Case closed: UW researcher found guilty of falsifying AIDS data
December 5, 2007
A former UW scientist fabricated AIDS research by altering images and fabricating data, according to an investigation report made public through the efforts of The Seattle Times.
The exhaustive 16-month long investigation of Scott J. Brodie, accused of manipulating computer images of cells to resemble two distinct images, was concluded in December 2003, but the report was not made public until legal proceedings between The Seattle Times, the UW and Brodie ended last week, in favor of The Seattle Times, which fought to release the investigative documents.
The 2003 report, conducted by an investigation committee through the UW's Office of Scholarly Integrity, determined that Brodie intentionally manipulated data. The committee recommended that he be banned from further employment at the UW and that any future work be "viewed with suspicion."
"Dr. Brodie falsified [figures] and ... he did so knowingly and purposefully. Honest error was not involved," investigators wrote in the report.
The investigation was a long and complex process, said UW professor Denny Liggitt, chair of the Department of Comparative Medicine and one of the investigators on the committee.
"It was very important for us to do a thorough investigation to demonstrate we would be proactive in that regard, to either exonerate him or find that he was complicit," Liggitt said. "It's best to deal with the truth."
The UW was notified in August 2002 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity that an individual had noticed some anomalies in Brodie's work. Investigations began shortly thereafter.
The course of the investigation did not run smoothly, said Norm Arkans, executive director of media relations.
"These are not easy things to wade through and sift through," Arkans said. "We had to understand the nature of the experiments and what was going on."
Nine computer hard drives were confiscated from Brodie's lab, in addition to notes, computer disks and files. Two investigators took possession of Brodie's home computer as well.
"We were trying to be fair," Liggitt said of the process. "The truth needs to be pursued vigorously when the integrity of science is at stake."
The report found that Brodie had committed academic misconduct in 15 instances, including published and unpublished journal articles and grant proposals, to make a point, namely that the HIV virus can replicate in certain cells.
"Accepted scientific practices do not allow a scientist to falsely label an image as suits his or her fancy simply because such work is conducted in the scientist's lab; to do so is instead a gross deviation of accepted scientific practices," investigators wrote.
Oddly enough, Brodie's conclusions were found to be correct and supported by later research, said UW professor Lawrence Corey, head of the UW's virology division in the Department of Laboratory Medicine, in The Seattle Times. Brodie worked in Corey's retrovirus laboratory.
"Did he set back crucial research? The answer is no," Corey said in the Times article.
In January, The Seattle Times sought access to public records at the UW detailing academic misconduct over the past five years, but was prevented from obtaining the documents when Brodie, under the pseudonym "John Doe," sued the University and the newspaper from releasing his records.
Judge William Downing of the King County Superior Court ruled that as part of the state's Public Disclosure Act, the public has the right to know when a researcher engages in academic misconduct.
"The public certainly has a legitimate interest in knowing that outcome, the underlying facts and the process by which [academic misconduct] were found," Downing said.
Cases of academic misconduct at the UW are rare, Arkans said, which is a good thing considering the University receives billions of dollars in research and has around 1,000 research projects ongoing at any one time.
"This doesn't happen very often, but when it happens, the University takes these things pretty seriously," he said.
Brodie resigned before the investigation could be concluded and now lives on the East Coast, where he could not be reached for comment.
[Reach reporter Arla Shephard at news@thedaily.washington.edu.]
Comments
#1 Mike
commented, onDecember 5, 2007 at 7:43 a.m.:
"Cases of academic misconduct at the UW are rare, Arkans said" Based on what data? If this is the example (data) we the public are to use then it's clear the UW chooses to hide misconduct from those who pay the bills. Kudos to the Seattle Times for finally digging up the truth.
#2 George
commented, onDecember 5, 2007 at 1:16 p.m.:
This is a total railroad case by the Seattle Times. Seems they didn't get much for spending legal money for this story. Think about it the University of Washington spent 16 months pouring over every word of this info. for his 8yrs of work. The UW did not retract one of HIS many papers and the UW did not give gave one of HIS grants. Why?
Read Research Misconduct at the ORI.hhs.gov site. Institutions are suppose to spend 60 days for inquiry and 120 to investigate NOT 16 MONTHS. How many people worked in that lab and had access to the information? For years the UW never gave proper storage space or good computers for reasearch. I saw research slides stuffed under lab tech work benches and in the cleaning closets. 3 seperate labs work in a small space with no IT person to help. They all worked to fix stuff when computers crashed or not enough storage was available on computers. Read the 700 pages and you'll find the other person who worked at another University for the same issue found NO misconduct.
Check out the investigators, they were anybody they The Assist. AG Karin Nyrop could get to tell the UW's story. Find out there names. The Liggit investigator guy (check his background)he always had a personal beef, they went to the same schools. He enjoyed participating in the railroad job and the Times gave him even more glory by printing his malicious words.
Elizabeth Loftus was put through 21 months of hell by the UW. She stayed there and fought it every step of the way till "no misconduct" was eventually concluded.
