FundScience Blog

A three-fer again. The different terms used reflect the timing of the misconduct (scientific if the misconduct occurred before June 2005, research if after June 2005) due to a change in regulatory definitions.

Notice is hereby given that Zhong Bin Deng, former postdoctoral fellow at Medical College of Georgia, whose written and oral admissions and expressed remorse, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grant P01AI42288 by falsifying research results reported in a paper published (and soon after retracted) in Nature Medicine. Specifically, in Figure 1(a), the Respondent falsified the Aire +/+ (thymus and liver) flow cytometry plots by substituting Aire +/- (thymus and liver) flow cytometry plots that were altered to disguise their origins and falsified the Aire -/- (bone marrow) flow cytometry plot by substituting the Aire +/- (bone marrow) flow cytometry plot, also altered to disguise its origin. In supplementary Figure 2, the Respondent also falsified flow cytometry plots.

Notice is hereby given that Nagendra S. Ningaraj, PhD, former Associate Professor of Neurological Surgery and Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine engaged in scientific misconduct by falsifying MALDI-MS images and mass spectral tracings and associated text in Figure 21 reported in grant application U54CA119421 and by falsifying MALDI-MS images in a presentation during the American Association for Cancer Research meeting held on April 16-20, 2005, which cited support from grants R25CA92943 and P50CA098131. Respondent reversed the images for the control and minoxidil-treated brains; reported mass spectral tracings as having been obtained from brain tumors in Gleevec-treated mice that had been pretreated with minoxidil, while in fact they were pretreated with another potassium channel opener, NS1619, and Respondent falsely stated the minoxidil pretreatment caused an 8-fold increase in Gleevec delivery to brain tumors (compared to non-minoxidil pretreated tumors); and juxtaposed the reversed MALDI-MS images (obtained with mioxidil) with the mass spectral tracings (obtained with NS1619) in the same figure and failed to report that the images and spectra were actually obtained in totally different experiments, performed on different dates and with different K\+\ agonist pretreatments.

Notice is hereby given that Norma Couvertier, former Research Assistant II, APT Foundation, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by award R37DA015969 by falsifying and fabricating data that were reported on Participant Urine Monitoring and Breathalyzer Result Forms completed by the Respondent for 32 of the enrolled study participants in the computer Based Training in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy research study. A total of 253 alcohol breathalyzer results were recorded for the 32 participants as being 0.000 indicating no alcohol detected, rather than the code 999 used when no breathalyzer test was done. ORI also found that Ms. Couvetier, on 253 occasions, with 32 different study participants, falsified alcohol breathalyzer test results and knowingly and consistently entered a false negative test (indicated by 0.000) rather than identifying the result as a missing data collection (indicated by code 999). ORI acknowledges Ms. Couvetier’s verbal admissions and willingness to cooperate and assist during the APT Foundation’s investigation.

The blog post title and the news conveyed come from Nature, which “obtained documents from a source at ONR that relate to the debarment” of Rusi Taleyarkhan at Purdue University, who in 2002 reported in Science that nuclear fusion reactions could be triggered by firing sound waves into deuterated acetone – a claim that has never been independently verified. But let me back up.

This complicated and colorful case began in 2006 and was tracked throughout 2007-2008 by Science and Nature. The NYT reported on Congressional involvement, which Nature followed with interest. An earlier post here tracks a long, heated exchange among Taleyarkhan, Purdue, the House Oversight Committee, et al., with more dogged coverage by Nature.

It took Purdue four investigations to find Taleyarkhan guilty of misconduct (citing work from his own lab as ‘independent’ confirmation of his findings and adding the name of a student to a publication when they had not contributed to the research), strip him of his endowed professorship, and limit his role in mentoring students in July 2008. Taleyarkhan ultimately lost his appeal, but this did not stop him from receiving an award from the NSF (ended in Aug 2009).

It seems, however, this will not happen again:

The ONR, which had funded part of Taleyarkhan’s research, has now reviewed Purdue’s investigation. Its conclusions state that Taleyarkhan’s misconduct was “so severe as to merit debarment” from federal funding. Although the ruling was made in May, when the debarment came into effect, no public announcement was made.

Myers Vasquez, a spokesman for the US Navy, says that Taleyarkhan’s name has now been added to the ‘Excluded Parties List’ that government agencies are required to check before making awards.

His bubble has finally burst.

The NIH issued a notice summarizing the changes to the application packages for submissions on or after January 25, 2010. Most important is this reminder for those planning electronic submissions (i.e., most of you):

Applicants MUST return to the FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT (FOA), or the reissued Parent Announcement, to download the new application forms for due dates on or after January 25, 2010.

The sample biosketch in the PHS 398 form list is always convenient to have on hand though. The PHS 398 (paper submission) page includes instructions and forms, while you’ll of course find the instructions only for SF 424 electronic submissions (Adobe Forms B).

