Animal Researcher at Ohio State University charged with misconduct.
Sliding under the radar, in part due to the events of Sept. 11th, was an unreported release issued by the US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Office of Research Integrity, of a finding of scientific misconduct against an Ohio State University animal researcher, David A. Padgett.
Update 1/06: Since the initial posting ORI has archived the specific data and a 2001 year summary is posted minus the researchers name. Click on an archived pdf file for the specific charges.
Padgett was one of 14 researchers in 2001, who ORI, closed investigations concerning scientific misconduct. Since this report wasn’t going to make OSU Great, you didn’t hear anything from the university.
ORI found that Dr. Padgett engaged in scientific misconduct in applying for a grant from NIH. They found that Dr. Padgett “plagiarized and misrepresented as his own research data ... for his NIH grant application, data which represents unpublished experiments originally by a researcher at another institution for a private company. The plagiarism was a significant misrepresentation because the data appeared in the preliminary results section of the NIH grant application. The respondent used these experiments...to support the request for funding.” His punishment is minor in that he will not serve on any review committees for the next three years.
Currently Dr. Padgett has one grant from NIH which he received in 1998. There is no impact to that grant due to his misconduct finding.
Dr. Padgett is an animal researcher who uses mice in studies of stress. He is a co-investigator in many experiments with John Sheridan. You have read about him in previous POET Notes, concerning mice in their social reorganization and disruption studies. These experiments fall into the "E" category of experiments where pain or distress to the animal is NOT relieved by anestics or analgesis.
In their own words:
Social Reorganization Paradigm
Upon arrival, mice were identified by ear tag and randomly distributed at
five mice per cage. All mice
were allowed to acclimate to the new surroundings for two weeks.
During this time, definable social hierarchies formed. At this
point "dominant" mice were identified in each cage using behavioral
observations. During observation, the number of social investigatory (sniffing),
aggressive (chase, bite, tail-
rattle, allogroom, aggressive upright, and aggressive sideways postures),
and defensive (flee and
submissive upright or sideways postures) behaviors were assessed for each
individual animal. In addition,
fur score was assessed ranging from 1 (no bald, damaged, or disheveled patches,
fur well groomed) to 5
reflecting increasing incidence of damage to, or deterioration in the apparent
condition, of the fur.
Individuals within groups were ranked according to the ratio of the number
of investigatory/aggressive
interactions initiated and the number of defensive interactions.
Top-ranked "dominant" males had the highest attack ratio. Subsequently,
for SRO, mice initially labeled
as dominant were switched between cages at the beginning of the 12-h dark
cycle (6:00 P.M.). SRO was
performed every second day for a total of four times.