Contact
Boston
Providence
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
We previously addressed some of the basics concerning what research misconduct is and who investigates it. The following FAQs address the potential penalties that can be imposed on individuals found to have committed research misconduct, and offer suggestions on how researchers can avoid them.
Realistically, what punishments can ORI impose if it finds I committed research misconduct?
The Office of Research Integrity ("ORI") is empowered to impose a wide spectrum of penalties which include issuing a letter of reprimand, suspending or terminating a researcher’s federal grants, restricting a researcher’s activities on federally-funded research projects, and imposing supervision requirements. But by far the most severe penalty ORI can impose is its ability to exclude, or “debar,” a researcher from participating in any way on any federally-funded research for some period of time.
What does a federal “debarment” entail?
Under federal regulations, a “debarred” individual cannot work on federally-funded research nor can he/she receive any assistance from federal grants. This means that a “debarred” individual is not only prohibited from receiving compensation from federal grant money, but he/she also cannot use equipment, laboratory space, office personnel, or any other resources that are paid for in whole or in part with federal funds. All “debarments” are also publicized by the federal government by listing the “debarred” individual on the Excluded Parties List System and summarizing his/her offending conduct in the Federal Register.
“Debarments” sound like they are potentially career-threatening; ORI must only impose them on the worst offenders, right?
The worst research misconduct offenders can certainly expect ORI to pursue a lengthy, possibly even permanent, “debarment” against them. But the federal government is, appropriately, very protective of its grant money, so shorter “debarments” are a fairly common punishment for anyone ORI finds has committed research misconduct, even those who do not believe their conduct was particularly egregious. Federal regulations do provide ORI with the discretion, though, to lengthen or shorten any “debarment” depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the existence or absence of mitigating or aggravating factors.
Can I appeal ORI’s findings and punishment to a judge?
Federal regulations allow an individual to contest research misconduct findings by requesting a hearing before a Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") if he/she can demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute over facts that are material to ORI’s findings, but in practice this has proven to be a very high threshold to satisfy. Since the adoption of the current regulations in 2005, HHS ALJs have consistently denied requests for a hearing to contest ORI research misconduct findings. By way of illustration, in 2012 a researcher whose request for a hearing was denied had to file and win a landmark lawsuit against HHS in Federal Court to overturn that denial and be granted a hearing request.
Given the severity of the potential punishments and the difficulty in obtaining a hearing, what can I do to help myself if I am accused?
There is no question that accused researchers face severe, potentially career-threatening consequences if ORI determines they committed research misconduct. And there is also no question that defending yourself against research misconduct allegations gets progressively harder as your institution and then the federal government make findings against you. In this sense, research misconduct proceedings have a tendency to snowball, which makes it imperative for accused researchers to retain counsel who has experience defending research misconduct allegations at both the institutional level and federal administrative level as early in the process as possible, and certainly well before ORI begins investigating and making findings.
How soon is too soon to get an attorney involved?
As a general rule, it is never too soon to get counsel involved. But at the very latest, an accused researcher should consult an attorney as soon as he/she becomes aware that institutional proceedings are underway. Institutional proceedings present the first opportunity for the researcher to offer his/her version of events, and once he/she does so that explanation becomes etched in stone for the remainder of the case. Accused researchers put themselves at a serious disadvantage when they commit themselves to facts without consulting with counsel and understanding the ramifications of those admissions and denials. Even when an accused researcher hires an attorney later in the process, as is often the case, the damage can already be done if admissions in that initial statement hinder or preclude the later-hired attorney’s ability to advocate for dismissal of the charges or for a more lenient punishment.
What can I do to protect myself from research misconduct allegations when I am actually performing the research?
Simply put, when conducting research you should do everything in your power to maximize accuracy and thoroughness. Not only will this reduce your chances of making a mistake, but it will provide a solid foundation for defending yourself on “honest error” grounds (as discussed in What Is Research Misconduct and Why Should I Care?) if you do make one. More practically speaking, if you are ever accused of research misconduct there are two things you will most wish you had done: document everything thoroughly, and check your work.
Why is thorough documentation so critical to defending research misconduct allegations?
Research misconduct cases often turn on small details, and being able to trace those details may well be the key to disproving allegations that an error was intentional or the product of reckless conduct. It is difficult enough for a researcher to keep track of research details at the time the research is being conducted, much less months or possibly even years later when research misconduct proceedings often arise. Without thorough documentation an accused researcher may not be able to explain his/her conduct which—in the context of a research misconduct investigation—may be viewed as an admission of wrongdoing.
How can checking my work help me defend myself against research misconduct allegations if those checks failed to uncover the error?
As an initial matter, the more carefully you check your work the less likely you are to make a reckless error that can lead to research misconduct findings. But more importantly, by carefully checking your work and painstakingly documenting those checks you can build a strong foundation for establishing the “honest error” defense if a mistake does slip through. Just as doctors are urged to practice “defensive medicine” in order to protect themselves against lawsuits, scientists should practice “defensive research” by taking all steps to document and double-check their work in case it is called into question later.
