Exploring Research Misconduct: A Case Study of Dr. Deepti Malhotra

TSP: This is for Ms Conduct alone!

 

Introduction

From time immemorial, misconduct has been a major component of all human societies, evident in the resulting backwardness that exists and metastasizes across the world. The act of shortcutting, to go through the right process in a bid to reduce stress, yet receive relief, accolades, money, trust, and any sort of prestige has for many years been part of the research community, and only very few of the overwhelming majority have been caught red-handed and subsequently sanctioned (McCook, 2017). According to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (2021), research misconduct involves the “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results”. It is a behavior that intentionally or unintentionally neglects scientific ethical standards (Pitak-Arnnop et al., 2008). When caught, the researcher or scientist ultimately, amongst many a thing loses reputation, nascent or built up over the years. The rest of this paper summarizes a case of research misconduct, followed by a brief analysis and evaluation, as well as an eventual conclusion.

Event Summary

According to the Office of Research Institute (ORI, 2021), Dr. Deepti Malhotra had carelessly and advertently engaged in research misconduct, particularly the falsification and fabrication of data and figures in four (4) different articles and her PhD thesis (ORI) which can be found with retraction details on the Supplementary Information section of  (Findings of Research Misconduct, 2019).

This success of this investigation was based on the synergistic efforts of ORI, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health from which he had had his doctorate and postdoctoral degrees (ORI, 2021). The papers were associated with a research supported by top agencies including the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (ORI, 2021).The investigative team were able to ascertain that the researcher trimmed and manipulated “Western blot images to conceal their sources their origin or alter negative DNA gel images of the PCR product by recopying them and relabeling them to constitute Western blot data for different experiments in seventeen (17) figures” (Findings of Research Misconduct, 2019) in the papers mentioned.

Being found guilty of misconduct, Dr. Malhotra agreed to alienate herself from any form of contract with the U.S Government, and from serving as a consultant in any committee (ORI, 2021), from October 2019 to September 2023 (Findings of Research Misconduct, 2019).

Analysis and Evaluation

Misconduct as exemplified by the subject of this case study could have been avoided by her willingness to deliver appropriately, through right reporting of experimental findings. As in the case of medical doctors who take the Hippocrates oath (Tyson, 2001), working the talk is important. Not abusing the trust given to her by the funding group was important, and so not living up to it caused her the ordeal. She should not have applied for the grants if she knew she was not capable of, or would not engage in, trustworthy research. A study by Lewis (2021) suggests three strategies that can be adopted in preventing similar misconduct. These strategies have been encapsulated into two. One of them is establishing top-down expectations and making lab protocols. This happens when academic and research institutions create a culture of research transparency through the establishment and conveying of guidelines and values at departmental and collegial levels by proven principal leaders (Ford 2018; Lewis, 2021). Research misconduct can also be deterred when principal investigators make lab protocols that fosters transparent and consistent documentation of research findings.

The other suggestion made is centered on data management. The problem that may have been associated with the case of Dr. Malhotra is ineffective data management. I assume that each step of experiments carried out by the researcher had no periodic monitoring by established teams. Having an internal-ORI, according to Ford (2018) as well as a separate team simultaneously reproducing or mimicking the same research, mistakes and nonchalance could have been minimized or prevented. In addition to this, reports should also be monitored by and shared with grant providers periodically (Ford, 2018; Lewis, 2021). This will highly consolidate transparency with funds and research.

Conclusion

This paper has successfully assessed and analyzed the misconduct case of Dr. Deepti Malhotra. It is worth mentioning that scientists and researchers shape the world by their findings, but if findings are trimmed, cooked or in any way manipulated, not only will public trust regarding the works of the culprits be shown. Misconducts as this might also adversely alter public trust on research community as a whole. However, sanctioning the culprits will in some way enable others, particularly emerging researchers to sit up to investigate and report research appropriately. Strategies and prevention techniques as those mentioned in this paper will also help reduce research misconduct in a significant way.

References

Findings of Research Misconduct. Federal register, 2019, 84(220), 61916–61917.

Ford, B. Strategies for Preventing Research Misconduct, 2018. Ankura Website.  https://ankura.com/insights/strategies-for-preventing-research-misconduct/ (accessed Oct. 21, 2021)

Lewis, L. 3 Ways to Prevent University Research Misconduct, 2021. https://research.uh.edu/the-big-idea/university-research-explained/4-ways-to-prevent-research-misconduct/ (accessed Oct. 21, 2021)

McCook, A. U.S. researchers guilty of misconduct later won more than $100 million in NIH grants, study finds, 2017. Science Magazine Web site. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/us-researchers-guilty-misconduct-later-won-more-100-million-nih-grants-study-finds (accessed Oct. 21, 2021)

Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Case Summary: Malhotra, Deepti, 2001. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-malhotra-deepti (accessed Oct. 21, 2021)

Office of Science and Technology Policy. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/chapter-2-research-misconduct-office-science-and-technology-policy (accessed Oct. 25, 2021)

Pitak-Arnnop, P.; Schouman, T.; Bertrand, J.-C.; Hervé, C. How to avoid non-compliance of biomedical research? Recommendations to surgeons. Journal of Surgery, 2008, 145(6), 534–541. doi:10.1016/s0021-7697(08)74683-0

Tyson, P. Hippocratic Oath, 2001. PBS Website. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/hippocratic-oath-today/ (accessed Oct. 25, 2021)