@article{43915e8f15bc4fedab13c3f72e1fbfb5,
title = "What is Recklessness in Scientific Research? The Frank Sauer Case",
abstract = "On May 22, 2017, administrative law Judge Leslie Rogall of the Department of Health and Human Services{\textquoteright} Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, ruled in favor of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) concerning its decision to charge former University of California at Riverside biochemistry professor Frank Sauer with research misconduct for fabricating or falsifying digital image data included in three papers and seven grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health. More specifically, Sauer was deemed responsible for manipulating, reusing, and falsely labeling images of autoradiograms and gels in his research in epigenetics. One month after this decision, ORI announced its final ruling concerning Sauer, which barred him from serving in any advisory capacity to the Public Health Services and required him to retract affected papers. The case raises some interesting and important questions concerning research integrity because it focused on the legal issue of what constitutes recklessness in scientific research.",
keywords = "Collaboration, data management, misconduct in research, research ethics, research integrity, science policy",
author = "Resnik, {David B.} and Smith, {Elise M.} and Chen, {Stefanie H.} and Carlos Goller",
note = "Funding Information: This work was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [ZIAES102646-08]; Fonds de Recherche du Qu{\'e}bec en Sant{\'e}. Funding Information: On December 6, 2000, the Office of Science and Technology announced a definition of research misconduct that applies to research funded by U.S. federal agencies. According to the definition, research misconduct is “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results … . Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion” (Office of Science and Technology Policy 2000: 76263<Comp: throughout, please set page number in citations as indicated in the spec.>). To make a finding of misconduct, an agency must prove by preponderance of evidence that the defendant{\textquoteright}s conduct constituted “a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community” and that the conduct was committed “intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly (76263).” This last clause added a new dimension to federal misconduct policies because previous Funding Information: David Resnik is supported by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Elise Smith is supported by the NIEHS/NIH and the Fonds de Recherche du Qu{\'e}bec en Sant{\'e} (FRQS). Stefanie Chen and Carlos Goller acknowledge support from the Biotechnology Program at North Carolina State University (NCSU). This paper does not represent the views of the NIEHS, NIH, FRQS, NCSU or the U.S. federal government. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017 Taylor & Francis.",
year = "2017",
month = nov,
day = "17",
doi = "10.1080/08989621.2017.1397517",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "497--502",
journal = "Accountability in Research",
issn = "0898-9621",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "8",
}