UCSD Institutes First Formal Policy on Research Fraud

In the wake of a 1985 case of fraudulent research by a UC San Diego physician, the university has passed the first formal policy on research fraud in the University of California system.

The policy, announced Oct. 7 by Chancellor Richard C. Atkinson, is aimed mainly at codifying how the university should respond to avoid legal problems to any charges of research fraud, said Richard Attiyeh, dean of graduate studies and research.

The policy tells UCSD employees, “if you see somebody lying, here’s what you should do,” he said.

“These things become very complicated in this legal age, because you need to protect the individual until he’s proven guilty, and you need to protect the institution,” Attiyeh said.

Types of Research Misconduct

“Types of research misconduct include plagiarism; failure to provide appropriate citations; falsification of data . . .; deception or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scholarly and scientific community . . .; and deliberate violations of federal and university regulations,” the policy states.

Attiyeh said the 12-page policy was developed over the past year and a half as a result of the university’s understanding that federal research agencies were planning to impose anti-fraud provisions on universities. Faculty committees and departments all had an opportunity to comment on the policy as it was developed, he said.

Adding impetus to the effort was the notorious 1985 case of Dr. Robert Slutsky, a cardiac radiologist at the School of Medicine who left the university in disgrace after it was discovered that he had falsified his research.

Since then, the only potential case of research fraud at the university has also been at the medical school, Attiyeh noted.

A faculty committee is reviewing the UCSD research done by John L. Ninnemann, as a result of allegations of problems in an earlier job he had at the University of Utah. When the charges surfaced, Ninnemann left UCSD.

Never Had Case of Fraud

“I don’t think there are zillions of Slutskys out there,” Attiyeh said. “I’ve been dean for six years, and I’ve never had a case of research fraud being reported to me.”

He said it may be significant that both of the recent cases at UCSD were in medicine.

“Physicists here don’t believe a case of fraud in physics would survive very long, because (details) are easier to check than in medicine,” he said. “So it may be that the temptations may not be as great in many of the fields as in others.”

Attiyeh said he doubts that the regulations themselves will bring whistle-blowers to his door.

“By itself, it is not going to change the world, but to the extent that it raises consciousness, it reminds people that . . . passing on values about what constitutes ethical behavior is an important thing to do in training people,” Attiyeh said.

He said the policy provides for protection of whistle-blowers’ anonymity but has no specific prohibition against reprisals. But current regulations would cover such an issue, he said.

“There would be no question that that individual would be protected by the institution from any sort of retribution,” he said. “Any kind of retribution would be considered a violation of the faculty code of conduct as much as research fraud would be.”