Case Study 6: Responsibilities of An Investigator
A physician, Dr. Lee has been employed as a research scientist at a Thai medical research institution for the past five years. During this time he has been very productive, completing over 15 studies and publishing over 20 papers. Over 70% of the protocols he has submitted for funding have been approved and implemented. He returns to his own country leaving unfinished studies in the hands of his co-investigators. He also leaves behind some un-funded protocols written with his co-investigators and some that await funding decisions. A year after he has left Thailand, he receives a proposal for review from an international research funding organization; they want him to evaluate the proposal to determine whether it should be supported The proposal has been submitted by Dr. C.L. Jones an internationally known clinical investigator and director of an important research unit in his own developing country. After the first few pages Dr. Lee realizes he has see this proposal before; it is, in fact almost a direct copy of an unfunded proposal that he left in Thailand. He carefully checks the proposal and there are no references to his study or acknowledgments to the Thai institution or any of his co-investigators anywhere in his proposal.
When informed of the identical nature of the new proposal, the funding agency decides not to fund the study and asks Dr. Lee to keep the matter strictly confidential. Dr. Lee, however, is not content to let the matter rest. He feels that this is a most egregious example of plagiarism and raises important questions beyond the provenance of the proposal. Dr. Jones, for example, is widely quoted in the literature and is often called upon to consult for many international organizations on matters of child health. As Dr. Lee sees it, if Dr. Jones has so obviously plagiarized his protocol, he may have done it to others and may even have manipulated his data. He asks the funding agency to conduct a thorough investigation of the matter.
The funding agency complies and writes that a thorough investigation of the matter, including reviewing an explanation provided by Dr. Jones, has been completed by a Committee convened within the funding agency. The Committee concluded that "although negligence may have occurred in the preparation of the proposal, there was no intention to copy the proprietary text of another researcher and that no action will taken against Dr. Jones in this case." The Committee also noted that the proposal was not the direct property of Dr. Lee, but rather that of the Thai institution, and that it was not published or copyrighted. It was, therefore, in the public domain and no low was broken when it was copied by Dr. Jones and his colleagues. Dr. Lee is thanked for his vigilance and given no further explanation.
Dr. Lee is stunned by both the process of the investigation and the Committee's decision. Neither he nor his co-investigators were ever contacted during this "thorough investigation" and no investigation was directed at the Thai institution to see who passes this proposal onto Dr. Jones. If such a situation occurred in his institution, he observes, the researcher who committed plagiarism would be suspended from all ongoing research, removed from all research committees, and not allowed to consult internationally until the matter had been completely resolved.
Note: Cases are fictional, but based on real events. All organization and individual names have been changed.
For more information on the Program on Ethical Issues in International Health Research, click here!
