Every year the federal government gives away hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money to fund medical research at healthcare institutions across the country. The majority of these grants are issued through the National Institute of Health, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), which, like most branches of the federal government, is very protective of its assets and goes to great lengths to ensure they are utilized properly by the grantee. This includes ensuring that individuals working on federally-funded research do not fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize their results, all of which fall within the federally-defined offense of research misconduct (also known as scientific misconduct). The federal government has an office within HHS—the Office of Research Integrity (“ORI”)—dedicated to ferreting out and punishing individuals who commit research misconduct.
Representative Matter: DBS attorneys on a landmark federal lawsuit against the U.S. Government to overturn a debarment order based on findings of research misconduct and remand the case for the first administrative hearing on research misconduct charges since 2005
It is a common misconception among researchers that research misconduct proceedings are not a serious matter. In reality, the exact opposite is true. A researcher who is found to have committed research misconduct will usually be debarred by HHS from participating in any federally-funded research for several years, if not permanently. Given the high percentage of research that is funded at least in part by federal funds, debarments have effectively ended researchers’ careers by making them, for all intents and purposes, unemployable. And this is even before anyone considers the stigma within the scientific community that accompanies a finding of research misconduct. Given these serious consequences, researchers who are accused of research misconduct should retain legal counsel to defend them against those allegations at the very outset of the process.
Because the federal government requires institutions who host federally-funded research to effectively screen research misconduct allegations by conducting an “inquiry” process, all research misconduct proceedings will begin at the institutional level. The institutional inquiry process will determine whether the allegations of research misconduct are credible. If so, the institution must proceed to a full-scale investigation, the result of which will be a written report that concludes whether any research misconduct occurred. Even though these inquiry and investigation processes are entirely internal, i.e. they take place completely within the institution, they are very serious matters and should be treated as such by accused researchers because the trigger mandatory reporting requirements to the federal government which can result in debarments. Although the federal government (i.e., ORI) has the authority to conduct its own investigation and/or review the institutional findings, in virtually every instance in which an institution finds a researcher guilty of research misconduct ORI will choose to adopt those findings and levy punishment accordingly. Thus, researchers defending themselves against research misconduct allegations to avoid potentially career-threatening punishments must do so at the institutional level. By the time the federal government gets involved it is often too late.
Representative Matter: DBS attorneys represented a university scientist who was ultimately vindicated after being wrongly accused of falsifying data by a colleague, the Secret Service, and a U.S. Congressional Committee.
For most researchers the two most important things are their reputation and their ability to obtain federal grants and work on federally-funded research projects. Research misconduct allegations imperil both of these things. Although the early stages of research misconduct investigations (which take place within an institution rather than a court) may appear informal or trivial, especially when compared to other federal fraud investigations, the determinations that are made in those early, institutional stages are often almost impossible to overturn and, therefore, usually stay with the case through its conclusion. In this sense, research misconduct proceedings have a tendency to snowball, making it absolutely critical for accused researchers to engage counsel who has experience litigating research misconduct cases at both the institutional setting and before ORI.
Learn more about Barrett & Singal's services in the area of Healthcare Litigation
You might also be interested in:
This website presents general information about Barrett & Singal and is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please note that contacting Barrett & Singal by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or impose an obligation on either the law firm or the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. Completion of Barrett & Singal’s new client intake protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter, is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship with Barrett & Singal, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Barrett & Singal will not be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Barrett & Singal, please do not send any confidential information to us through this web site or otherwise concerning any potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers. By clicking "Accept," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed with the firm attorney before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Barrett & Singal.