HHS Combined FOIA Production

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
'.
GRETCHEN BRODNICKI, J.D.
: .
DEAN FOR FACULTY AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY
'
(b) (7)(A)
25 SHATTUCK STREET
BOSTON, MAsSACHUSETTS 02115
TEL: (617) 432-2496

FAX: (617) 432-7462
GRETCHEN_BRODNICICI@HMS:HARVARD.EDU
CONFIDENTIAL
June S, 2012
John E. Dahlberg, Ph.D., Director
Division of Investigative Oversight
Office for Research Integrity
1101 Wootton Parkway
Suite 750
Rockville, MD 20852
Re:
DIO:
Matter of (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

Enclosed please find the fmal determination, final reports and documentary record in the
above-referenced investigation. As you will see, there was a fmding of research misconduct.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-432-2496 or
Gretchen [email protected] if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Sincerely,
/:J~6~-
Gretchen Brodnicki
Dean for Faculty and
Research Integrity
Enclosures
cc:
Kristin Bittinger (w/o enclosures)

Ellen Berkman, J.D. (w/o enclosures)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000001
HHS-PSC000002
MASSACHUSEITS GENERAL HOSPITAL~ HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

PAUL S. RUSSELL, MD
John Homans Professor of Surgery

Harvard
Visiting Surgeon and Chief, Transplantation Unil
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boslon, MA 02114
(617) 726-2801
\@V
May 22, 2012

Jeffrey Flier, M.D.
Dean of the Faculty of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
25 Shattuck Street
Boston, MA 02115
Dear Dr. Flier:
On behalf of the Harvard Medical School Standing Committee on Facility Conduct, I am

writing to convey to you the recommendation of the Standing Committee relating to an investigation
into allegations that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
in the laboratory of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , might
have conimitted research misconduct
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
This matter commenced in October 2007, when Margaret Dale, J.D., former Research
Integrity Officer and Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity at HMS, was notified by Gerianne
Sands, J.D., Associate General Counsel at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC)
that (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) might
(b) (7)(A) . The research
reported in (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) was conducted at HMS while
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) in
laboratory.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , where
in the Division of Basic Sciences.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
The allegations against(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) were first brought forward by another former fellow in
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) prepared a detailed
laboratory at FHCRC,
report setting forth
(b) (7)(A) allegations against (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) related to (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) . In
addition, (b) provided a series of PowerPoint presentations supporting (b) allegations.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(6)
(6),
,
(b)
(b)
(7)
After
policies and federal
(7) an initial assessment, and in accordance with institutional (C)
regulations,
(C a joint inquiry panel was appointed to look into the matter and to report its findings and
)
HHS-PSC000003
PAUL S. RUSSELL, M.D.

conclusions to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct. The inquiry panel,
comprised of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) ,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Professor
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) and
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
, reviewed the matter and recommended that it proceed to investigation in accordance
with institutional policies, Public Health Service regulations and the Department of Defense
directive. The Chair of the Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct, Paul S. Russell, M.D.,
John Romans Distinguished Professor of Surgery, accepted the recommendations of the inquiry
panel and his recommendations were accepted by you. The final determinations of the inquiry
panel were then forwarded to the respondent, the federal Office of Research Integrity and the
Department of Defense.
The members of the inquiry panel agreed to serve as members of an investigative panel.
The investigative panel was charged with applying the standard for review set forth in 42 CFR
1
Sec. 50.102 to determine whether (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) committed research misconduct. As detailed in the
attached investigation report, the panel met three times at the end of 2010 and early 2011 to review
the written submissions of the respondent and complainant, to interview (b) (6), (b)
and (b) (6),
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(7)(C)
(b)(7)
and to consider the evidence
While the panel reached
(b) (7)(A) against
preliminary conclusions
(b) (7)(A) in March 2011, it held issuance of its draft (C)
report pending its formal inquiry into (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) allegations against a second respondent.
The conclusions of that review did not ultimately alter the findings of the investigative panel.
Consequently, on (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , a draft report was shared with (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) declined
to comment in (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
The panel issued its final report on (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) They concluded that (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Specifically, the panel concluded that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
The Standing Committee met on March 22,2012 to consider the matter. At the meeting, we
reviewed the investigative panel's report and the accompanying documentation, met with the
investigation staff, and interviewed (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , a representative on behalf of the investigative paneL
42 CFR Sec. 50.102 was the regulation in effect when the alleged misconduct occurred. "Misconduct" or
"Misconduct in Science" is defined as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate
from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting or reporting
research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. The
investigation was conducted in compliance with that standard, but the procedural requirements of 42 CFR Part 93,
the revised regulation covering misconduct, were followed with respect to the panel's investigative process.
1
HHS-PSC000004

/
Conclusions
Having reviewed and considered carefully the final report of the investigative panel,
including the accompanying documentation, we conclude that the work of the investigative panel
was thorough and fair.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
We agree with the conclusion of the investigative panel tha

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Although we find
appear from the record that (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) exercised
In particular, it does not
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) primary data

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) results were
preliminary. (See investigation report, exhibit 8, p. 11). A careful review of all primary data
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
supporting the
paper before submission might have
showing the reported
inspired a more careful review of the
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) This might have

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Recommendations
We agree with the recommendation of the investigative panel that the Office for Research
Integrity, Department of Defense and appropriate institutional officials at HMS be notified of the
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
outcome of this investigation.
We also agree with the panel that FHCRC, (b) (6), (b) and (b) (6), (b) be notified in writing
(7)(C)
(7)(C)
of the conclusion of this matter.
These are the conclusions and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Faculty
Conduct. Please feel free to call on us if we can be of further assistance.
SjJerely ,
()
r(Jul g~ ~~u/rUJ,- ~
Paul S. Russell, M.D.

Chairperson
Enclosures
HHS-PSC000005
HHS-PSC000006
JEFFREY
S.
FUER,
MD
DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE

25 SHATTUCK ST.
BOSTON,
MA 02II5
CONFIDENTIAL
May 29, 2012
(b) (6)
Via Email: (
b
Dear(b) (6), (b)(7)(C))
(
6
I am writing to inform you of the determinations Harvard Medical School has reached after reviewing and
)
considering the
final conclusions and recommendations of the HMS Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct, as
set forth in their letter to me of(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) as well as the Investigation Panel's report, and the rest of
documentary record in this case.
After careful consideration, I have accepted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Standing
Committee and the Investigation Panel.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

I also agree with the panel that FHCRC, (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) and (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) be notified in writing of the conclusion of this
matter.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
If you have any further questions conceming this matter, including any questions about the implementation of the
Standing Committee's recommendations, please contact Gretchen Brodnicki, the HMS Dean for Faculty and
Research Integrity, at Gretchen [email protected], or at 617-432-2496.
Sincerely,
~~
cc:
Gretchen Brodnicki
Kristin Bittinger
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Ellen Berkman, J.D. (Office of the General Counsel)
Enclosures
HHS-PSC000007
HHS-PSC000008
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
To:
Paul Russell, M.D., Chair, Faculty of Medicine Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
From:
Re:
Report of the Investigative Panel Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct against

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) former Harvard Medical School (HMS) (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Date: March 13,2011

INTRODUCTION
Following is the report of an Investigation Panel established to examine allegations that

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) former Harvard Medical School (HMS)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

This panel was originally appointed in March 2008 as members of an ad hoc inquiry
panel. The inquiry panel was charged with determining whether or not sufficient evidence of
research misconduct existed to warrant an investigation of this matter. Our inquiry report dated
May 5, 2010, including exhibits and other supporting materials, is attached to this investigation
report. The inquiry report provides a factual summary of the matter and our conclusions
following initial inquiry, including our recommendation that the matter proceed to investigation.
We briefly summarize the inquiry process and outcome below.
SUMMARY OF THE INQUIRY PROCESS
In October 2007, Margaret Dale, J.D., former Research Integrity Officer and Dean for
Faculty and Research Integrity at HMS, was notified by Gerianne Sands, J.D., Associate General
(b) (6), at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), regarding allegations that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

HHS-PSC000009
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
. Because the research in

question was conducted while
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , the HMS Office for Professional
Standards and Integrity (OPSI) took the administrative lead in staffing the matter? The
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) in
complainant in this matter is
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) . (b) (6), (b) prepared a very detailed report dated November
(7)(C) and provided these materials to the FHCRC panel
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
in the course of its related review. In addition,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
FHCRC secured and sequestered all available
primary data relevant to the inquiry and, in view of the jurisdiction ofHMS over the allegations
discussed in this report, provided these data and submissions to HMS.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
In compliance with institutional policy and federal regulation,3 (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) was notified of
commencement of the inquiry and provided with our names as proposed members of the review
panel.
raised no objection to our service on the inquiry panel or to our continued service on
this investigation panel. We are
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) ,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , and
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Professor
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Gretchen Brodnicki, J.D., Research Integrity Officer and
Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity,4 Mortimer Litt, M.D., HMS Senior Scientific
Investigator, Kristin Bittinger, HMS Director of Scientific Integrity,s and (b)(6),(b)(7)(C) of the
OPSI also served as staffto the panel. In addition, a representative ofthe Harvard University
Office of General Counsel (Ellen Berkman, J.D.) was available to advise us throughout the
proceedings and attended both inquiry and investigative panel meetings.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

The inquiry and subsequent investigation were conducted in accordance with the HMS Principles and Procedures
for Dealing with Allegations of Faculty Misconduct and the Public Health Services Rule, 42 CFR Part 93, and the
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Department of Defense INSTRUCTION 3210.7 (May 14,2004), which implements Dodd DIRECTIVE 3216.2.
3
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Dean Brodnicki arrived at HMS in July 2008.
Ms. Bittinger arrived at HMS in April 2009.
2
HHS-PSC000010
CONFIDENTIAL
Although we initially met in April 2008 for orientation and document review, the bulk of
the inquiry was conducted through the end of2009 and early 2010.6 This panel convened two
meetings on March 20,2009 and March 30,2009 to further discuss the allegations, the
documentation,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) and the available primary image data. Following these
meetings, we requested that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)
(6),
(b)(7)(C)
On July 29, 2009, we met in the
laboratory of(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) to
7
review relevant original slides. Following our review of the available slides, we posed followup questions
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) with an additional opportunity to respond
that he had not previously addressed. Through
counsel,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

The allegations under review relate to (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) paper, which reported on the (b) (6),
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)(7)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
; (ii) (b) (6),
(b)(7)(C)
; (iii)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

3
HHS-PSC000011
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) expressed by
(b) (6), (b)(7)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) (C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .8 They observed
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
In a previous paper, using the

that the
.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Based on experience derived from this paper,
(b)
(6),
(b)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(7)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
The authors reported, as expected, that
Furthermore, (b) (6),
(b)(7) .
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

.
Upon joining (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
group,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
4
HHS-PSC000012
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) . 9 (See Inquiry Report, Exhibit 8, p. 8).
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
efforts to gather insight from (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) regarding potential causes for
difficulty with
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
the
protocol,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
r. Following
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) regarding the discrepancies and the
challenges he encountered in his attempt to follow the (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) protocol, including a trip by
concerns to the attention of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) brought
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
immediately notified institutional officials at FRCRC .
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) ,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) that had been

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) . According to
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
alleges that
the real data did not demonstrate
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
set forth (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

one allegation with numerous subparts identifying specific
manipulations
alleged
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) on the figures in (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) At the
conclusion of the inquiry, we found
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .
The final inquiry report was provided to Paul Russell, M.D., Chair of the Standing
Committee on Faculty Conduct, for review and approval. Dr. Russell concurred with the
conclusions ofthis panel's inquiry and recommended to Jeffrey Flier, M.D., Dean ofthe Faculty
of Medicine,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Dr. Flier
concurred with Dr. Russell's recommendation
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) (Exhibit 4).
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
5
HHS-PSC000013
CONFIDENTIAL
In addition, because the research in question was funded, in part, by federal grants, the Office of
Research Integrity (ORl) and the Department of Defense (DoD) were notified. (Exhibits 5 and
6).
INVESTIGATION STANDARD FOR REVIEW

As members of the investigation panel, we were charged with determining (b) (7)(A)
Under 42 CFR 50.102 , the regulation in effect when the alleged misconduct
occurred, "Misconduct" or "Mis<2onduct in Science" is defined as fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted
within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not
include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. We conducted
our investigation in accordance with this standard. The procedural requirements that this panel
followed, however, were governed by 42 CFR Part 93.
INVESTIGATION PROCESS
We first met as an investigation panel on October 5, 2010 to review our charge and
additional documentation
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (7)(A)
We met a final time (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) to interview

