- 0-994, CLOSEOUT FOR EM94080027 OIG received a letter f r o m ~ 1 n v e s t i g a t o r / ~ c i e n t i s t , in the Division of Research Investigations of the Office of Research Integrity (the Office). The investigator that - supplied OIG with a copy of the Office's report on its inves6gation into allegations the 'subject and presiddnt o f Service (the Agency). The investigator informed OIG of this case because one of the proposals 7 had misrepresented his academic credentials in five research proposds submitted to the Public Health under investigation stated that the subject had been a co-investigator on a proposal submitted to NSF. The investigator informed 016 that the Agency had concluded that the subject had committed misconduct in science, and it had executed a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with the subject. Under the terms of the agreement the subject agreed to exclude himself voluntarily for a period of three (3) years from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for, or involvement in, nonprocurement transactions (e.g. grants and cooperative agreements) of the United States Government. . . . He also agreed that concurrent with the period of voluntary exclusion . . . [he would] exclude himself voluntarily from serving on any [Agency] Advisory Committees, Boards, and/or peer review committees for a period of three (3) years. OIG determined that the subject had submitted only one proposal to NSF and that the proposal had been returned to the PI without review because it did not conform with the instructions for proposal preparation. 016 reviewed the records of SBIR submissions by the subject's company to other federal agencies and uncovered five declined groposals that had been submitted to a second Agency. Three of these groposals contained false credential claims. OIG informed the second Agency's OIG about these false claims. OIG compared the biographical sketch in the NSF proposal with those included in the Office's report. The NSF sketch was identical to that found in the chronologically fust proposal and virtually identical to the second proposal submitted to the Agency and included in the Office's investigation. The NSF proposal was submitted two months after the fust Agency proposal and two months before the second Agency proposal was submitted. The biographical Page 1 of 2 M94-27 CLOSEOUT FOR M9408002'7 sketches in all three proposals falsely stated that the subject had "completed his undergraduate and graduate work in chemistry" and falsely identified two institutions of higher learning where this work had been conducted. They also falsely claim that the subject held the position of Director of Research at a corporation. The subject's false statements to NSF are identical to those found in two of the Agency proposals discussed in the Office's report; however, unlike the Agency's proposals, this single NSF proposal was returned to the PI without review because it did not meet particular administrative screening criteria. Because the Agency's actions have effectively prevented the subject from receiving, or benefiting from, federal support for three years, OIG concluded that the Federal Government's interests were adequately protected and that there was no need for NSF to take further action. Therefore OIG closed this inquiry and no further action in this case will be taken. cc: Staff Scientist, Deputy AIG-Oversight, AIG-Oversight, IG Page 2 of 2
Applicant/Grantee/PI False Certification
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 1995-03-22.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)