We’ve written about Office of Inspector General investigations several times (see here and here and here). But there’s a small component of OIG investigations that relate to scientific research misconduct. This is the first of multiple posts about research misconduct investigations.
This series will explain how this particular investigative process works and offer some guidance about how to defend against those investigations.
The targets of research misconduct investigations are scientists and other researchers working at universities and other research institutions. Those scientists and researchers apply for federal funds for their work. If they win grants, then they use federal funds and report back to the government about the research.
This close nexus between private actors (the researchers) and billions of dollars of federal funds means that someone has to keep an eye out for fraud. This type of fraud has the gentler name of “research misconduct,” but the repercussions are still severe.
We’re talking about employment consequences, expulsion from federally-funded research for years, public shaming and, possibly, criminal charges.
When the government uncovers research misconduct, it does not hesitate to make that misconduct public. For example, every quarter, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) publishes a newsletter on its website. A prominent part of the newsletter is called “Research Misconduct Case Studies.” In that section, ORI describes in some detail its findings of misconduct against a federally-funded researcher. The researcher’s name is prominently featured in the article, along with the likely career-ending punishment imposed.
If you aren’t a researcher, you may be wondering: What is the ORI? How did it get so powerful?
You may also be wondering: Why is this a topic for a white-collar criminal defense blog?
Let’s start with the second question first.
Remember when everyone was talking about whether now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh was lying to Congress when he seemed a bit less-than-candid about his drinking in high school?
By 
Last week, news hit that Donald Trump had received written questions from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. More interesting, President Trump asserted he answered them “very easily.”
By 
On November 1, 2018, several new amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines went into effect. Two of them are quite positive developments for defendants—and their lawyers—in white-collar criminal cases.
The judge in one of my recent criminal trials allowed the jurors to ask questions. It was mostly fascinating, though there were a few scary moments too.
By 
I don’t care what jury consultants say, picking a jury is an art and not a science.