Sign up for email alerts
© 2021 | website: visual dialogue
News
Health Law
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
June 03, 2020
Adelita Orefice, Esq. Honored by Rhode Island Monthly
-
April 17, 2020
Healthcare fraud warning from the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney arising out of COVID-19
-
April 10, 2020
Financial Solutions for Small Businesses Disrupted by COVID-19
-
March 26, 2020
Massachusetts and the Federal Government Expand Telemedicine Services and Coverage in Response to COVID-19
-
March 23, 2020
COVID-19 Update for Our Clients
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
November 06, 2018
Sweeping New Opioid Law Extends Anti-Kickback Liability to Private Insurance Market in Three Areas
-
November 05, 2018
Adelita Orefice Earns Certification in Healthcare Compliance
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
September 18, 2018
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
DPH releases proposed amendments to Determination of Need regulation
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
October 24, 2017
| Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
Legal Issues and the Aging Physician
-
October 11, 2017
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health Presentation on DoN Regulations
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
February 16, 2017
| Diane Moes
The ACA May Be in Jeopardy, but MACRA Isn’t Likely to Go Away
-
January 16, 2017
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
DPH Adopts New Determination of Need Regulations
-
November 09, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Halts Implementation of Final Rule Prohibiting Pre-Dispute Arbitration Contracts in LTC Facilities
-
October 24, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Nursing Facilities Sue HHS to Block Ban on Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
October 17, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
HHS Prohibits Long-Term Care Facilities from Using Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 29, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Announces Major Determination of Need Regulatory Reform Initiative
-
August 29, 2016
New MA Prescription Monitoring Program Goes Live August 22, 2016
-
August 15, 2016
| Crystal Bloom, Amanda Beauregard
OPPS 2017 – Implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
July 20, 2016
| Kelly McGee, Adelita Orefice
Rhode Island Prohibits Physician Non-Competes
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
May 17, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Noncompliance with Security Deposit Law Could Be a Defense to Eviction
-
April 19, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
Update Regarding DPH Increased Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
April 11, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
DPH Strengthens Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
March 23, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Phase 2 HIPAA Compliance Audits Set To Begin
-
March 22, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Failure to execute HIPAA business associate agreement and conduct risk analysis costs health system $1.55M
-
February 11, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Proposed Rule Modifies 42 CFR Part 2, the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
-
November 16, 2015
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Nicole Sexton
Medicare Hospital Reimbursement Changes
-
October 26, 2015
Diane Moes named one of Mass Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law”
-
June 12, 2015
OIG Fraud Alert Warns Doctors That They Will Be Personally Accountable for Violations of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
-
May 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Long Term Care Facility Regulatory Update
-
April 23, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health - new process for the addition of licensed mobile or portable health care units
-
April 21, 2015
| Paul Barrett, Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
OIG Releases Compliance And Oversight Guide for Healthcare Boards
-
April 20, 2015
| Andrew Levine,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Revamps Application Process for Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
-
April 16, 2015
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Proposed Legislation Will Increase Legal Authority of Health Policy Commission and Attorney General
-
March 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Health Policy Commission Releases Proposed Regulation Concerning Nurse-to-Patient Ratios | Public hearings scheduled for late March and early April
-
March 06, 2015
| Robert Blaisdell
Court Holds Officers and Directors of Non-Profit Healthcare Facility Personally Liable to Creditors for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-
September 17, 2014
| Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, Kathleen Harrell
Legal Issues Associated with MA Registered Marijuana Dispensaries: An article by Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, and Kathleen Harrell
-
July 14, 2014
| Andrew Levine
Important Compounding Pharmacy Law Empowers Board of Registration in Pharmacy
-
June 20, 2014
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Public Health Council Approves Amendments to Determination of Need Regulations
-
June 03, 2014
| Diane Moes
U.S. District Court Ruling Vacating HRSA’s 340B Program Orphan Drug Exclusion Rule Casts Uncertainty on Forthcoming "Mega-Rule"
-
May 28, 2014
| Andrew Levine
New Guidelines for Dementia Special Care Unit Regulations
-
January 10, 2014
| Andrew Levine
MassHealth Changes regulations to comply with Affordable Care Act
Litigation
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
May 12, 2020
First Federal Indictment Arising Out of Fraudulent Applications for Paycheck Protection Program Loans Highlights Focus on COVID-19 Related Investigations
-
April 30, 2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Reporting Foreign Components
-
March 27, 2020
| Michelle Peirce
Scam Warning for Massachusetts Physicians
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
April 05, 2018
In Russia probe, the difference between ‘target’ and ‘subject’ matters a great deal
-
February 22, 2018
Landmark Supreme Court Decision Substantially Narrows the Applicability of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
-
June 01, 2016
How Recent Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “White Collar” Exemptions May Affect Your Small Business
-
March 25, 2015
Avoiding Securities Fraud Prosecution: Using the SEC’s 2015 examination priorities as a compliance roadmap when dealing with retail investors.
-
December 29, 2014
| Bruce Singal
Was the Ferguson grand jury rigged?
-
March 26, 2014
Employer Avoids Discrimination Trial Thanks to Robust Investigation and Documentation Policies
-
February 13, 2014
| Michelle Peirce
Shielding Companies Against Whistleblower Suits
-
March 01, 2010
Trials Facing Women Litigators and Tips For Success: Michelle Peirce
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
Corporate
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
March 16, 2018
Massachusetts Equal Pay Act: 5 Things Every Employer Should Do Before It Takes Effect On July 1, 2018
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
Research Misconduct
-
May 18, 2020
Why Grantees Must be Prepared for Heightened Scrutiny of Conflicts of Interest in Foreign Support for US Research
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
What is Research Misconduct and Why Should I Care?
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
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.