Have fun.

Yes, OptNet is indeed short for Opportunity Network, which, according to the NIH news release, will be supported in its first year with $10M in ARRA funds. Hmm. Don’t spend it all in one place.

To further explain, this is the Basic Behavioral and Social Science Opportunity Network, which will fund studies of

mechanisms and processes that influence behavior at the individual, group, community and population level. Research results lead to new approaches for reducing risky behaviors and improving the adoption of healthy practices.

… Twenty-four ICs and five programs within the Office of the Director will integrate existing NIH efforts, target research challenges best met collectively and collaborate on new research initiatives in complementary scientific areas. OppNet will also develop a plan for focused multi-year programs across ICs to advance priority topics within b-BSSR [basic behavioral and social sciences research].

… OppNet expects to release these first funding opportunity announcements by December 2009. Starting in Fiscal Year 2011, OppNet will be supported through NIH’s pool of common funds shared among the ICs.

Jeremy Berg (NIGMS) and Richard Hodes (NIA) are driving the bus, with plenty of help from their friends (“a steering committee of IC Directors and with facilitation from the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research”). Watch the OBSSR Website for updates on OppNet as it unfolds.

Literally, considering ARRA research awards are tax-payer funded.

ScienceWorksForUS, which highlights all aspects of stimulus funding for university-based research activities, is brought to you by the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and The Science Coalition. You’ll find the expected news feeds about the economic stimulus program generally, ARRA-funded research anecdotes, and research findings stemming from ARRA-funded efforts.

The level of detail at the state level is nicely organized: total dollars and number of awards plus links to individual universities (the Web pages on which they report their ARRA awards and whatnot), a breakdown by funding agency (NIH, NSF, DoE), and more state- and university-specific news releases related to ARRA-funded research. You can run your cursor over the US map to quickly compare who’s getting what out of this initiative and click on individual states for the aforementioned details.

As a reminder, NIAID invites you to contribute your own story of how ARRA funds have helped you, as does the US DHHS, which invites you to submit stories or comments about ARRA funding.

No, not an online dating service … ResearchMatch is an NCRR-funded secure registry that allows individuals to sign up to receive alerts about clinical research in which they might be interested and for which they might be eligible — and researchers to sign up to find potentially eligible participants for their studies.

Currently, 40 of the 46 current CTSA sites are participating, and the registry will eventually expand to include non-CTSA institutions. As described in the NIH’s news release:

After an individual has self-registered to become a volunteer, ResearchMatch’s security features ensure that personal information is protected until volunteers authorize the release of their contact information to a specific study that may be of interest to them. Volunteers are notified electronically when they are a possible match and then make the decision regarding the release of their contact information. It also will promote choice as there are no obligations on the volunteer to participate in studies.

According to the ResearchMatch.org participant FAQ, “[approved] researchers will not be given access to begin looking for potential study Volunteers through ResearchMatch until approximately January 2010.” As further explained by the researcher FAQ:

ResearchMatch is a not-for-profit activity and is free for any participating site & their researchers. … Researchers at participating sites will be given access to register through the ResearchMatch system. Upon registration, researchers may request either feasibility or recruitment access … your access to recruit via ResearchMatch will last only as long as your IRB-study approval.

After you have been granted recruitment access, you will be able to search for appropriate matches amongst the non-identifiable ResearchMatch Volunteer profiles in the system. You will enter your study’s criteria in the ResearchMatch Search Builder which will yield a list of these potential matches. You will send out IRB-approved content in your initial recruitment message to these potential matches through ResearchMatch. The secure ResearchMatch clearinghouse will route your message to each of these potential matches and they will have the option of replying yes, no, or no response. Your study’s home page will feature all those Volunteers who say yes and show aggregate figures/charts demonstrating the response rate to your initial recruitment message. Once the Volunteer has authorized ResearchMatch to release their contact information to you, you will be responsible for managing this contact information as called for by your IRB-study protocol.

Vanderbilt, which maintains and whose IRB oversees ResearchMatch.org, also has its own DNA bank called BioVu, which includes leftover blood from all patients seeking treatment unless they opt out when signing the the Vanderbilt Consent for Treatment and Agreement to Pay form.

NIBIB has released the RFA for Phase II (Implementation) of its Quantum Grant Program - aka Medical Moonshots.

Letter of intent due December 22, application receipt date on January 22, 2010 (just misses the Jan 25 transition to enhanced shorter applications, so these use a 25-p research narrative … “typewritten” paper submission no less).

The goal is to achieve a profound (quantum) impact on the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of a major disease or national public health problem through the development and implementation of biomedical technologies.

Total costs (i.e., direct plus indirect/F&A costs) for any single year (5-y project period) may not exceed $3M. NIBIB expects most applicants to request $1-3M in total annual costs.

