++
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS
CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM
Case Number: A05070053 Page 1 of 2
This case arose from an allegation of intellectual theft1 regarding a proposal (the subject
proposal).2It was alleged that language and ideas in the proposal were drawn from another
funded proposal.3 Our review of the subject proposal found multiple sections that appeared
similar to the alleged source proposal. In addition, the subject proposal appeared to have some of
its structure drawn from the source proposal. The structure in question was not dictated by the
program announcement or other source that appeared common to the two proposals.
In response to our inquiry, the five PIStold us that two of the PIS, subjects 1 and 2, were the
principal authors of the subject proposal. The subjects said they had immediately contacted the
source proposal PIS and extended their apologies. Subject 1, acknowledged that he was the lead
author. Subject 2 stated that he had obtained the source proposal from the PIS of that proposal.
Both subjects explained that they had the written permission from the PIS of the source proposal
to use it in the construction of the subject proposal. They provided e-mails demonstrating an
active conversation between the subjects and the PIS of the source proposal during the
development of the subject proposal. The subjects acknowledged that they had also failed to
provide necessary citations to the publications of another a ~ t h o r . ~
Subject 1 stated he "utilize the [source proposal] but only to a limited extent" and said he
"fail[ed] to exercise the necessary thoroughness in preparing the final version of our proposal."5
He stated that he "did not include [the other author's] publications in our references for the same
reason: a "referencing error . . . in preparing the final version of our proposal."6 He characterized
his citation failures as a "careless editing mistake, but nothing more than that."7 He
"acknowledge[d] that . . . [he] did not take sufficient care to ensure that all of the necessary
references were in~luded,"~ that his proposal preparation process "failed miserablf9 when
Id.
' Subject 1's
Id.
Id.
-
NSF OIG Form 2 (1 1/02)
.. * ..
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS
CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM
Case Number: A05070053 Page 2 of 2
preparing a muti-institutional submission, and that he had permanently changed the way he
prepare proposals. Subject 2 characterized the citation omissions as a "single unfortunate and
inadvertent editing mi~take"'~ and offered preparation haste as the reason for providing the
citations. He stated that the references had been "inadvertently left out.""
We determined there was no need to pursue this case further. The subjects had contacted and
apologized to the source proposal PIS for their unacknowledged use of the source proposal. The
mitigating circumstance in this case is that the subjects had the written permission of the PIS to
use their materials. In closing this case, we discussed with the subjects the errors in their
reasoning and strongly encourage the subjects to adopt approaches that would be designed to
assiduously acknowledge the contributions of others in their work, stating that such care, would
avoid allegations of plagiarism and intellectual theft. We reminded the subjects that in
circumstances such as this failure to carefully acknowledge the intellectual contributions of
others can damage not only their reputations with their colleagues, but also the reputations of
those associated with their efforts. We reminded them that proposal preparation haste is an
inadequate reason for failing to take one of the most important steps in written and oral
communications: appropriately crediting sources. We reminded them that the free exchange of
ideas within the research community relies on three essential elements: obtaining permission to
use another's intellectual property, carefully distinguishing the other researcher's material from
your own within oral or written presentations, and finally, providing adequate acknowledgment
to the original author.
11 We provided them with NSF's expectations articulated in Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) that:
NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and
attribution. The responsibility for proper attribution and citation rests
with authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be
prepared with equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI
(or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged. Serious failure to
adhere to such standards can result in findings of research
rnisc~nduct.'~
Accordingly, this case is closed.
lo Subject 2's
'l Subject 2's
Grant Proposal Guide,Section 1.D.3.
Intellectual Theft
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 2006-02-08.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)