I am aware a colleague conducted interviews prior to obtaining IRB approval. This person also likely did this on a second project conducted in the same academic year. They appear to be a chronic liar with a number of fabrications on their publicly posted CV. The person also runs down other members of the university and seems to move jobs every 1-3 years.
Do I turn over my evidence? I had attempted to mentor them when I initially discovered the lapse but was met with an explosive pushback.
The IRB thing really isn’t that big of a deal in the big picture of things. More importantly, you would have to prove it. Do you have any proof outside of hearsay? Even if you do they will email him or her with a strongly worded email saying not to do it again and they can’t use that data. And even then the accused can say they were not planning on using the data and were just ensuring the quality of their questions and therefore are not violating IRB. Basically, what I am saying is it may not be worth it.
The CV thing is a bigger deal in many ways. How egregious are the lies there?
document it to yourself. write it in an email and mail it to yourself so you have a time stamp.
'explosive pushback' indicates that this person is not going to be reasonable if you confront them. the question is just whether you need to CYA in any way. I am aware of similar situations where there were no real consequences for the person violating IRB, so I dont see any point in pursuing this unless you're in charge of IRB compliance in any way. keep your distance from this person.
The IRB thing really isn�t that big of a deal in the big picture of things. More importantly, you would have to prove it. Do you have any proof outside of hearsay? Even if you do they will email him or her with a strongly worded email saying not to do it again and they can�t use that data. And even then the accused can say they were not planning on using the data and were just ensuring the quality of their questions and therefore are not violating IRB. Basically, what I am saying is it may not be worth it.
The CV thing is a bigger deal in many ways. How egregious are the lies there?
I agree. The IRB strikes me as a procedural violation of a bureaucratic rule, not an ethical violation. If he actually did something that was grossly unethical I would report it.
About the CV, since you've already tried to talk to the person and got an aggressive response, I'd try to talk to the department chair about it, if she or he is a person who listens and can keep everything confidential.
The IRB thing really isn�t that big of a deal in the big picture of things. More importantly, you would have to prove it. Do you have any proof outside of hearsay? Even if you do they will email him or her with a strongly worded email saying not to do it again and they can�t use that data. And even then the accused can say they were not planning on using the data and were just ensuring the quality of their questions and therefore are not violating IRB. Basically, what I am saying is it may not be worth it.
The CV thing is a bigger deal in many ways. How egregious are the lies there?
a) Claims to hold a masters degree they don’t (the university does not offer the subject)
b) Claims to have received multiple grants (quoted as worth more than a million) which either don’t exist or are gross fabrications.
c) Claims to have held significant academic roles which were simply adjunct (and 2 rank steps lower than indicated).
The IRB thing is harder to describe here but I have written proof of the instances of data collection. I had tried to help once I was aware but then I was treated by the person as unreasonable (and described as such to others - though evidence of that is hearsay)
The CV thing is a bigger deal in many ways. How egregious are the lies there?
a) Claims to hold a masters degree they don�t (the university does not offer the subject)
b) Claims to have received multiple grants (quoted as worth more than a million) which either don�t exist or are gross fabrications.
c) Claims to have held significant academic roles which were simply adjunct (and 2 rank steps lower than indicated).
This is really bad, but borderline sufficient to get him fired. Unless you’re sure the dean has the huevos to do the right thing now, I’d reserve this ammunition for when he’s more vulnerable. Say when he applies for tenure. And do it anonymously.
This is really bad, if true. And I would absolutely disagree with the poster above saying to wait until he is more vulnerable. First, that sounds petty and self-serving rather than actually trying to do the right thing. Second, I agree with the poster that it would unlikely lead to termination, but when you apply for grants or get nominated for awards or apply for other jobs, people look at CVs. Lying on a CV could negatively impact others rather than make the perp look lame.
This is really bad, if true. And I would absolutely disagree with the poster above saying to wait until he is more vulnerable. First, that sounds petty and self-serving rather than actually trying to do the right thing.
Doing it anonymously is self-serving but prudent. Why expose yourself? You’re not the offender; you shouldn’t have to face any blowback.
Waiting until P&T is to ensure the right outcome. If you drop it now and the dean lets him slide, you may be stuck working with him forever. But if you have a good dean, then do it now.
Or just don't do it. If these are outright lies, they will turn up in the tenure and promotion process anyway. If you tell the dean, everyone will find out it was you who snitched, one way or another. And it will make you look petty and vindictive, even if you are right.
I also detest the idea of waiting until someone is vulnerable to strike. My advice would be to turn your cheek for now and entrust that all will be revealed at some point, even without your intervention.
Please report this. We go through an IRB revision for a reason; skipping it, even if inconsequential, is a sign of being fast and loose with research steps. And there's nothing more important in research than following steps; research is nothing without a clear accounting of how you achieved your results. I can't trust the results of a researcher that skips such a simple step (IRB review). The lies in the CV are just an add-on to this person's sloppiness.
Please report this. We go through an IRB revision for a reason; skipping it, even if inconsequential, is a sign of being fast and loose with research steps. And there's nothing more important in research than following steps; research is nothing without a clear accounting of how you achieved your results. I can't trust the results of a researcher that skips such a simple step (IRB review). The lies in the CV are just an add-on to this person's sloppiness.
You have it completely backwards. The cv fra/ud is the far more serious offense.
As an IRB officer.... IRB violation is no big deal. It's just paperwork. Most - though by no means all - of my colleagues know how to not harm respondents. The complicated situations, such as what to do with blood samples, or telling a psych person they can't ask aggressively about past rape experiences (yes, it happened), are very, very rare.
However, if skipping IRB is coupled with fabricating data... that's a whole other game.
I'm in the "wait till they are vulnerable" camp. You have no idea how the whole thing will play out now. You give them time to defend themselves, reframe the situation, work the angle to jump into another job, etc etc etc. Or worse, depending on your dean. But when they're up for tenure, you literally have a formal pathway to lay it all out, as anonymously as your heart wishes. All the people shouting "do the right thing right now" may or may not understand how departmental politics work. Nothing better than a good stab in the back, when deserved.