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b)
(6),
(b)(7)(C)
(b)
(6),
(b)(7)(C)
in
laboratory and the complainant in this matter.
interview was
(b)
(6),
(b)(7)(C)
recorded, transcribed, and provided to him for his review.
Prior to this meeting,
.
This panel's review (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) is the subject of a second formal report and is not
discussed in this report. We did, however, hold the issuance of this report as a result of the
pendency of the related inquiry to ensure that its findings would not impact our conclusions with
respect to the allegations (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) The second inquiry ended (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) The
outcome of our review
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) ultimately did not alter the findings and
recommendations we made (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) with (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) each of which is set forth
below.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
also given a final opportunity to comment on this report.

comment on the report (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
declined to
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
12
The Office for Research Integrity has advised that the procedural requirements set forth in the new regulation,
42 CFR Part 93, are applicable to proceedings that commence after the new regulation went into effect. However,
the defmition of research misconduct that was in effect at the time the alleged misconduct occured continues to
apply.
6
HHS-PSC000014
CONFIDENTIAL
ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS
The facts and findings set forth in the inquiry report regarding each allegation are
incorporated by reference into this report. We focus here on the additional information provided
by
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) as each relates to the pending allegations.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

however,
experimental basis one must consider
explore the
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , to fully understand their

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) to
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Briefly, the method is supposed to consist of the following steps:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
13
7
HHS-PSC000015
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
A review of the literature

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) among members
of this investigation panelled to the following conclusions as
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
14
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
15
8
HHS-PSC000016
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) to answer the
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) This contributed (i) (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
, (ii)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
In summary,
questions asked
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
and (iii)
It must be emphasized that the above reconstruction describes potential sources of human
error, and does not, alone, describe events that fall within the definition of research misconduct.
It is very common for scientific assays to detect a combination of genuine signal and background
noise; this paper's use of a method that included background labeling does not constitute
scientific misconduct. Scientific research is always limited to the use of techniques that are
available at the time: a technique may initially seem promising yet difficult, and remedies may be
attempted that generate artifacts.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
16
9
HHS-PSC000017
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

10
HHS-PSC000018
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
11
HHS-PSC000019
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

12
HHS-PSC000020
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
13
HHS-PSC000021
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(A)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
14
HHS-PSC000022
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
IS
HHS-PSC000023
CONFIDENTIAL
In view of our review ofthe original sections,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Our review of the original slide that produced figure 21, however, revealed (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) By simply comparing the
A review of
16
HHS-PSC000024
CONFIDENTIAL
two figures,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
We were not able to locate the original slide that produced this figure. (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
17
HHS-PSC000025
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
CONCLUSIONS
We have reviewed the documentary record relating to (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) against (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) the numerous submissions from (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) ,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
throughout this process, the
slides that we were able to locate and review, and the
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,
and (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) In reviewing these materials, we
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) of
have been mindful of our charge as an Investigation Panel. Mindful of that charge, we have
determined that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
18
HHS-PSC000026
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (7)(A)
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with the applicable institutional policies and federal regulations and for the
reasons stated above, we recommend this matter be referred to HMS officials with such finding
and a recommendation that OR! and DoD be notified.
19
HHS-PSC000027
List of Zou Exhibits
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .
Exhibit 3: Letter of Dr. Paul Russell, Chair of the Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct,
affinning the decision of the Inquiry panel.
Exhibit 4: Deciding Official Letter, signed by Jeffrey Flier, M.D., Dean ofthe Faculty of
Medicine, following inquiry.
Exhibit 5: Notification to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of decision of Inquiry
Panel to proceed to investigation.
Exhibit 6: Notification to the Department of Defense (DoD) of decision of Inquiry Panel
to proceed to investigation.
Exhibit 7: Transcript of testimony of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Exhibit 10:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000028
HHS-PSC000029
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000030
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000031
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000032
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000033
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

articles
HHS-PSC000034
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000035
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000036
HHS-PSC000037
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

RETRACTION
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000038
HHS-PSC000039
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL ~ HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

PAULS.RUSSELL,M.D.
John Homans Distinguished Professor of Surgery
.~
Harvard
Senior Surgeon
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114
(617) 726-2801
mWi
May 12,2010
Jeffrey S. Flier, M.D.
25 Shattuck Street
Boston, MA 02115
.Dear Dr. Flier:
On behalf of the Harvard Medical School StandilJ.g Committee on Faculty Conduct, I am
writing to convey to you my recommendation, as chair of the Standing Committee, relating to
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) former Harvard Medical School (HMS)(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
. allegations
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
As the attached inquiry report details, the allegations in this matter were first to HMS's
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) at Fred Hutchinson Cancer
attention by
(b)
(6),
(b)(7)(C)
Research Center (FHCRC)
conveyed to (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
. fonner Research Integrity Officer and Dean for Facility and Research Integrity at HMS that
in the _
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
laboratory of
laboratory moved to FHCRC in 2002. After an initial assessment and in accordance with
institutional policies, a joint inqUlly panel was appointed to look into the matter. The inquiry panel
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
was comprised of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) and
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor of
Professor
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) The inquiry panel was charged with determining whether or not the
matter warranted a further investigative process. It was detennined that (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
National Institute of Health and the Department of Defense
and, therefore the matter was subject to the Public Health Services Rule, 42 CFR Part 93 and the
Department of Defense INSTRUCTION 3210.7 (May 14,2004).
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
1
I
The inquiry panel met in person on four occasions to review (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
submitted in support (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) several written responses submitted by the
respondent and all available onginal source documentation, including original croscope slides
sequestered and provided through FHCRC. As indicated in their report, the inquiry panel members
concluded that there was sufficient evidence to wiimuit proceeding to investiga~on (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
';
II
HHS-PSC000040
I
f
!
i
PAUL S. RUSSELL, MD.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

The report of the inquiry panel was submitted to me, as chair of the Standing Committee, on
May 5, 2010 to consider the matter. I reviewed inquiry panel's report and the accompanying
documentation.
(b) (7)(A)
Conclusion
I
\
I
!
!
II
-\.
"j
)
I
i
"/
!
,!
"I
~II
HHS-PSC000041
HHS-PSC000042
(b) (7)(A)
'j.
HHS-PSC000043
(b) (7)(A)
Recommendations
(b) (7)(A)
I agree with:the inquiry ~el that
Because NIH and DOD fimding was involved, the Office of

Research Integrity (OR!) of the Public Health Service and the Department of Defense should be .
notified of the decision.
These are the conclusions and recommendations of the chair, on behalf of the Standing
Committee on Faculty Conduct
Sincerely,
PllliL S, Rw~ .
Paul Russell, M.D.

Chair
II
!
Enclosures
I
i
i
.,i
-i
I
HHS-PSC000044
Ii
JEFFREY
S. FLIER, MD
DI!AN 0[' THE
FACULTY OF MEDICINE
HARvARD MEDICAL ScHOOL
25 SHAITUCK ST.
BOSTON, W,A 02II5
CONFIDENTIAL
May 25, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I am. writing to provide you with the final conclusions of the HMS Standing Committee on
. Faculty Conduct and to inform you of the determinations reached by the Harvard Medical School
after-reviewing the reports and the documentaIy record in this case, including your submissions.
After careful conside~tio~ HMS has accepted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Chair of the Standing Committee and the Inquiry Panel. We agree that
further investigation is warranted in this matter and, as required by institutioDal policy, we will be
commencing the investigative process.
Gretchen Brodnicki, J.D., Dean for Faculty arid Research Integrity at the Medical School,
will be in contact with you concerning the investigative process. Please let her know if you have
any questions.
J2JJ?~.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc:
Gretchen Brodnicki, J.D.

Ellen Berlon~ J.D.
-~-~-----.-----~----
HHS-PSC000045
HHS-PSC000046
i
I
.I
I!
Harvard MedicalSchool .
25 Shattuck Street
Boston. Massachusetts 021 i 5
(617) 432-3191
FAX: (617) 432-0566
Office for Research Issues
CONFIDENTIAL
May 25, 2010

.1101 Wootton Parkway
. Suite 750
Rockville, MD 20852
Re:
DIO:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) '
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

I enclose th~ full inquiry panel report, Standing Committee report, and determination letter
in the inquiry of the allegation
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) As you will see, we will be proceeding to
. further investigation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-432-2496 or .
Gretchen Brodnicki(a),hms.harvard.edu if you have any questions or need any-additional .
information.
Sincerely?
'r\..
.,i
.
()
~A~
L.L)_~~-~
Gretchen A. Brodnicki
Research Integrity
!.
~
&
Enclosures
~
.:
cc:
Kristin Bittinger, J.D. (w/o enclosures)

Ellen Berkman, J.D. ("flo enclosures)
HHS-PSC000047
HHS-PSC000048
.--------_.... - ............. .
Harvard Medical. School
25 Shattuck street
..Boston. Massachusetts 02115
(617) 432-3191
FAX: (617) 432-0566
CONFIDENTIAL
May 25, 2010

Mr. Jay Winchester
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate .
Medical Research and Development Command
United States Army
Department of Defense ..
504 Scott Street
Fort Detrick
Frederick, Maryland 21702-5012
,I
,-,
FAX: 301-619-5034
Re:
Research Misconduct Inquiry of Allegations
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Dear Mr. Winchester:

I enclo'se the fujI inquiry panel report, Standing Committee report, and detennination letter
in the research misconduct inquiry of the allegation
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) As you will see, we
will be proceeding to further investigation.
The data subject to the pending allegations were fimded, in part, through a Department of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Army Grant
) and two NllI grants (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) The Office for Research
Integrity (ORl) is simultaneously being notified of the results of this inquiry.
. Gretchen [email protected] if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
.
.
Sincerely,
1
j
I
"--0"
I~~~g,~
i
I
!
HHS-PSC000049
Enclosures
cc:
Kristin Bittinger, lD. (w/o enclosures)

I
I
I
i
"
-I
! .
":i
.1
I
I
'1j.
HHS-PSC000050
HHS-PSC000051
HARVARD
MEDl~AL
'SOHOOL
OFFICE FOR RESEARCH fSSUES
CO N FiDENTJ AL
1
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000052

Transcription of the Meeting with (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Conducted on October 5,2010
InquiIy Panel Members Present:
Staff Members Present: Gretchen Brodnicki (GB),
Pat Gilligan (PG), and Ellen Berkman (EB).
Witness, by telephone:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Kristin Bittinger (KB),
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000053
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
2
HHS-PSC000054
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
3
HHS-PSC000055
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
4
HHS-PSC000056
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
5
HHS-PSC000057
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
6
HHS-PSC000058
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
7
HHS-PSC000059
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
8
HHS-PSC000060
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000061
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
10
HHS-PSC000062
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
11
HHS-PSC000063
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
12
HHS-PSC000064
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
13
HHS-PSC000065
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
14
HHS-PSC000066
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
15
HHS-PSC000067
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
16
HHS-PSC000068
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
17
HHS-PSC000069
HHS-PSC000070

Conducted on December 17, 2010
InquirY Panel Members Present:
Staff Members Present: Gretchen Brodnicki (GB),
Pat Gilligan (PG), and Ellen Berkman (EB).
Witness, by telephone:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Kristin Bittinger (KB),
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000071
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
2
HHS-PSC000072
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
3
HHS-PSC000073
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
4
HHS-PSC000074
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
5
HHS-PSC000075
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
6
HHS-PSC000076
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
7
HHS-PSC000077
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000078
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
9
HHS-PSC000079
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
10
HHS-PSC000080
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
11
HHS-PSC000081
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
12
HHS-PSC000082
HHS-PSC000083

Conducted on March 29, 2011
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Inquiry Panel Members Present:
Staff Members Present: Kristin Bittinger, (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) , Ellen Berkman, and Patrick Gilligan.
Witness. by web conference:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
1
HHS-PSC000084
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
2
HHS-PSC000085
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
3
HHS-PSC000086
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000087
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
5
HHS-PSC000088
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
6
HHS-PSC000089
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
7
HHS-PSC000090
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
8
HHS-PSC000091
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
9
HHS-PSC000092
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
10
HHS-PSC000093
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
11
HHS-PSC000094
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
12
HHS-PSC000095
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
13
HHS-PSC000096
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
14
HHS-PSC000097
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
15
HHS-PSC000098
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
16
HHS-PSC000099
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
17
HHS-PSC000100
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
18
HHS-PSC000101
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
19
HHS-PSC000102
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
20
HHS-PSC000103
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
21
HHS-PSC000104
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
22
HHS-PSC000105
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
23
HHS-PSC000106
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
24
HHS-PSC000107
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
25
HHS-PSC000108
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
26
HHS-PSC000109
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
27
HHS-PSC000110
HHS-PSC000111
Page 1 of 1
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
From:
Sent:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:44 PM
To:
Bittinger, Kristin L.
Subject: RE: Confidential: Draft report from HMS panel

