for student assistance disbursements he had not incurred; overbilling for fees and disbursements that were not fair and reasonable; and submitting a document to the Ministry purporting to be an invoice from a student working under his direction when the invoice was not prepared by the student and the services were not rendered as described in theMisconduct — While representing a difficult client who was charged with first degree murder, the Lawyer was eligible to bill the Ministry of the Attorney General for fees and disbursements pursuant to a Fisher order — The Lawyer's accounting, billing and docketing systems were deplorable and bore no relationship to his billings to the Ministry — The Lawyer engaged in professional misconduct by billing the Ministry for attendances at court when he had not attended or attended for less time than he claimed; overbilling for legal research; billing for services that were not properly billable as legal services; overbilling for student assistance disbursements he had not incurred; overbilling for fees and disbursements that were not fair and reasonable; and submitting a document to the Ministry purporting to be an invoice from a student working under his direction when the invoice was not prepared by the student and the services were not rendered as described in themisconduct by billing the Ministry for attendances at court when he had not attended or attended for less time than he claimed; overbilling for legal research; billing for services that were not properly billable as legal services; overbilling for student assistance disbursements he had not incurred; overbilling for fees and disbursements that were not fair and reasonable; and submitting a document to the Ministry purporting to be an invoice from a student working under his direction when the invoice was not prepared by the student and the services were not rendered as described in the document.