Research misconducts and the host institutions: are they not related?

I read many articles on this site about the misconduct cases. And most often, I found "the University A has formed the panel to investigate case B", etc.

And I also read that, the "panel found the misconduct was solely done by graduate student C or postdoc D". Finally the guilty PERSON was banned from involving in public and/or federal funded researches.

So what do I mean?

What I want to point out is where are the role of the host Institution? Are they innocent? We all know that there is a huge amount of indirect cost from any federal funded projects went to the host Institutions. If there is no punishment for them, they wont form preventive procedures or even they will keep their eyes blinded.

I read some misconduct cases outside of the States (Wang-gate in South Korea, and one RNAi research in Japan several years ago), and they found the PI to be guilty and tried to punish them. While, most often, the cases reported from the States were known to be due to a graduate student or postdoc.

Is there differences in handling of thee misconduct cases inside and outside of the States?
Is that true that at some places they are handling the misconduct cases in the way that minimize the damages? and not with the purpose to warn others from doing it?

My random thoughts! But would love to hear from you!

This kind of conspiracy is also prevailing in China. In fact we ask the question only because we don't know the answer. Investigation details should be make public. And we must re-examine our existing ethics to see how only the graduate students and post-docs are allowed to be found guilty in these kinds of situations.

Is it possible that researchers in the US rely more on graduate students to conduct more of the "meat" of their research projects, whereas foreign PIs are more involved? This might explain the apparent lack of PIs being found guilty in the US.

However, I'd like to point out a list of research misfindings by the Office of Research Integrity found here: http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/

In 2009, there were 9 findings so far. Afshar seems to have been a post doc. Wanchick was a research assistant. Wolfort & Van Parijs were students. This accounts for 4 of the 9 findings.

Contreras, Fogel, Thomas seem to have been PI's -- 3 of the 9 findings.

Ngyuen, Tanaka -- roles are hard to determine.

chris

Yes, Chris. As what I called -- conspiracy, we may tend to focus on cases where only students and junior researchers step down and guess the PIs and institutions are not innocent. If there is indeed possibility in the ethics that only the student is responsible for misconducts, we have no reason to guess anything but demand the most transparent investigation detail to be available.

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts about my post. So my points can be separated into two:

1- Why almost all the cases reported are only involved with junior researchers?
2- Where is the host Institutions' responsibilities (and of course then liabilities) on having the misconducts taking place at their Institutions?

From my common sense I imagine PI A. brought millions of dollar in grants to an Institution B. As a rule, the Institution is entitled to certain percentage of the fund as indirect cost (so Institution is spending public/federal money). This meant the PI is contributing a lot to the Institution.

Now, what if misconduct happens? is it reasonable to speculate that the Institution will side with someone who brought money to them? Very likely, yes! Unless or until the Institution cant do so.

Since in I could not find the information regarding "punishments" for the Institution for having misconduct happened at their place, I would think the Institution wont care about preventive action/procedures until they are forced by other watch dogs to do investigation.

In short, host Institutions are spending public/federal money (as indirect cost) but can escape unwounded if misconducts happen.

Correct me if I'm wrong about the indirect cost things.

Just re: indirect, foreign institutions only receive 8% indirect from NIH so it is not the big factor it is in the US; it does not even begin to cover the costs which have to be subsidized from other sources.

I am in China and can prove this is popular in China university, corruption is everywhere from up to down in the institutions

JohnTS1083414 wrote:Just re: indirect, foreign institutions only receive 8% indirect from NIH so it is not the big factor it is in the US; it does not even begin to cover the costs which have to be subsidized from other sources.

I agree with you JohnTS1083414.

Thanks for the answers, but I wasnt talking about foreign Institution getting US federal funding, I meant those in the US!

I am open to learn more from you!

Corruption is everywhere from top to down. In my opinion investigation details should be make public.