Dear Kristin,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to see the draft report. I do not have any comment as I have stated my
viewes in all previous responses. I deeply apologize for the precious time spent on this by the committee
members.
Sincerely,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
> From: [email protected]

> To:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
> CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; (b)(6),(b)(7)(C)
[email protected]
> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:22:21 -0500
> Subject: Confidential: Draft report from HMS panel
>
> (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) ,
>
> Attached please find a copy of a draft report of the Harvard Medical School Investigation Panel regarding the
allegations (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) I believe that you are familiar with many of the documents referenced within this report,
however, we. are happy to provide you with copies of all of the documents. Harvard Medical School is on break
until January 3rd, however, and the hard copy materials will not be sent until that time. In view of this, we will
extend your time for review of this draft report.
>
> We invite you to comment and/or respond to the enclosed draft prior to February 3, 2012. Your response
and/or comments will be shared with the Investigation Panel, who may revise the report based on such additional
information. Regardless, all comments will be attached to the report when it is finalized and submitted to the
Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct for final recommendation regarding this matter. The Standing
Committee's final recommendations will go to Dean Flier, as the deciding official in this matter. You will have an
opportunity to speak directly with the Standing Committee if you desire.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions. I am happy to discuss the process directly with you.
>
> Thank you again for your continued cooperation.
>
> Regards,
> Kristin
>
> Kristin L. Bittinger, M.S., J.D.
> Director of Scientific Integrity
> Office for Professional Standards and Integrity
> Harvard Medical School
> 25 Shattuck Street

> Gordon Hall, Suite 210C
> Boston, Massachusetts 02115
> (617) 432-7769
3/13/2012
HHS-PSC000112
I f/
Case Tracking System - (b) (7)(A)
Page 1 of 10
FOIA 12-0452; Appeal 13-0118

Index of ORI Case l
j and 2011-29 - CONFIDENTIAL FOR FOIA USE ONLY
72 Case Indexes found.
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTATION
10102/2007
DALHBERG
DALE
CONVERSATION
DOCUMENT
NONE
(b) (7)(A)
02/1612008
KRUEGER
PRICE
EMAIL
NONE
03/06/2008
KRUEGER
PRICE
EMAIL
PUBLICATION
RETRACTION AND
PUBLICATION
ARTICLE
12/10/2008
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
12/10/2008
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
04/28/2009
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
04/28/2009
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
08/20/2009
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
DATE
FILE
DESIGNATION
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000113
https:llori.hhs.gov/intranet/CaseTracking/caseindex_rpt. php
3/2312013
DATE
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 2 of 10
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
(b) (7)(A)
08/27/2009
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
11/18/2009
BRODNICKI
HOHMANN
EMAIL
NONE
01/12/2010
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
01/14/2010
LlPSHULTZ CC:BITTINGER
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
01/19/2010
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
03/30/2010
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
04/13/2010
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
04/14/2010
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
LETTER
WI ATTCHMNTS &
(b) (7)(A)
"
05/25/2010
DAHLBERG CC:BITTINGER,
BERKMAN
BRODNICKI
INQUIRY REPORT
DETERMINATION
HHS-PSC000114
https:llori.hhs.gov/intranet/CaseTracking/caseindexJPt.php
3/2312013
DATE
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 3 of 10
FROM
TO
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
(b) (7)(A)
ATTACHMENTS
LETTER
(b) (7)(A)
10107/2010
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
10/21/2010
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
10/21/2010
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
10/22/2010
BRODNICKI
DAHLBERG
EMAIL
NONE
EMAIL
NONE
EMAIL
NONE
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

11/19/2010
DAHLBERG
11/24/2010
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

01/27/2011
ASKORI
EMAIL
NONE
01/27/2011
ASKORI/MAHLER/ROCHEZITAYMAN
EMAIL
NONE
01/2712011
ASKORIIDAH LBERG
EMAIL
NONE
HHS-PSC000115
https:llori.hhs.gov/intranet/CaseTracking/caseindex_rpt.php
3/2312013
DATE
01/30/2011
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 4 of 10
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
DAHLBERG
EMAIL
NONE
TO
(b) (7)(A)(b)
(6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

01/30/2011
DAHLBERG
EMAIL
NONE
02/24/2011
DAHLBERG CC:SPRUNG/PRICE
EMAIL
NONE
03/21/2011
DAHLBERG
EMAIL
NONE
04/11/2011
DAHLBERG CC: EAST
SWEM(US
DOJ
ATTRNY)
EMAIL
NONE
04/11/2011
SWEM CC:DAHLBERG, ROCHEZ
DAHLBERG
EMAIL
NONE
06/08/2011
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
07/06/2011
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
07/06/2011
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
HHS-PSC000116
https://ori.hhs.gov/intranet/Case Tracking/caseindex_rpt. php
312312013
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 5 of 10
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
LlPSHULTZ
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
(b) (7)(A)
10/19/2011
KABAK
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
10/19/2011
BRODNICKI
LlPSHULTZ
EMAIL
NONE
10/19/2011
BRODNICKI
KABAK
EMAIL
NONE
10/19/2011
KABAK
BRODNICKI
EMAIL
NONE
10/24/2011
TABAK, ROCKEY, BAR
DAHLBERG
EMAIL
NONE
10/25/2011
TABAK/ROCKEY/BAR
DIO/ORI
MEMO
NONE
01/24/2012
BRODNICKI
KABAK
EMAIL
NONE
02/01/2012
Brodnicki
Kabak
Email
none
02/01/2012
Kabak
Brodnicki
Email
none
DATE
10/19/2011
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000117
https:llori.hhs.gov/intranet/CaseTracking/caseindexJPt.php
3/23/2013
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 6 of 10
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
Brodnicki
Kabak
Email
none
02/01/2012
Kabak
Brodnicki
Email
none
02/01/2012
SynanlFisher
Kabak
Email
none
02/27/2012
Rochez, East Cc: Dahlberg
Dahlberg
Email
None
02127/2012
Brodnicki; Bittinger Cc; Dahlberg
Dahlberg
Email
NONE
02/27/2012
Dahlberg; Bittinger
Brodnicki
Email
NONE
02/27/2012
Brodnicki Cc: Dahlberg
Dahlberg
Email
NONE
05/17/2012
Dahlberg Cc:Swem/Puyce
East
Email
none
05/17/2012
East Cc:Fleming/Morgan
Dahlberg
Email
none
DATE
02/01/2012
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000118
https:llori.hhs.gov/intranet/CaseTracking/caseindex_rpt. php
3/23/2013
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
Dahlberg
Cc: Flem ing/Morgan/Swem/Buyce
East
Email
none
06105/2012
Dahlberg
Cc: Bittinger/Berkman/Godin/Kell
Brodnicki
Letter
Investigation Report
and Exhibits
06/07/2012
East Cc: Dahlberg
Dahlberg
Email
( NOT Attached to
FILE COPY)
06/07/2012
Dahlberg Cc: Swem
East
Email
NONE
06/07/2012
East Cc: Dahlberg
Dahlberg
Email
NONE
DATE
05/17/2012
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 7 of 10
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000119
https:llori.hhs.govlintranetlCaseTracking/caseindex_rpt. php
3123/2013
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
06/08/2012
Brodnicki
Kabak
Email
NONE
06/08/2012
Kabak
Brodnicki
Email
NONE
06/08/2012
Brodnicki
Kabak
Letter
NONE
DATE
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 8 of 10
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
07/17/2012
Dahlberg
Email
Jan.27 and Jan.

30,2011 email
exchange between
DIO Director and
Complaint
08/24/2012
Dahlberg
Email
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000120
https://ori.hhs.gov/intranet/CaseTracking/caseindexJPt.php
3123/2013
DATE
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 9 of 10
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
(b) (7)(A)
ATTACHMENTS
082012.pdf
(b) (7)(A)
08/27/2012
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
05/25/2010
DAHLBERG CC:BITTINGER,
BERKMAN
BRODNICKI
06/05/2012
Dahlberg
Cc:Bittinger/Berkman/Godin/Kell
Brodnicki
Letter
and Exhibits
04/02/2012
Taymen Cc: Rochez
Schwendinger
Email
NONE
04/10/2012
Dahlberg Cc: Mahler;Rochez; Szakaly
Taymen
Email
NONE
Dahlberg
Email
none
INQUIRY REPORT
WI ATTACHMENTS
& DETERMINATION
LTR
LETTER
HHS-PSC000121
https:llori.hhs.gov/intranet/CaseTracking/caseindexJpt. php
3/23/2013
DATE
FILE
DESIGNATION
Page 10 of 10
TO
FROM
TYPE OF
DOCUMENTATION
ATTACHMENTS
(b) (7)(A)
04/10/2012
Taymen; Cc:Mahler, Rochez, Szakaly,

JD
Dahlberg
Email
NONE
08/20/2012
Bradley\Kabak\Wright\Dahlberg
Garfinkel
Email
None
08/20/2012
Bradley, et al
Garfinkel
Email
None
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000122
https:llori.hhs.govlintranetICaseTracking/caseindex_rpt.php
312312013
(b) (7)(A)
Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)

Monday, August 27,2012 11:42 AM
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

RE: HMS review panel decision
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

With the receipt of the Harvard report, DIO has initiated its separate oversight review of the investigation. During this
review, the records are not available to others. DIO staff may wish to discuss this matter with you as either a witness or
as the complain!'lnt, but we are not at a point where this has yet been discussed. Thank you for your offer to assist.
Sincerely,
John Dahlberg, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Investigative Oversight
Office of Research Integrity
240-453-8800
From
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:30 PM

To: Dahlberg, John E (HHSjOASH)
Subject: HMS review panel decision
Dear Dr. Dahlberg,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I received a note from the HMS review panel
I would like
to request to see the final report from the HMS review panel regarding the investigation in order to comment on
it and help OR! conduct a thorough review process.
Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Begin forwarded message:
From: "Brodnicki, Gretchen A. <Gretchen [email protected]>

Subject: Confidential
Date: August 20, 2012 1:13:05 PM GMT-05:00
To:
II
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

1
HHS-PSC000123
I attach confidential correspondence to you for your review.

Thank you,
Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity
25 Shattuck Street, Suite 108
Boston, MA 02115
(t) (617) 432-2496
(f) (617) 432-0566
Gretchen [email protected]
HHS-PSC000124
(b) (7)(A)
Dahlberg. John E (HHS/OASH)

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Friday, August 24,20122:30 PM

HMS review panel decision
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
Dear Dr. Dahlberg,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I received a note from the HMS review panel
I would like
to request to see the fmal report from the HMS review panel regarding the investigation in order to comment on
it and help OR! conduct a thorough review process.
Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Begin forwarded message:
From: "Brodnicki, Gretchen A." <Gretchen [email protected]>

Subject: Confidential
Date: August 20, 2012 1 :13:05 PM GMT-05:00
To:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) ,
I attach confidential correspondence to you for your review.
Thank you,
Dean for Faculty and Research Integrity
25 Shattuck Street, Suite 108
Boston, MA 02115
(t) (617) 432-2496
(f) (617) 432-0566
Gretchen [email protected]
1
HHS-PSC000125
(b) (7)(A)
GRETCH~N BRODNICKI.
DEAN FOR FAcul:n' AND
"
J.D.
RESEARCH
INTEGnm'
2) SHATTUCK STREET
BOSTON. l\1ASSACHI1SF,nS 02115
Tn: (617) 432-2496

FAX: (617) 432-7462
[email protected]>.EI>ll
August 20, 20 12
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I am writing to let you know the resolution of the concerns you raised to Harvard Medical
School (HMS) regarding possible research misconduct
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
A thorough investigation ofyolll' allegations (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) was conducted by an HMS
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

The same HMS faculty panel also conducted a formal inquiry into yoUI' allegations against
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Confidentiality requirements preclude me ti'OI11 giving you more information about ollr
findings, but I want to assure you that this was a thorough, fail' and objective process.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and for your cooperation with the detailed
review.
Sincerely,
~ X" ).v_~(t~ 6ru7J.-G-~k
Gl'etcnen Brodnicki
Dean for Faculty
and Research Integrity
HHS-PSC000126
(b) (7)(A)
Garfinkel, Susan J (HHS!OASH)

