Dukes mishandling of misconduct prompts new US government grant oversight

first_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe The old chemistry building on the campus of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, which is under scrutiny for how it has handled research misconduct cases. iStock.com/BSPollard Email Last week, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) imposed unusual new requirements on researchers based at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who receive federal funds. The changes are a response to concerns over how the institution handled recent cases involving research misconduct and grant management.According to a Duke spokesperson, NIH now requires Duke researchers to obtain prior approval for any modifications to new and existing grants. And any Duke researcher submitting a so-called “modular application” for a grant worth less than $250,000 per year must include “detailed budgets” justifying the costs.Duke faculty learned of the changes on 21 March, in a letter from university administrators. “NIH reports that these new requirements are a result of its concerns about Duke’s management of several research misconduct cases and grant management issues that date back to 2010, some of which have been widely reported like the Anil Potti case,” according to the letter.center_img Duke’s mishandling of misconduct prompts new U.S. government grant oversight By Alison McCook, Retraction WatchMar. 23, 2018 , 4:15 PM Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) “To my knowledge this is a fairly rare and extensive action taken by NIH, although within NIH’s authority,” says Torrey Young, a lawyer at Foley & Lardner LLP in Boston who has represented a number of institutions in matters involving research misconduct and grants accounting. “These additional administrative burdens potentially could delay funding and extensions, as well as significantly increase duties for Duke’s Office of Research Support. This may also lead to reputational harm to the institution, leading to difficulty recruiting researchers.”Although the changes go into effect 1 April, the Duke spokesperson says the new guidelines won’t affect funding for current grants. “Duke has already addressed many of the concerns that prompted this change through enhanced internal controls, education and training, and new information systems, and will continue to look for opportunities to improve our oversight,” the spokesperson says. The university will also “be in close communication with the NIH to ensure that their concerns are fully and quickly addressed.”In a statement, the NIH Office of Extramural Research said it could not discuss the details regarding its concerns about the university. NIH also said it has imposed similar requirements on other organizations in the past.Duke has been hit by multiple high-profile misconduct cases in recent years. One such case involved Anil Potti, a once-rising star in cancer research who fabricated data, leading to 12 retractions, multiple lawsuits, and reprimands from the medical board. The university is also involved in an ongoing lawsuit filed by a whistleblower, which alleges that a pulmonary scientist, her supervisor, and the university included fraudulent data in federal documents associated with more dozens of grants worth hundreds of millions of dollars.Lynne Klauer, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham—where the ongoing lawsuit against Duke is taking place—says both sides are still engaged in the discovery process, which may wrap up in early spring or summer. Klauer said she was unable to comment on any pending litigation, or how it might relate to the changes imposed on Duke by NIH.The letter to faculty notes that Duke will submit a report to NIH about its current procedures and plans for improvement. It includes: “FACULTY AND STAFF SHOULD NOT CONTACT NIH DIRECTLY—these new directives are not subject to individual appeals and Duke must comply with these procedures.”last_img read more