Before you get too excited, only 1-3 awards will be made.

NIBIB made 5 awards in the Phase I competition “on stem cell therapies for diabetes and stroke, nanoparticles to help eliminate brain tumors, development of an implantable device to replace kidney dialysis, and a microchip to capture circulating tumor cells for clinical and research purposes” — but anyone can apply for Phase II funding so long as their research plan “demonstrates the potential for a quantum advance by the end of Phase II via substantial pre-clinical data or a first clinical implementation.”

How much of an advance? NIBIB envisions that the “technology being developed would overcome a major, present-day disease or national public health problem (i.e., leading categories of disease burden, high-mortality/morbidity diseases affecting more than 100,000 individuals annually, technologies that revolutionize over 200,000 procedures annually), or change the paradigm of prevention, diagnosis, treatment in the practice of medicine.” In 5 years. I guess $3M a year will do that for you. I can’t wait to read the way cool announcements in NIH Research Matters.

What I want to know is where NIBIB finds reviewers with the vision needed to foresee a paradigm shift and quantum advance in the practice of medicine within the next 5 years … and whether these reviewers are available to take a look at my 401K portfolio.

Lots more detail in the RFA. Happy reading.

NIBIB has released the RFA for Phase II (Implementation) of its Quantum Grant Program - aka Medical Moonshots.

Letter of intent due December 22, application receipt date on January 22, 2010 (just misses the Jan 25 transition to enhanced shorter applications, so these use a 25-p research narrative … “typewritten” paper submission no less).

The goal is to achieve a profound (quantum) impact on the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of a major disease or national public health problem through the development and implementation of biomedical technologies.

Total costs (i.e., direct plus indirect/F&A costs) for any single year (5-y project period) may not exceed $3M. NIBIB expects most applicants to request $1-3M in total annual costs.

Before you get too excited, only 1-3 awards will be made.

NIBIB made 5 awards in the Phase I competition “on stem cell therapies for diabetes and stroke, nanoparticles to help eliminate brain tumors, development of an implantable device to replace kidney dialysis, and a microchip to capture circulating tumor cells for clinical and research purposes” — but anyone can apply for Phase II funding so long as their research plan “demonstrates the potential for a quantum advance by the end of Phase II via substantial pre-clinical data or a first clinical implementation.”

How much of an advance? NIBIB envisions that the “technology being developed would overcome a major, present-day disease or national public health problem (i.e., leading categories of disease burden, high-mortality/morbidity diseases affecting more than 100,000 individuals annually, technologies that revolutionize over 200,000 procedures annually), or change the paradigm of prevention, diagnosis, treatment in the practice of medicine.” In 5 years. I guess $3M a year will do that for you. I can’t wait to read the way cool announcements in NIH Research Matters.

What I want to know is where NIBIB finds reviewers with the vision needed to foresee a paradigm shift and quantum advance in the practice of medicine within the next 5 years … and whether these reviewers are available to take a look at my 401K portfolio.

Lots more detail in the RFA. Happy reading.

Bit late putting up a reminder of this bit of fun – the annual Beloit College Mindset List. I think the most memorable Mindset List item for me remains #1 (covered today in the NYT) from the class of 2011:

1. What Berlin wall?

In fact, that whole 2011 list is one of my favorites for reminding me of the need to readjust my mindset (you can choose different years in the drop-down list at the top of the page). For 2013, we have:

2. Dan Rostenkowski, Jack Kevorkian, and Mike Tyson have always been felons.
13. The KGB has never officially existed.
23. The European Union has always existed.
35. Women have always outnumbered men in college.
36. We have always watched wars, coups, and police arrests unfold on television in real time.
38. Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Latvia, Georgia, Lithuania, and Estonia have always been independent nations.
75. There has always been blue Jell-O.

Of interest to a select audience … one application per parent grant but no limit on the number of applications from a given institution. The big “have” institutions will have lots of these big core center awards and will no doubt get in line for an extra $1.2M+ for each of these facilities, complements of ARRA.

Today’s notice of Administrative Supplements to Support Core Consolidation provides up to $500,000 in equipment, up to $500,000 for alteration and renovation, and/or up to $200,000 (DC) for other costs such as personnel and supplies. The NIH plans to spend ~$15 million of ARRA funds by September 30, 2010 to support requests submitted in response to this notice. Participating ICs include NCRR (G12 plus all P and U awards), NCI (only Cancer Center Support P30s are eligible), NIAID (only CFAR P30s are eligible), NIAMS (only P30s are eligible), NIDDK (only P30s & P60s are eligible), NIEHS (only P30s are eligible), and NIDA (“particularly interested in consolidation that results in synergistic enhancement of existing research capabilities, while continuing current services”).

The Notice provides full application details. Applications are due January 13, 2010.