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garfinkel, Susan J (HHS/OASH)

Monday, August 20, 2012 2:24 PM
Bradley, Ann (HHS/OASH)
Kabak, Shara (HHS/OPHS/ORI); Wright, David E. (OS/OASH); Dahlberg,
John E (HHS/OASH)
Confidential:
(b) (7)(A)
FYI on case (b) (7)(A)

I got a call from Gretchen Brodnicki at Harvard regarding this case. HMS has finished the investigation
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

The usual HMS process at the closure of a case is to inform the complainant of the outcome, very simply
that findings were made or not. Gretchen called because they are ready to send the complainant this
letter and wanted ORI to know that there may be a public backlash from complainant.
Susan
Susan Garfinkel, Ph.D.
Phone: 240-453-8421
HHS-PSC000127
(b) (7)(A)

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Tuesday, July 17, 20121 :31 PM

(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
misconduct case
Dear Dr. Dahlberg,

I am in contact with the
(b) (7)(A) d am aware that the Harvard investigation has a final report
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
I would also like to see the report from Harvard as soon as possible and offer comments
that may be useful for OR! in the oversight review and final report. I hope that all the issues ofthis case in
particular
(b) (7)(A) are discussed with all relevant parties,
including the (b) (7)(A)
Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

On Jan 30,2011, at 11 :59 AM, Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH) wrote:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

I will attempt to answer your questions for all of the recipients of this email, as quite likely I would have been
asked to do so in any event. I am sympathetic to your concerns as the complaint in these two cases that the
process has been protracted, and has not reached closure. However, 42 C.F.F .. Part 93 is pretty clear that once
allegations are made and considered to meet the definition of research misconduct, the inquiry and investigation
process should be overseen by neutral unbiased institutional officials and scientists comprising the committees.
The complainant mayor may not be a useful fact witness, depending on circumstances, but has no special
status beyond being a possible fact witness. If you fell you have identified additional evidence of possible value
to an ongoing process, the institution is expected to consider it, and if not, OR! would do so during its oversight
review that begins after receipt of the final investigation report.
You correctly note that the regulation does not require that the complainant be provided all of portions of either
the inquiry or investiqation report for review. It is not a complainant's responsibility to judge the merits of the
evidence for or against findings of misconduct. Such decisions are quite complex and based on far more that
simply demonstrating that a figure or statement is wrong or falsified.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Sincerely,
1
HHS-PSC000128
John Dahlberg, Ph.D

Director, Divison oflnvestigative Oversight
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:32 PM
To: OS OPHS askORI (HHS/OPHS)
Subject: to Dr. John Dahlberg
This email is directed to the following individual:
John Dahlberg, Ph.D., Director of Division oflnvestigative Oversight,
I am writing to ask your opinion regarding PHS Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93. It states that
a requirement of an institution that accepts PHS funds for research includes: "A thorough, competent, objective,
and fair response to allegations of research misconduct consistent with, and within the time limits of the final
rule, including precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research
misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the
complainant, respondent, or witnesses."
I have two questions regarding this policy and would like to hear your opinion.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

The underlying presumption is that an institution is inherently biased against making determinations of research
misconduct against its members (or former members) and thus may not want to review all the evidence that
implicates that member. The institution therefore may do what it can to avoid consideration of additional
evidence that it becomes aware of, and also attempt to prevent the complainant from seeing the draft report.
Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

2
HHS-PSC000129
CASE SUMMARY (no names):
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000130
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000131
(. "4
DEPARTMENT OF IlliALTII &- HUMAN SERVICES
"+~",.::::l.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health

1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 240-453-8800
FAX: 301-594-0043
Email: [email protected]
CONFIDENTIAL
June 8, 2012
Gretchen Brodnicki, ill
Dean for Faculty Research and Research Integrity
25 Shattuck Street
Boston, MA 02115
RE:
(b) (7)(A)
Dear Ms_ Brodnicki:

The Division of Investigative Oversight (DIO), Office of Research Integrity (ORl), has
received the report of the investigation with attachments, by Harvard Medical School
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000132
Kabak, Shara (HHS/OPHS/ORI)

From:
. Sent:
To:
Subjec,:
Brodnicki, Gretchen A. [[email protected]]

Friday, June 08, 2012 1:07 PM
RE: (b) (7)(A)CONFIDENTIAL
Shara,
My apologies - my letter indicated our internal account numbers, not the official NIH-assigned grant numbers. The two
NIH grants are as follows:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Thanks,
Gretchen
From: Kabak, Shara (HHS/OPHS/ORI) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Brodnicki, Gretchen A.

Subject (b) (7)(A) CONFIDENTIAL
Gretchen,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Thank you.
Regards,
Shara
Shara Kabak, PhD
Phone: 240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000133

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:24 PM
East, David (USAWAW)
RE: Scanned document from Fisher, Raymond (HHS/OPHS) (raymond.fisher.os)
David,
with regard to ORI's system of records notice, the report can only be release following the
completion of ORI's oversight review and case closure. At that point, if the FOIA office (or
ORI) receives a request, a suitably redacted copy can be sent. For example, if we concur
that only one finding was made, all references to the other allegations, analyses, and
findings would be redacted. This is not to day that other legal issues might trump our
privacy issues, but aside from your interest, that is how we would handle a direct request.
And Harvard could choose to share part or all of the report with the complainant (but is
unlikely to do so).
John
-----Original Message----From: East, David (USAWAW) [mailto:[email protected]]

sent: Thursday, June 87, 2812 12:89 PM
To: Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH)
Cc: Swem, Judy (USAWAW)
Subject: Re: Scanned document from Fisher, Raymond (HHS/OPHS) (raymond.fisher.os)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Original Message ----From: Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 87, 2812 11:59 AM
To: East, David (USAWAW)
Cc: Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH) <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Scanned document from Fisher, Raymond (HHS/OPHS) (raymond.fisher.os)
Hello David,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Regards, John
Director, Division of Investigative Oversight Office of Research Integrity 248-453-8888
248-453-8427 (direct)
1
HHS-PSC000134

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
East, David (USAWAW) [[email protected]]

Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:43 PM
Fleming, Sheila P (HHS/OASH); Morgan, Tracy S (HHS/OASH); Swem, Judy (USAWAW);
Buyce, Pat (USAWAW)
RE: Harvard Investigation
Many thanks for the quick response.

From: Dahlberg, John E (HHSjOASH) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 20122:34 PM
To: East, David (USAWAW)

Cc: Fleming, Sheila P (HHSjOASH); Morgan, Tracy S (HHSjOASH)
Subject: RE: Harvard Investigation
Hello David,
I pinged Harvard after receiving your email, as the report was due May 1. I just heard that it should be sent early next
week. I will be on leave next week, but I will ask DIO staff to immediately forward a copy of the report and its
attachments as soon as it arrives.
This may be a time to be optimistic.
Regards, John
240-453-8800
From: East, David (USAWAW) [mailto:[email protected]]

20~2 2:33 PM
To: Dahlberg, John E (HHSjOASH)
Cc: Swem, Judy (USAWAW); Buyce, Pat (USAWAW)
Subject: Harvard Investigation
Sent: Thursday, May 17,
Hi Dr. Dahlberg,
Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to see if you have any updates on the status of the Harvard investigation report.
Thanks.
David
David R. East
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Western District of Washington
700 Stewart Street I Suite 5220 I Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

206-553-1018 1,I;l, 206-553-4073 I [8J [email protected]
HHS-PSC000135
Confidentiality Notice: E-mails from the United States Attorney's Office normally contain confidential and privileged material, and are for the sole
use of the intended recipient. Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you
received this e-mail in error, please do not read this e-mail or any attached items. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments, including any
copies thereof, and inform the sender that you have deleted the e-mail, all attachments and any copies thereof. Thank you.
HHS-PSC000136
Fisher, Raymond (HHS/OPHS)

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, February 01,20123:19 PM
Synan, Kyle C (HHS/OASH); Fisher, Raymond (HHS/OPHS)
FW: (b) (7)(A)
(b) (7)(A)
From: Brodnicki, Gretchen A. [mailto:Gretchen [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:29 AM
To: Kabak, Shara (HHS/OPHS/ORI)

Subject: RE: (b) (7)(A)
Thanks so much.
From: Kabak, Shara (HHS/OPHS/ORI) [mailto:[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:28 AM

Gretchen,
Your request for an extension is reasonable and we will expect the report on May 1, 2012.
Shara
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10: 18 AM

Shara,
My apologies - I mis-calendared the due date for our update, and thought it wasn't due until February 20
th
(b) (7)(A)
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Thanks,
Gretchen
From: Kabak, Shara (HHS/OPHS/ORI) [mailto:[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 20129:11 AM
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
1
HHS-PSC000137
Hi Gretchen,
(b) (7)(A)
Regards,
Shara
Shara Kabak, PhD

Phone: 240-453-8428
2
HHS-PSC000138
(b) (7)(A)

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:52 AM
'Brodnicki, Gretchen A.'
RE:
(b) (7)(A)
Gretchen,
The investigation report for
regarding the case?
(b) (7)(A) Can you please provide a status update
Thank you.
Regards,
Shara

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Kabak, Shara (HHSjOPHSjORI)
Subject: RE:
(b) (7)(A)
Shara,
Thank you for the extension, and for your advice with respect to the need for two reports. We will handle accordingly.
Thanks,
Gretchen
From: Kabak, Shara (HHSjOPHSjORI) [mailto:[email protected]

Subject: RE:
(b) (7)(A)
Gretchen,
Thank you for the update. I appreciate the extra work you had to do after interviewing the complainant, and grant you a
90 day extension. We will expect the investigation report around January 16, 2012.
(b) (7)(A)
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Regards,
Shara

To: Kabak, Shara (HHSjOPHSjORI)
Subject: RE:
(b) (7)(A)
1
HHS-PSC000139

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 2:55 PM
RE:
(b) (7)(A)
Shara,
Thank you for the extension, and for your advice with respect to the need for two reports. We will handle accordingly.
Thanks,
Gretchen

Gretchen,
Thank you for the update. I appreciate the extra work you had to do after interviewing the complainant, and grant you a
90 day extension. We will expect the investigation report around January 16, 2012.
(b) (7)(A)
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Regards,
Shara
From: Brodnicki, Gretchen A. [mailto:Gretchen [email protected]]

Dear Shara,
(b) (7)(A)
1
HHS-PSC000140
Thanks,
Gretchen

Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Hi Gretchen,
(b) (7)(A)
Thank you,
Shara
Shara Kabak, PhD
Phone: 240-453-8428
HHS-PSC000141
(b) (7)(A)
Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OASH)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OASH)

Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:39 PM
'8rodnicki, Gretchen A.'
RE: Request for status of 010 Cases
Gretchen,
Thank you for your prompt reply. The extensions you requested have been granted.(b) (7)(A) is listed as an unknown
were allegations of
respondent which stemmed from a telephone call with Dr. Dahlberg and Ms. Bittinge
plagiarism; falsification and fabrication in a presentation. The phone call took place on August 2, 2011.
Gary
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 20111:15 PM
To: Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OASH)
Cc: Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH)
Subject: RE: Request for status of 010 Cases
Gary and John,

I sincerely apologize. In reviewing the case files, I thought I had responded to John about case number NR Instead,
however, I mistakenly updated Dr. Ambalavanar on case (b) (7)(A) with data about the status of NR I apologize and will
be correcting that immediately. In the meantime, here is information our status on these matters, and our requests for
extensions where necessary:
Non-responsive
(b) (7)(A)
1
HHS-PSC000142
Thanks,
Gretchen
Non-responsive
Thanks,
Gretchen
From: Lipshultz, Gary (HHSjOASH) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 201111:39 AM
Subject: Request for status of DIO Cases
Gretchen,
Can you please give us the status of the following cases:
Non-responsive
Thank you for your prompt response to our request.
/s/
Gary Lipshultz
Program Analyst
240-453-8800
2
HHS-PSC000143
(b) (7)(A)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Monday, March 21,20113:16 PM
request
Dear Mr. Dahlberg,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Thanks,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000144
(b) (7)(A)

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:52 PM
Jeff Sprung; Alan - Price
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Dear Dr. Dahlberg,

I would like to know whether Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center submitted to ORI (or another
government agency) the results of their preliminary assessment of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

