NOTE: This is part one in a three-part series.
A Consolidated Hearing Committee (CHC) at the U concluded earlier this summer that a distinguished pathology lab in Research Park “recklessly” misrepresented data in 11 published papers dating back to 2007.
The lead author of these papers, Ivana De Domenico, a professor of biochemistry is no longer employed at the U. The senior author, Jerry Kaplan, a professor in the department of pathology, is retiring.
According to the CHC, the majority of the blame for the faulty research fell on De Domenico, who is the lead author of 10 of the 11 papers in question. Twenty-one errors were found within the 11 papers, and so far two papers have been retracted. The errors included manipulation of images and lab films, misleading graphs, duplication of data, poor record keeping and inaccurate error bars.
The report released by the CHC states that the panel, “concluded that Dr. De Domenico … engaged in research misconduct by ‘reckless disregard of accepted practices’ in her area of research.”
The committee report also emphasizes that responsibilities for these matters should not end solely with De Domenico’s termination and notes that “her behavior was part of a larger pattern of complicity in misconduct.”
Joseph Yost, professor of neurobiology and anatomy, presented a PowerPoint and oral presentation focusing on three of the papers in question. The CHC cites Yost’s testimony as “key evidence” that intentional or reckless disregard of scientific practices occurred within the lab in question.
Yost did not return emails seeking comment.
The publicly released report from the U redacted many names of those involved. The report states on page three:
“What we gleaned from these and Dr. Yost’s summary is that there was intentional misrepresentation of data in at least one instance but we cannot determine who did it, that Dr. De Domenico [redacted] as either lead author or senior author bore responsibility for spotting what seemed to be at least two instances to be attention-getting misrepresentations, that [redacted] was probably responsible for at least one irregularity that was beyond the knowledge base of Dr. De Domenico.”
Kaplan declined to comment to the The Daily Utah Chronicle, and De Domenico’s lawyer Ryan Bell declined comment both for himself and on behalf of his client. However, in a statement released in August to The Salt Lake Tribune, Bell claimed that his client did not mismanage or falsify information.
“[De Domenico] maintains that she conducted her work as conscientiously as possible within the context of a very difficult work environment at the university,” said Bell in the statement.
The statement also references the committee’s findings that suggest the errors are part of a “larger pattern” of irresponsible research and mismanagement.
A report released by the CHC also found “instances of intentional falsification or fabrication of data.” However, the committee was unable to directly link the intentional falsification to any particular individual by a “preponderance of evidence.”
Jeffery R. Botkin, the U’s associate vice president for research integrity, said the U did not pursue legal charges because of existing university policy for handling these issues. He said if the situation had been different — if someone was stealing money or equipment, for instance — a legal charge might have been warranted.
“The system is designed so that the university, or the institution [where] the research was conducted, has the primary responsibility for investigating these sort of allegations,” Botkin said.