If anybody is outright guilty of misconduct it is the University of Washington. Brodie has probably been patiently waiting for the ORI's clonclusion. My bet is they will find NO misconduct and then the UW well have to eat crow.
ORI Misconduct Cases Highest Since 1996; Office Speeding Case Closures, Official Says The Office of Research Integrity closed more cases and made more misconduct findings in 2006 than it has in a decade, the office reported in March. ORI made 15 research misconduct findings and closed 35 cases in 2006, the highest number of misconduct findings and closed cases since 1996. Ten of the 15 research misconduct cases resulted in exclusions or debarments, ranging from three years to a lifetime. The data appear in the office's March newsletter. John E. Dahlberg, director of the division of investigative oversight at ORI, confirmed the statistics and told BNA March 13 that since taking over the division last May, he and his staff have tried to channel more of their focus on bringing cases to closure, while at the same time working more aggressively with ORI attorneys to get the misconduct cases handled. I think it's taking a fresh look at things, and more of a commitment to case closures, rather than a more unfocused approach to the whole spectrum of what we do,Dahlberg said. He said a number of below-level, procedural changes in terms of how the division writes its oversight reviews of facilities that go to the attorneys have facilitated a more expedited process, allowing ORI to close cases more quickly. A misconduct case can take anywhere from two months to several years to close, Dahlberg said, depending on how complicated the case is and how much resistance ORI receives from the researcher identified in the case. ORI also closed more cases than it opened in 2006, with five to 10 cases that Dahlberg said his staff is aggressively trying to close. He said his division is on track to keep up a similar pace in 2007. I'm not doing any projections, but it looks pretty promising,†he said. ORI opened 230 cases last year, which Dahlberg said is consistent with the case load of previous years. However, he said ORI sees a every small tip of the iceberg in terms of the actual research misconduct that is happening, which he described as reasonably widespread. He cited estimates from scientific journals that indicate about 1 percent of all their accepted manuscripts apparently have fraudulent figures. If you do any kind of extrapolation, that could translate into lots and lots of cases,Dahlberg said.
#3 Debra
commented, onDecember 5, 2007 at 6:16 p.m.:
The issue of academic honesty is taken very seriously in the UW student code of conduct. Fabrication and falsification are every bit as serious as plagiarism, the mistreatment of research subjects or any other form of academic misconduct that a student or faculty member might engage in. While part of the cost of misconduct presumably accrues to the progress of science / knowledge, there are also costs to integrity - for the individuals directly involved and for the campus community.
The implication that the acts in this particular case were somehow less significant because certain predictions or conclusions were ultimately supported by the research of others is dangerous. Such issues cannot be dismissed as administrative details. Nor can we accept that acts of misconduct can be justified by events that take place after the fact.
(Furthermore, in response to an earlier comment on this article, I'd point our that the fact that misconduct is believed to happen at some predictable rate doesn't make it ok either.)
The ways that institutions handle misconduct (and allegations of such) send a message to students. So what is the meta-message in this case? Are they to think, then, that plagiarizing in a term paper is ok so long as their arguments are sound or their conclusions borne out? Or that they can make up data for their lab notebooks if they can point to a fellow student who also engaged in misconduct? Absolutely not.
Students learn from their university experiences in many ways. They listen to lectures, read, write, discuss, experiment, explore, practice - and they look to faculty as models of scholarship. To my way of thinking, an institution's policy academic integrity is built and enforced, at least in part, out of respect for students and the student-faculty relationship.
Students learn from the culture of their institutions. Are integrity, accountability and transparency championed in practice, or is it lip service? How does the administration respond to tragedy, to serious problems, to mistakes, to misconduct? We have to consider these questions seriously because the responses in question can become part of the internal ethical map that students use to navigate their own scholarly and professional practice - even their personal lives.
I'm glad we can depend on local journalists to bring such cases to the light of day. That said, should the media continue to be the institution to tell students about misconduct, federal indictments or probations? Or could the UW turn these scenarios into "teachable moments," by modeling an ethical and responsible response to such incidents? I'd say the latter is preferable, but it is predicated on disclosure. Maybe it's time for a refresher course?
Post a comment
You are not currently logged in. You must log in using your Facebook account to post a comment. It's fast, easy, and we don't store any of your personal information, except your first and last name when you post a comment.
Why?
Our old comment system was abused to leave racist, sexist, fradulent, or simply useless comments. We're hoping this verification step will improve the quality of our comments.
I don't have a Facebook account. I'd like to verify my identity using my MySpace/Google/Yahoo!/OpenID/SSN/주민등록번호/MasterCard.
Let us know. We're open to suggestions. Over the next few weeks, we'll be testing other authentication methods.
The FBI/CIA/TSA/CoS/Emmert is out to get me! I need to stay anonymous!
We're working on a way to allow this. If you have any ideas, email us.
I think this website is ugly.
It's going to be a work in progress all summer, so it may look and act differently from week to week. If you want to influence this process, email us. We read every email, and respond to most of them.