On 30 Jan 2011, at 08:59, Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH) wrote:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

process has been protracted, and has not reached closure. However,42 C.F.F .. Part 93 is pretty clear that once
The complainant mayor may not be a useful fact witness, depending on circumstances, but has no special status
beyond being a possible fact witness. If you fell you have identified additional evidence of possible value to an
ongoing process, the institution is expected to consider it, and if not, ORI would do so during its oversight
1
HHS-PSC000145
simply demonstrating that a figure or statement is wrong or falsified. I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Sincerely,
John Dahlberg, Ph.D
Director, Divison of Investigative Oversight
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Sent: Thursday, January 27,2011 4:32 PM
John Dahlberg, Ph.D., Director of Division oflnvestigative Oversight,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Regards,
2
HHS-PSC000146
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000147
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
4
HHS-PSC000148
(b) (7)(A)

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Sunday, January 30,2011 12:57 PM
Re: to Dr. John Dahlberg
Hi John,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
On 30 Jan 2011, at 08:59, Dahlberg, John E (RRS/OASH) wrote:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000149
I will attempt to answer your questions for all of the recipients of this email, ~3 quite likely I would have been
review that begins after receipt ofthe final investigation report.
simply demonstrating that a figure or statement is wrong or falsified.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Sincerely,
John Dahlberg, Ph.D
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

From
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 20114:32 PM
John Dahlberg, Ph.D., Director of Division of Investigative Oversight,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

2
HHS-PSC000150
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (7)(A)
3
HHS-PSC000151
(b) (7)(A)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000152

From:
Sent:

Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:00 PM
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
To:
Cc:
Subject:

RE: to Dr. John Dahlberg
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

I will attempt to answer your questions for all of the recipients of this email, as
quite likely I would have been asked to do so in any event. I am sympathetic to your
concerns as the complaint in these two cases that the process has been protracted, and
has not reached closure. However, 42 C.F.F:. Part 93 is pretty clear that once
allegations are made and considered to meet the definition of research misconduct, the
inquiry and investigation process should be overseen by neutral unbiased institutional
officials and scientists comprising the committees. The complainant mayor may not be
a useful fact witness, depending on circumstances, but has no special status beyond
being a possible fact witness. If you fell you have identified additional evidence of
possible value to an ongoing process, the institution is expected to consider it, and
if not, ORI would do so during its oversight review that begins after receipt of the
final investigation report.
You correctly note that the regulation does not require that the complainant be
provided all of portions of either the inquiry or investiqation report for review. It
is not a complainant's responsibility to judge the merits of the evidence for or
against findings of misconduct. Such decisions are quite complex and based on far more
that simply demonstrating that a figure or statement is wrong or falsified. (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Sincerely,
John Dahlberg, Ph.D
Director, Divison of Investigative Oversight Office of Research Integrity
From:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I am writing to ask your opinion regarding PHS Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR
Part 93. It states that a requirement of an institution that accepts PHS funds for
research includes: "A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to allegations
of research misconduct consistent with, and within the time limits of the final rule,
including precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part
of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or
financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses."
1
HHS-PSC000153
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (7)(A)
2
HHS-PSC000154
(b) (7)(A)
HHS-PSC000155
(b) (7)(A)

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Friday, November 19, 2010 5:24 PM

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Hi John,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Regards,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000156
Fleming, Sheila P (HHS/OASH)

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Friday, October 22,20102:28 PM
'[email protected]'
Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH); Fleming, Sheila P (HHS/OASH); Garfinkel, Susan J
(HHS/OASH)
RE: (b) (7)(A)
Hello Gretchen,
We appreciate your update on this investigation,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
Your update suggests that the process may be
complete within a few months.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
010 is willing to grant
the additional 90 days to complete the investigation and provide a report, and therefore
will expect that report on or about January 24, 2011.
Regards, John
Director, Division of Investigative Oversight Office of Research Integrity 240-453-8800
From: Brodnicki, Gretchen A. [Gretchen [email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:34 PM
To: Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OASH)
Gary,
I apologize for the delay in responding. As we notified ORIon May 25, 2010,HMS has
moved forward with the investigation of this matter.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

We respectfully request an additional 90 days to complete the interview of the respondent,
obtain any other information the panel deems necessary, and complete the investigative
report in this matter.
Thanks,
Gretchen
From: Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OPHS) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:04 AM
Subject: (b) (7)(A)
Gretchen,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .

1
HHS-PSC000157
Page 1 of 1
Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OPHS)

From:
Sent:
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:21 PM
To:
Lip~tiultz, Gary (HHS/OPHS)

Gary,
My apologies for the delay in responding. The inquiry panel finalized its report, and it was sent to
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

Thanks,
Gretchen
From: Lipshultz, Gary (HHSjOPHS) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:22 PM
Subject: (b) (7)(A)

Gretchen,
I'm following up for Dr. Hohmann regarding the above captioned case. Our last correspondence reflects an
extension until March 1, 2010. Can you please update our office as to the status of this case.
Thank you.
Gary l. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
Suite 750
Rockville, Maryland 20852
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000158
Lt./1
~/?O1
Page 1 of3
Morgan, Tracy S (HHS/OPHS)
From:
Sent:
Friday, January 15, 201010:07 AM
To:
Fleming, Sheila P (HHS/OPHS); Morgan, Tracy S (HHS/OPHS)
Subject: FW: Request for status of cases

Sheila or Tracy,
Can you please pass this along to the file room and give a copy to Nancy. Thanks and have a great weekend.
Gary
From: Brodnicki, Gretchen A. [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thu 1/14/20104:04 PM
To: Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OPHS)
Cc: Bittinger, Kristin L.
Subject: RE: Request for status of cases
Hi Gary,
Happy New Year! I hope you had a wonderful and restful holiday.
Non-responsive
1 /1 "1')(\ 1 {\
Page 2 of3
Non-responsive
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000160
1115/2010
Page 3 of3
Non-responsive
I hope all is well.
Thanks,
Gretchen

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:44 AM
Subject: Request for status of cases
Gretchen,
Happy New Year. Can you please give us the status of the following cases:
Non-responsive
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
Non-responsive
Thank you.
Gary L. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
Suite 750
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000161
111512010
Hohmann, Ann (HHS/OPHS)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hohmann, Ann (HHS/OPHS)

Wednesday, November 18, 200910:30 AM
'[email protected]'
(b) (7)(A)
Good Morni ng!

I have been assigned as lead investigator for the above named accession.
(b) (7)(A)
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks.
Ann
HHS-PSC000162
Page 1 of2

From:
Brodnicki, Gretchen A [[email protected]]
Sent:
Thursday, August 27,200910:21 AM
To:
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Gary,
I hope all is well with you and I apologize for the delay in my report on these two matters:
Non-responsive
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will calendar an update for you 90
days from now in the event, which I hope to be unlikely, that these cases have not completed the inquiry portion
of the investigation.
Thanks,
Gretchen
From: Upshultz, Gary (HHSjOPHS) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 27,20099:27 AM
To: Brodnicki, Gretchen A
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Gretchen,
(b) (7)(A)
Gary L. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
HHS-PSC000163
812712009
Page 2 of2
Suite 750
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000164
'80,12712009
Page 1 of 1

From:
Sent:
Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:28 AM
To:
'Brodnicki, Gretchen A'
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Gretchen,
Can you please update us as to the current status of the captioned cases.
(b) (7)(A)
Gary L. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
OffiCe of Research Integrity
Suite 750
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000165
R12012009
Page 1 of 1

From:
Sent:
Tuesday, April 28, 200910:49 AM
To:
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Hi Gary,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

Gretchen
From: Lipshultz, Gary (HHS/OPHS) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 200910:10 AM
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Gretchen,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

Gary L.. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
Suite 750
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000166
4/28/2009
Page 1 of 1

From:
Sent:
Tuesday, April 28, 200910:10 AM
To:
'[email protected]'
Subject: (b) (7)(A)
Gretchen,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

Gary L. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
Suite 750
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000167
4/2812009
Page 1 of 1

From:
Sent:
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:33 AM
To:
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Gary,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

Thank you,
Gretchen
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Ms. Brodnicki,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

Thank you.
lsI
Gary L. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
Suite 750
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000168
12110/2008
Page 1 of 1

From:
Sent:
Wednesday, December 10, 200810:29 AM
To:
'[email protected]'
Subject:
(b) (7)(A)
Ms. Brodnicki,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)

Thank you.
lsI
Gary L. Lipshultz
Program Analyst
Suite 750
240-453-8800
HHS-PSC000169
12/10/2008
Page 1 of5
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Krueger, John (HHS/OPHS)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
From:
Sent:
Thursday, March 06, 20084:34 PM
To:
Krueger, John (HHS/OPHS); Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OPHS)
Subject:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
John,
a;.J)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Did the complainant in CA call you on this? I referred him to you.

The retracted paper cites NIH grant support. HMS is doing the "inquiry"
following the COH inquiry (the paper was published from HMS, before
their move to CA. Lots of image and data falsifications that he can document.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000170
3/6/2008
Page 2 of5
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000171
3/6/2008
Page 3 of5
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000172
3/6/2008
Page 4 of5
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000173
3/6/2008
Page 5 of 5
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
3/612008
HHS-PSC000174
t'age
Krueger, John (HHS/OPHS)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Subject:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
2/20/2008
HHS-PSC000175
or
Harvard Medicql Scbool
25 Shattuck Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
(617) 432-3191
FAX: (617) 432-0566
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
CONFIDENTIAL
May 25,2010
Suite 750
Rockville, MD 20852
Re:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

I enclose the full inquiry panel report, Standing Committee report, and determination letter
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) As you will see, we will be proceeding to
further investigation.
Gretchen [email protected] if you have any questions or need any additional
information.
Sincerely,
()
L..'!j.~ ~~-b/~~~
Research Integrity
Enclosures
cc:
Kristin Bittinger, J.D. (w/o enclosures)

HHS-PSC000176
JEFFREY
S. FUER, MD
DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE

25 SHATI1.lCK ST.
BOSTON,
MA 02rI5
CONFIDENTIAL
May 25, 2010
VIA ELECTROl\'1C DELIVERY
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Dear
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I am writing to provide you with the final conclusions of the HMS Standing Committee on
Faculty Conduct and to inform you of the determinations reached by the Harvard Medical School
after-reviewing the reports and the documentary record in this case, including your submissions.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Gretchen Brodnicki, J.D., Dean for Faculty arid Research Integrity at the Medical School,
will be in contact with you concerning the investigative process. Please let her know if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
J~.
Ir.,an of the Faculty of Medicine
Enclosure
cc:

Ellen Berkman, J.D.
HHS-PSC000177
II
MASSACHUSETIS GENERAL HOSPITAL ~ HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL
til
":
PAULS. RUSSELL,M.D.
John Homans Distinguished Professor of Surgery
t:4
HarvaJd
Senior Surgeon
Massachusetts General Hospital. Boston. MA 02114
(617) 726-2801
m
I
May 12,2010
Jeffrey S. Flier, M.D.
25 Shattuck Street
Boston, MA 02115
.Dear Dr. Flier:
I
I
Ir
:1
On behalf of the Harvard Medical School Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct, I am

writing to convey to you my recommendation, as chair of the -Standing Committee, relating to
allegations that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
lI .
J
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

HHS-PSC000178
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

The report of the inquiry panel was submitted to me, as chair of the Standing Committee, on
May 5, 20 I0 to consider the matter. I reviewed inquiry panel's report and the accompanying
documentation.
Conclusion
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.j
.j
I
I
i
"i
,
1
.1
I
i
2
HHS-PSC000179
-j
I
.1
PAUL S. RUSSRL, M.D.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000180
I"
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Recommendations
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

These are the conclusions and recommendations of the chair, on behalf ofthe Standing
Committee on Faculty Conduct.
Sincerely,
Pllil" S. /L/WJL "
",
Paul Russell, M.D.

Chair
Enclosures
I
i
i
"j
-i
"I
HHS-PSC000181
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
Paul Russell, M.D., Chair, Faculty of Medicine Standing Committee on Faculty Conduct
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Report of the Inquiry Panel Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct
l "
;.
!
Date: May 5, 2010
i.
;
,i
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.
.
i\
I
~
:; .
!:
I j
,iI ''
j :
BACKGROUND AND INQUIRY ,PROCESS

In October 2007, Margaret.Dale, J;D.,,fopnerReseararIntegrity Offim and Deanfor
Faculty and Research Integrity at HM8- met with Gerianne Sands, J.D., Associate General
Counsel at Fred Hutchinson Cancer.Research Center (FReRC) regarding allegations, that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I'
i
i!
1
i
I!
!
Ii
I
.I
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.(
. I
HHS-PSC000182
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Allegations of research misconduct were originally brought to
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
The FRCRC panel met on several

occasions and, in September 2007, concluded that, because the research was conducted while
allegations discussed herein should be referred to RMS for inquiry.
Ms. Sands provided former Dean Dale with the most current version of(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
This inquiry was conducted in accordance with the HMS Principles and Procedures for
Dealing with Allegations ofFaculty Misconduct, and-the Public Realth Services Rule, 42 CFR
Part 93 4 and the Department of Defense INSTRUCTION 3210.7 (May 14, 2004) which
implements DoD DIRECTIVE 32il6.2. (Exhibits 3, 4 and 5). The inquiry process was
administratively staffed by theHMS Office for Research Issues.
Pursuant to institutional policies, we were appointed as'members of the Inquiry Panel. We
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
are
Gretchen Brodnicki, J.D., current

.Research. Integrity Officer and -Dean,for F.aC1:llty and R.esearch.-Integrilf,Mortimer Litt, M.D.,
HMS Senior Scientific Investigator, Kristin Bittinger,HMS'DirectorofScientific Integrity6 and
-Patrick-Gilligan oftheHMS OfficeforResearchlssues a1so'servedas~staffto the Panel. In
!
i
i
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

5 Dean Brodnicki arrived.at HMS
6 Ms.
I
I
I
\
in July 2008.
Bittinger arrived at HMS in April 2009 .
I
I
II.
."'--.
I'
HHS-PSC000183
\ j.
I
CONFIDENTIAL
addition, a representative of the Harvard University Office of General Counsel (Ellen Berkman,
J.D.) was available to advise the Inquiry Panel throughout the proceedings and attended Inquiry
Panel meetings.
On December 13,2007, Ms. Dale notified
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
-,
'
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Having been previously provided with
Due-to the complexity of the allegations and the length of elapsed-time between the
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
original-experimentation and commenGement -of this proceeding,
,
i
l
i
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

I
I
I
HHS-PSC000184
~,
CONFIDENTIAL
to review the original requested slides.lO At the end of the meeting, we requested that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
THE (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) PAPER
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

4
HHS-PSC000185
CONFIDENTIAL
Similarly, Figure 2 showed that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Role of Other Authors

The complainant and respondent agree that
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

ALLEGATIONS AND'RESPONSE
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

5
HHS-PSC000186
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
1.
I
I
\;
t
r
Ii
HHS-PSC000187
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,
i
I ;
l
1 -
It
I
I'
HHS-PSC000188
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

..
I
l.
; .
i;
. j
I..~
I;
Ii
I:
IIJ
I
1\
i
\
. f
I
I
\
I
I
I
!
I
I
HHS-PSC000189
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,i
! ;
Ii
i :
I
,i
,r~~~"""\
II
I
HHS-PSC000190
1
t
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i .
~
i;
,:
I"
,I:'
l~
1f
i;
, I
! f.
ti
Ii
''2
I; ![
!I
!I ,I
II
iI
Ii
I
I
Ir
I
I~
10
/,"
..........
11
1\
rI
HHS-PSC000191
I~
I
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i j
,
I,
1!
Ii
Ii
,I
I,
IiI,
Ii, I
!I!'
I!
II
!I
II
iI
II,I
,I
11
HHS-PSC000192
I
i
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i :
i.
!:
12
HHS-PSC000193
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
t
I
!
!
I,.
1
I
I
f
13
HHS-PSC000194
I
I
. I'
i
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
! .
CONCLUSIONS
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i:
I ;
I
I
I
--~...,.-.
-;
14
HHS-PSC000195
I
I
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
RECOMMENDATIONS
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,<
II
15
HHS-PSC000196
II
List of Zou Exhibits
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4: Public Health Services Rule, 42 CFR Part 93

Exhibit 5: Department of Defense INSTRUCTION 3210.7 (May 14, 2004) which
implements DoD DIRECTIVE 3216.2.
Exhibit 6: Notification letter (December 13, 2007) to (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 7: Notification letter (December 13,2007) to (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 8:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 9: Memorandum to panel re:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 10:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 11:
.'
Exhibit 12: Supplemental response of
~
: i
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 13:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 14:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Exhibit 15:
:
j
!i
t!
i!
t r
Ii
! ;
j;
!i
I I
I'
it
I'
~:
I I
I!
II
I
II
t
1\
1\
i
HHS-PSC000197
HHS-PSC000198
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
-I'II
I
(
\ --
I
!
HHS-PSC000199
.\
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
i
I
I
I
!
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
II
II
III
J
Ii !I
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
I
I"
I
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.!"'~"~":'"
,
!
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
I
I
HHS-PSC000204
,I
II
I I
articles
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000205
HHS-PSC000206
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000207
HHS-PSC000208
PRINCIPLES
The integrity of the teaching, research and clinical programs ofthe Faculty of Medicine requires that the
Faculty pay careful attention to and resolve in an equitable manner allegations of misconduct of faculty
appointees and fellows.
Because of variations in such factors as the kind of misconduct alleged, the seriousness of the
allegations, the nature of the dispute over the facts, and the interests and involvement of other private or .
public institutions and agencies, the course of action that will enable the Faculty to fulfill this
responsibility in the best possible manner is likely to vary from case to case. Accordingly, the
procedures set forth below permit flexibility and are designed to provide a framework that should enable
equitable resolution of allegations of misconduct in a wide variety of circumstances. When applying
these procedures to a specific case, persons acting on behalf of the Faculty and others involved in the
proceedings should keep in mind the following concerns:
The importance of the Faculty's maintaining standards consistent with the highest traditions of
teaching, patient care, and research ill medicine and with the lawful obligations ofthe Faculty.
The responsibility of the Faculty to the public and the scientific community and to,the private and
public institutions and agencies with which the Faculty is affiliated or has contractual or other
arrangements.
The necessity ofthe Faculty's protecting the rights and reputations of all individuals, including the
person who is alleged to have engaged in-misconduct and the person who has made the allegation.
The necessity of the Faculty'sresolving allegations with care and objectivity, with ample
opportunity.for.allinterestedparties to beheard, and as.promptly as the circumstances penmt.
PROCEDURES
. I
I!
,f
1. The Office ofllie Dean shall have principal responsibility for assessing a proper response to
allegationsill of misconductconceming.faculty appointees and fellows. To enable the Office of
the'Dean to meet this responsibility, all allegations of misconduct, whether initially received by a
.Department Head or other person, shall be promptly brought to the attention of the Office of-the
,Dean (and where appropriate, the ChiefExecutive Officer of an affiliated institution) unless they
are clearly frivolous or otherwise lacking in substance.
2. Upon receipt of an allegation of misconduct, the OfficeoftheDean and, in those instances where
the faculty member has a dual appointment, the Chief Executive Officer of the otherinstitution
shall determine~ after such consultation as may seem appropriate, whether primary responsibility
for resolving the aliegation rests with the Faculty or with anotherinstitution. For example, primary
responsibility forresolving an allegation of misconduct in connection with care ofa patient would
ordinarily reside in a hospital. In the case of an allegation pertaining-toextemallyfiInded research,
primary responsibility ordinarily rests with the institution that has admiriistered the research grant
Or contract. An affiliated institution that has received support for research by a Harvard appointee
.may request, however, that allegations related to research by such appointees be dealt with by the
I
I
i
i
ii
I
I
I
tI
I
I
I
I
http://www~hms.harvard.edulintegrity/miscond.htm1
515/2010
HHS-PSC000209
Medical School. In any case, where the interests of two or more institutions are significantly
implicated, it is expected that such inquiry and any investigation will proceed with the
simultaneous participation of all concerned institutions, with agreement regarding which
institution bears primary responsibility.
3. Ifprimary responsibility rests with the Faculty, the Office of the Dean shall detennine whether,
taking into account the nature ofthe allegation, it is appropriate to attempt to resolve the matter
through infonnal processes and discussions. The affected Department Head shall ordinarily have
the responsibility for such efforts. Final resolution through infonnal means shall require the
approval ofthe Office of the Dean. When primary responsibility rests with an affiliated institution,
notice of resolution should be transmitted to the Office of the Dean.
4. If the matter is not resolved under paragraph 3, and ifiil the view of the Office oftJ:te Dean further
proceedings are required, the Office of the Dean shall, in the absence of any specific Faculty
procedure designed to cover the subject matter of the Committee on Faculty Conduct m with the
request that the Committee make such factual inquiry, investigation, findings and
recommendations to the Office of the Dean as seem appropriate to the circumstances. If there is a
dispute over facts or for other good cause, the Office of the Dean, after consultation with the
Chairperson of the Committee and other appropriate people, may first create one or more panels
of inquiry of one or more individuals, who need not be members of the Committee, to inquire into
the facts and submit the result of its inquiry to the Committee. In deciding upon the size and
composition of the Panel, the Office of the Dean, to help insure competence and objectivity, shall
take into account such factors as:
a.the subject matter of the inquiry, including the desirability of the panel's possessing
competence in a specialized area or investigative skills,
b. the desirability of including on the panel persons associated with another affiliated hospital
or individuals who are not members of the Faculty or not associated with Harvard
University, and
c. the importance of selecting ,people who have had no prior involvement in the subject matter
of the inquiry.
The Committee, with the benefit of a report from the panel ofinquiry, if one is created, and after
such further investigation, deliberations and proceedings as it deems appropriate or necessary,
taking into account any applicable govenunental regulations, shall submit its report to the Office
ofthe Dean. The Committee will submit conclusions and, ordinarily, comments on gravity of
offense, possible. sanctions, and prevention of future misconduct.
5. The Office oftheDeall;.after receiving comments on the report from such other people as may
seem appropriate, shaH decide the matter and take such action or make such recommendations as
may be required. In casesJnvolving another itistitution, the Dean-will confer with the Chief
.. Executive Officer of such institution in reaching a final resolution and. applying appropriate
sanctions. Sanctions may range, for example, from a letter of censure, to probation and
monitoring, to termination of appointment.
6. The Office of the Dean, in carrying outits responsibilities under these procedures, shall bear in .
mind the concerns of the Faculty as. set forth in the preamble and in particular:
II
!
I
I
I
I
i
. I
:!
:I
I
,I
I
, I
http://WWw.hn1s.harvard.edulintegrity/miscond.html.
HHS-PSC000210
5/5/2010
:I
;1
.i
a. the importance of care, fairness and objectivity, and of the appearance of these attributes,
b. the necessity of informing at the appropriate time other Faculty and University officers,
including the Chairperson of the Committee on Faculty Conduct, the Head of the
Department(s) involved, and the General Counsel to the University, of the existence of
allegations, and of consulting with these and other Faculty and University officers as
resolution of allegations progresses,
c. the responsibility of informing and consulting with officers of affiliated institutions and of
other private and public institutions and agencies to the extent necessary to meet in good
faith the obligations of the Faculty to others, and of coordinating the Faculty's proceedings
with those of affected institutions and agencies,
d. the importance of protecting the reputations of individuals and to that end ordinarily
maintaining confidentiality to the extent practicable and to the extent consistent with other
obligations of the Faculty during the course of and at the conclusion of proceedings,
e. the need to protect the rights of the person alleged to have engaged in misconduct, including
the right to be informed with specificity at the appropriate time of the allegations and the
evidence in support ofthe allegations, and the need to discuss with that person the
procedures to be followed,
f. the need to protect the rights ofindividuals who, in good faith, make allegations,
g. the importance of using the staff resources of the Faculty and the' University to aid in any
inquiry and of broadening the scope of any inquiry, when indicated, to make certain that the
full obligations of the Faculty are met, and
h. theneed to .make certain that the President of the University is informed when allegations
may constitute grave misconduct under the Third Statute of the University and that
resolution of the-matter proceeds.with this fact in mind.
I
I'
I
Ii
Ii
I'
I.
1;
7. The Office of the Dean and the Committee ()n Faculty Conduct shall maintain records of any
. proceedings in which they are involved.
Adopted by the Faculty Council (Harvard University Faculty ofMedicine) on December 14, 1989.
Footnotes:
I An allegation will ordinarily be made by a written statement describing the misconduct in sufficient
detail to form the basis ofan inquiry. (go back to source)
I:
Ii
1\
I
\
2The Committee on Faculty Conduct, appointed by the Dean, shall consist ofnine faculty members with
overlapping three-year terms. (go back to source)
I
iI
.r---',~
I'
ADDENDUM
I
I
When an allegation of misconduct by a Faculty appointee or fellow pertains to biomedical or behavioral
http://www.hms;harvard.edulintegrity/miscond.html
5/5/2010
HHS-PSC000211
1
I,.
research, research training, or other activities related to that research or research training for which
Public Health SeIVice (PHS) funds have been provided or requested, the following additional principles
and procedures shall be obseIVed in accordance with applicable governmental requirements:
1. Where the Office of the Dean determines that there is an allegation or other evidence of possible
misconduct that would be subject to the Final Rule of the PHS entitled "Public Health Service
policies on Resrach Misconduct," or any successor document ("PHS Rule"), ill the Office of the
Dean, after consultation with the Chair ofthe Committee and other appropriate people, shall
create one or more panels of inquiry as described in the "Principles and Procedures for Dealing
with Allegations ofFaculty Misconduct." The panel(s) shall conduct an inquiry in accordance
with the requirements of the PHS Rule. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the panel(s) shall present
a written report of the findings to the Committee on Faculty Conduct, along with any written
comments on the report that may be provided by the respondent. Such inquiry shall be concluded
within sixty days unless circumstances warrant a longer period (in which case the panel's report
shall document the reasons for exceeding the the sixty day period).
2. Within thirty days after receiving the report of the panel of inquiry, the Committee shall determine
whether the findings of that inquiry provide sufficient basis for conducting an investigation. If
deemed to be necessary, such investigation shall be commenced within thirty days after such
setermination is made and shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the PHS
Rule and with such additional assistance from the members of the panel of inquiry as the
Committee shall deem necessary and appropriate.
3. In the event the Committee concludes that an investigation is warranted, the Office of the Dean
shall, within thirty days after reaching that conclusion, report this decision in writing to the
Director, Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services (ORl), in
-the manner required by the PHS Rule, and shall take any other actions required by the PHS Rule.
4. The Committee shall submit a report of its investigation, including any recommended sanctions, '
to the Office-of the Dean upon its completion. Unless an extension oftime has been granted by
OR! in accordance with the requirements of the PHS Rule, such report shall be submitted to the
Office of the Dean within one hundred and twenty days of the initiation of such investigation.
5. After receiving-the final report and such-<:ommentsfrom other persons as may seem appropriate,
:the Office of the Dean shall decide the matter and take such action or make such
recommendations as may be deemed fitting, including submission of the final report to theORI
,and any other actions required by the PHS Rule. In cases involving another institution, the Dean
will confer with the Chief Executive Officer of such institution in reaching a final resolution.
.6. This Addendum is intended to include, and hereby incorporates by reference, all of the specific
mandatory requirements of the PHS Rule pertaining to the conduct and reporting of research
misconduct proceedings that are subject to that rule.
/"\
;
Footnote on Addendum:
I"Research Misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, orplagiarism in proposing, performing, or
reviewing research, or. in reporting research results.
(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
http://www.hms.harvard.edulintegrity/miscond.html
HHS-PSC000212
5/512010
(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting

data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences in opinion. (go back to source)
Adopted by the Faculty Council (Harvard University Faculty o/Medicine) on December 14. 1989.
Revisions adopted by the Faculty Council (Harvard University Faculty o/Medicine) on June 1. 2005.
,AJ;:'
fable of ,contents
1996 President and Fellows 0/Harvard College. All rights reserved. Materials adapted from the
paper version o/Faculty Policies on Integrity in Science. available/rom the Office/or Research Issues.
Harvard Medical School. 25 Shattuck Street. Boston. MA 02115. (617) 432-3191.
5/5/2010
HHS-PSC000213
.I
HHS-PSC000214
Tuesday,
May 17, 2005
Part ill
Department of
Health and Human
.Services
42 CFR Parts 50 and 93
Public Health Service Policies on
Research Misconduct; Final Rule
I
I
I
HHS-PSC000215
HHS-PSC000216
Department of Defense
INSTRUCTION
NUMBER 3210.7
May 14,2004
USD{AT&L)
SUBJECT: Research Integrity and Misconduct
References: (a) DoD Directive 3216.2, "Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to
Ethical Standards in DoD-Supported Research," March 25,2002
(b) Federal Register, Volume 65, page 76262, December 6, 2000, "Federal
Policy on Research Misconduct" current edition
(c) Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 22, "DoD Grant and
Agreement Regulations (DoDGARs)," current edition
(d) Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2, "Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)," current edition
(e) through (g), see enclosure 1
1. PURPOSE
This Instruction supplements the:policy established by paragraph 4.8. of reference (a) and
implements subparagraph 5.1.5.ofreference (a) by specifying detailed procedures and
standards for the Department of Defense for the prevention: of research misconduct. This
Instruction is consistent with the "Federal Policy on Research Misconduct" (reference
(b, which calls upon .those Federal Agencies that support or conduct research on an
. intramural or extramural basis to is~ue policies and procedures that conform to the
Federal policy.
2. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE
This Instruction applies to:

2.1. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the
Chainnanofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Defense Agencies,
the DoD Field Activities and all other organizational entities in the Department of
Defense .(hereafter referred to collectively as "the DoD Components") ..
HHS-PSC000217
DoD! 3210.7, May 14, 2004
2.2. All allegations of research misconduct (as defmed in enclosure 2) by

perfonners or reviewers of research (also as defined in enclosure 2) or advanced
technology development activities that use DoD resources, including:
2.2.1. Civilian and military employees of the DoD Components;

2.2.2. Employees of non-Federal entities that receive DoD funding through
procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other funding instruments,
under the tenns of those instruments;
2.2.3. Individual consultants, under the tenns of their appointments; and
2.2.4. Individuals other than DoD employees participating in research
activities conducted by the DoD Components or under their auspices, including proposal
reviewers not covered under subpara~phs 2.2.2. or 2.2.3., individuals under special
personnel appointments, and visiting sci~ntists, under the tenns of the instruments that
establish their relationship with the Department of Defense.
3. DEFINITIONS
Terms used in this Instruction are defined in enclosure 2.
4. POLICY
Consistent with the objective of reference (b) to ensure public trust in the research
enterprise, the DoD Components shaUpromote the integrity of research conducted under
their purview. The DoD Components shall establish procedures to foster integrity in .
research activities and to respond- to -allegations of research misconduct consistent with
applicable laws and regulations.
s.
PROCEDURES
Guidance for implementation of this Instruction by the DoD Components is provided in

enclosure 3; The guidance addresses requirements that pertain to research institutions in
general, as well as specific requirements for intramural research institutions. Enclosure 4
specifies the requirements to be implemented in the DoD Grant and Agreement
Regulations and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (references (c)
and (d for inclusion in applicable contracts, other acquisition instruments, grants, and
agreements.
- 2
HHS-PSC000218
DoD! 3210.7, May 14,2004
6. RESPONSIBILITIES
6.1. The Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), under the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) (USD(AT&L:
6.1.1. Shall amend reference (c) to implement the requirements of this
Instruction for extramural research institutions. Amendments to reference (c) shall be
proposed in the Federal Register for public comment within 270 days of the effective date
of this Instruction.
6.1.2. Shall be the central point of contact within the Department of Defense
for policy matters relating to research misconduct and interpretation of this Instruction.
6.1.3. Shall act as the principal DoD liaison with Federal Agencies outside the
Department of Defense on matters pertaining to research misconduct.
6.1.4. Shall establish a committee consisting of representatives from the DoD
Components to assist in the implementation and maintenance of this Instruction.
6.1.5. May issue DoD instructions or other guidance necessary to implement
this Instruction.
6.1.6. May,grant exceptions to requirements of this Instruction, if they are
consistent with law and justified by special circumstances.
6.1.7. May specify periodic or ad hoc reporting requirements, including any
required to obtain information to respond to inquiries by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
, ,i
I
, I;
i
6.1.8. Shall coordinate with the Director ofDefense Procurement and

Acquisition'Policy (DDPAP) in matters relating to contracts and other acquisition
instruments.
I
6.1.9. In coordination with theDDPAP, shallpropo-se changes to reference (d)

to implement the requirements of this Instruction for contracts and other transactions with
extramur~l research institutions for presentation to the Defense Acquisition Regulation
Council.. Changes to reference (d) shall be proposed in the Federal Register for public
comment within 270 days of the effective date of this lilstruction.
6,2. The Heads of the DoD Components shall:
6.2.1. Develop, issue, and monitor implementing policies and procedures to
ensure.compliance with this Instruction and applicable DQDGARS and DFARS
requirements (references (c) and {d.
!I
I '
I; !I
II I'
1\
II
II
, II
I I
1I
I I
II
i rI
I:I
I
I
1! I,
i I
HHS-PSC000219
I!
DoD! 3210.7, May 14,2004
6.2.2. Ensure that authorities and responsibilities under this Instruction are
delegated to levels of command or authority that allow responses to allegations of
research misconduct to be handled at an appropriate organizational level consistent with
the requirements of this Instruction.
6.2.3. For allegations of research misconduct that involve more than one DoD
Component or a DoD Component(s) and a non-DoD Federal entity, jointly determine and
assign executive responsibility for compliance.
6.2.4. Maintain adequate documentation of all responses to allegations of
research misconduct conducted by a headquarters-level DoD Component or by an
intramural research institution.
6.2.5. Establish procedures to ensure timely response to DDR&E reporting
requirements.
7. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Instruction is effective immediately.
. Enclosures - 4
El. References, continued
E2. Definitions
E3. Requirements for DoD Components' Research MisconductProcedures
E4. Requirements for Extrainural Research Institutions
HHS-PSC000220
DoD! 3210. 7, May 14, 2004
El. ENCLOSURE]
REFERENCES, continued
(e) Section 2409 of title 10, United States Code, "Contractor Employees: Protection
from Reprisal for Disclosure of Certain Infonnation"
(f) Section 552 of title 5, United States Code, "Freedom oflnfonnation Act"
(g) Section SS2a of title 5, United States Code, "Privacy Act"
, i
ii
I
!.
ENCLOSURE 1
HHS-PSC000221
I
\
DoD! 3210.7, May 14,2004
E2. ENCLOSURE 2
DEFINITIONS
E2.1.1. Adjudication. The stage in the response to an allegation of research

misconduct when the outcome of the investigation is reviewed, and appropriate corrective
actions, if any, are determined. Corrective actions generally will be administrative in
nature (e.g., termination of an award(s), deba. . ment, special approvals, or correction of the
research record); however if there is an indication of violation of civil or criminal
statutes, civil or criminal sanctions may be pursued.
E2.1.2. Fabrication. Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
E2.1.3. Falsification. Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or
changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in
the research record.
E2.1.4. Finding of Research Misconduct. The conclusion proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that there was research misconduct and that such
misconduct represented a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant
research community and has been committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
E2.1.S. Inquiry. The stage in the response to an allegation of research misconduct
when an assessment is made to determine whether the allegation has substance and an
investigation is warranted.
E2.1.6. Investigation. The stage in the response to an allegation of research
misconduct when the factual-record is formally developed and examined to determine
whether to dismiss the case, recommend for a finding of research misconduct, and/or take
other appropriate remedies.
;,
'.
r
i:
i
; .
!
I;
I!
t
E2.1. 7. Plagiarism. The appropriation ofanother person's ideas, processes, results,

or words without giving appropriate credit.
E2.1.8. Research. _All basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields of
science, engineering, and mathematics. This inclUdes, but is not limited to, research in
eeonomics,education, lingUistics, medicine, psychology, physical sciences, social
sciences, statistics, and research involving human subjects ot animals regardless of the
funding appropriation used to support it.
ir
t!
II-d
r I
>
--
ENCLOSURE 2
"I
II
ii
Ii
, I
11
HHS-PSC000222
!r
f,
.!
DoDI 3210.7. May 14.2004
E2.1.9. Research Institution. All organizations using DoD resources (including

funds, personnel, equipment, facilities, and other resources) for research. Research
institutions include, but are not limited to, DoD intramural research laboratories, federally
funded research and development centers affiliated with the Department of Defense,
colleges and universities, national user facilities, industrial laboratories, and other
research institutes, centers, or organizations.
E2.1.10. Research Misconduct. Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
proposing, perfonning, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research
misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
E2.1.l1. Research Record. The record of data or results that embodies the facts
resulting from scientific inquiry. It includes, but is not limited to, research proposals,
laboratory records, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports,
and journal articles, whether in physical or electronic fOIiD.
ENCLOSURE 2
HHS-PSC000223
DoD! 3210.7. May 14.2004
E3. ENCLOSURE 3
REQUIREMENTS FOR DoD COMPONENTS' RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
PROCEDURES
E3.1.1. The DoD Components shall adopt implementing procedures that recognize
the role of the research institution in ensuring that research is conducted under the highest
ethical standards and in reviewing allegations of research misconduct. A copyofthe
implementing instructions (and any subsequent modifications) shall be provided to the
DDR&E.
E3.1.2. The authority to review and act on allegations of research misconduct by
DoD employees or others working in DoD facilities (other than contractor employees or
consultants) shall be placed at the lowest possible organizational level that allows an
independent, unbiased, and equitable process. However, implementing procedures may
retain for the headquarters-level of the DoD Component (parent command) the right to
exercise authorities that otherwise would be delegated to intramural research institutions.
E3.1.3. The DoD Components shall designate in their implementing procedures
responsible individuals and the process for reviewing and responding to research
misconduct-related information and documentation submitted by research institutions.
E3.1.4. Implementing procedures shall minimize disruption to research in process
unless the research misconduct could result in a threat to public health or safety.
E3.1.S. The DoD Components may use their existing procedures for intramural
research institutions as long as they comply with the minimum requirements of this
Instruction. Nothing in this Instruction is intended to supersede current civilian or
military personnel management authorities.
E3.1.6 .. For extramural research institutions, the DoD Components may continue to
follow existing requirements until they are superseded by changes to references (c) and
(d), as applicable. The DoD Components may not adopt new or changed research
'integrity/researchmisconduct policies for extramural institutions in advance of final
changes to references (c) and (d).
E3.1. 7. The DoD Components may use any available resources to respond to
allegations of misconduct, including their Office of the Inspector General, legal counsel,
and expert consultants.
, I
II
II. I
II
II
'1,
8
ENCLQSURE3
\II
'j
t,!'
I.
HHS-PSC000224
11
!I
iI
, i
DoD! 3210.7, May 14, 2004
E3.l.8. The DoD Components may develop alternate or additional procedures to

address allegations of research misconduct that arise under classified research as long as
they comply with the minimum requirements of this Instruction and references (c) and
(d), as applicable.
E3.1.9. At a minimum, the DoD Components' procedures implementing this
Instruction for intramural research institutions shall include the following:
E3.l.9.1. Responsibilities for handling each phase of the response to an
allegation of research misconduct: inquiry, investigation, and adjudication. These
responsibilities shall be assigned to organizations and officials that understand the
research and the research environment, can ensure objectivity, can provide due process,
and reach a timely resolution. The responsibilities for adjudication shall be separate from
those for inquiry and investigation, but they can be assigned to an individual higher in the
chain of command ot to a part of the research institution other than that which conducted
the inquiry and investigation.
E3.l.9.2. Procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct made
directly to the headquarters level of the DoD Component (instead of the research
institution).
E3.1.9.3. The circumstances, ifany, under which the headquarters level of the
DoD Component may respond directly to an allegation (other than exercise of the _
authority provided in paragraph E3.1.2.). These include, but are not limited to, a
determination that the research institution is una~le to conduct a thorough and unbiased
inquiry and investigation; a detennination that it is in the public interest for the parent
command tq conduct the inquiry and investigation; or a determination that the allegation
involves a small organization or an individual that cannot reasonably be expected to
re~pond.
j" :
! .
i -
i ;
\
E3.1.9A. Responsibilities for, and the form and timing of, notifying an
individual that an allegation of research misconduct involving him or her has been made
and its disposition.
E3.1.9.5. A requirement to provide the report of the inquiry to a designated
official in the DoD Component after completion ofthe inquiry phase, if the individual's
commander (military personnel) or supervisor or commander (civilian) determines there
is s~ffi.cient evidence to proceed to an investigation.
E3.L9.6. A requirement that the research institution immediately notify the
headquarters levei of the DoD Component and provide an explanation of the
circumstances if:
E3.1.9.6J. The public health orsafety is at risk.
i
1 .
t:
I' :
I!
\
I'
j'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENCLOSURE 3
I
i
HHS-PSC000225
DoD! 3210.7, May 14, 2004
E3.1.9.6.2. The research institution's resources or interests are threatened

or at risk.
E3.1.9.6.3. Research activities are to be suspended because of the inquiry
into or investigation of the allegation.
E3.1.9.6.4. There is a possible violation of civil or criminal law.
E3.1.9.6.5. Action to protect the interests of those involved in the inquiry
into or investigation of the allegation is required from the parent command.
E3.1.9.6.6. A premature public disclosure of the inquiry into or
investigation of the allegation may compromise the process; or
E3 .1.9.6.7. The research community or public should be informed.
E3.1.9. 7. The notice and accompanying explanation provided by the intramural
research institution (pursuant to subparagraph E3.1.9.6.) shall be used by the
headquarters level of the DoD Component to determine whether it or the research
institution shall respond directly to the allegation (if that right is reserved as provided
. under paragraph E3.1.2.).
E3.l.9.8. In any instance where the authority to adjudicate the findings is not
delegated to the intramural research institution, a requirement that, after completing the
investigation, the research institution report the outcome of the investigation to the same
individual as under subparagraph E3.1.9.5. The rep0rt shall include a copy of the
evidentiary record, the investigative report, and any other materials that bear on the
allegation. If adjudicated by the research institution, a requirement that the research
institution report the outcome ofthe adjudication to this individual. The report shall
include a summary of the findings and any action taken.
E3.1.9.9. Required documentation for each phase of the response to an
allegation of misconduct and requirements related to document retention, storage,
handling, and dissemination (see subparagraph E3.1.9.12. for requirements for
confidentiality). At a minimum, the documentation should include the allegation; the
methods and procedures used to gather the information and evaluate the allegation; the
outcome of the investigation (ineludinR the findings and supporting evidence), if any;
and, for fmdings of research misc0nduct, any recOmmended or imposed institutional
sanctions, and any recommended corrective actions.
E3.l.9.l0. Procedures to protect the rights of those who make allegations of
research misconduct to promote a c1imatewh~re the informant does not fear retribution
(for example, section 2409 of title 10, United States Code, "Contractor
. Employees: ProteCtion from Reprisal for Disclosure of Certain lnformati0n" (reference
(e))):Protections fOi-those alleging research misconduct should include protection
10
ENCLOSURE 3
HHS-PSC000226
DoD! 3210.7, May /4,2004

against retaliation or harm to their positions or reputations for making a good faith
allegation and fair and objective procedures for the examination and resolution of
allegations.
E3.1.9.ll. Procedures to protect the rights of those who are alleged to have
engaged in research misconduct in order to instill confidence that individuals shall be
treated in an impartial and professional manner. Protections for subjects of allegations of
research misconduct should include providing them a description of substantial
allegations made against them; giving them reasonable access to the data and other
supporting evidence related to the allegation; and affording them the opportunity to
respond to the allegation, the evidence, and the findings.
E3.1.9.12. Procedures intended to ensure confidentiality during the inquiry,
investigation, and decision-making processes. To the extent possible, consistent with a
fair and thorough investigation and as allowed by law, the procedures shall limit
knowledge about the identity of subjects and informants to those who "need to know."
The procedures shall be in compliance with the Freedom oflnformation Act and the
Privacy Act (references (f) and (g.
E3.1.9.13. Time frames for completing each phase of the response to an
allegation of research misconduct.
E3.1.9.l4. Types of remedies available.
E3.1.9.15. Available appeal rights. The authority to which an appeal may be
made must not be an office or individual directly involv~ in the inquiry, investigation, or
adjudication of an allegation of research misconduct. "Office" means that organizational
component with formalresponsibility for one or more phases of the response to an
allegation of research misconduct. The organizational level may be defined by the DoD
Component as long as there is an adequate separation of responsibilities and there is no
.
appearance of bias, inequity, ~r conflict of interest.
E3 .1.9.16. If authority to respond to an allegation of research misconduct is
.delegated to a research institution, a requirement that a copy of the research institution's
implementing procedures be provided to the headquarters level of the DoD ComponeQ.t.
E3.1.1O. Relationship to Other Requirements. Some of the research covered by this
Instruction also may be subject to regulations of other governmental agencies (e.g., a
DoD research institution that receives funding under a grant from another Federal
. Agency). Research covered under this Instnlction that also is subject to requirements of
other Agencies or funding sources must be cOnducted in compliance with all applicable
requirements.
11
. ENCLOSURE 3 .
HHS-PSC000227
DoD! 3210. 7, May 14, 2004

E3.l.ll. Non-compliance. Instances of any DoD Component or intramural research
institution failing to comply with the requirements of this Instruction shall be referred for
resolution to a management level that is at least one level above where the noncompliance is alleged to have occurred. DoD Components shall provide the DDR&E
reports of all actions taken under this paragraph. Issues related to non-compliance by
extramural research institutions with requirements related to research integrity and
misconduct shall be addressed, as provided in enclosure 4, paragraph E4.1.1O., and
implemented in references (c) and (d).
12
ENCLOSURE 3
HHS-PSC000228
DoDI 3210.7, May 14, 2004
E4. ENCLOSURE 4
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
E4. I. I. Extramural research institutions must foster an atmosphere conducive to

research integrity. They must develop procedures to respond to allegations ofresearch
misconduct that ensure:
E4. I. I. I. Appropriate separation of responsibilities for inquiry and
investigation, and adjudication. (See paragraph E4.I.3.)
E4.l.1.2. Objectivity.
E4.l.1.3. Due process.
E4.l.1.4. Whistleblower protection.
E4.1.1.5. Confidentiality; and
E4. I. 1.6. Timely resolution.
E4.l.2. Extramural research institutions may use existing procedures applicable to
all of their federally and non-federally funded activities as long as they meet the
requirements specified in this enclosure. These procedures are not required to be
submitted to the DoD awarding activity, but must be available for inspection at the
research institution.
E4~1.3 .. Except as provided paragraph E4.1.4., following an allegation of research
misconduct made directly to it, whether related to an ongoing award or to a proposal

submitted to the Department of Defense for funding consideration, the research
institution is responsible for response to the allegation. This includes conducting the
inquiIy, investigation, and, if applicable, adjudication of the allegation. The
responsibilities for adjudication must be separate from those for inquiIy and
investigation, but they can be assigned to an individual higher in the cham of command
or to a part of the research institution other than that which conducted the inquiIy and
investigation.
E4.1.4. The DoD awarding activity shall refer an allegation of research misconduct
made to the Department of D~fense to the cognizant extramural research institution for
response. However, the DoD awarding activity may respond to an allegation of research
misconduct made to it or to the research institution if the awarding activity determines
that:
13
ENCLOSURE 4
HHS-PSC000229
DoD! 32/0.7. May 14.2004
E4 .1.4 .1. The research institution is unable to conduct a thorough and unbiased
inquiry and investigation;
E4.1.4.2. It is in the public interest for the Department of Defense to conduct
the inquiry and investigation; or
E4 .1.4.3. The allegation involves a small organization or an individual that
cannot reasonably be expected to respond.
.
E4.1.S. After completion of the inquiry phase, the research institution must notify
the individual specified in the award of any allegation of research misconduct for which
there is sufficient evidence to proceed to an investigation. Each applicable award shall
specify the official to whom such notices must be sent.
E4.1.6. The research institution is required to provide immediate notification at any
time if:
E4.1.6.1. The public health or safety is at risk.
E4.1.6.2. The research institution's resources or interests are threatened or at
risk.
E4.1.6.3. Research activities are to be suspended because of the inquiry into or
investigation of the allegation.
E4.1.6.4. There is a possible violation of civil or criminal law.
E4.1.6.5. Action to protect the interests of those involved in the inquiry into or
investigation of the allegation is required from the DoD Component.
"\i !
E4.1.6.6. A premature public disclosure of the inquiry into or investigation of

the allegation may compromise the. process; or
i I
: i
1
1
!I
I
1\
E4.1.6.7. The broader research community or public should be informed.

E4.l.7. Following completion of the investigation, the research institution must
provide a copy of the evidentiary record, the report of the investigation, recommendations
made to the institution's adjudicating official, and the written response of the individual
that is the subject of the allegation to any recommendations. This information must be
provided to (insert name or title of the Contracting Officer (generally the Administrative
Contracting Officer), Grants Officer, Agreement Officer, or other designated official).
E4.l.8. The extramural researcllinstitution must maintain the following documents
related to an allegation of research misconduct:
Ii
!!
i
II
:i
II
Li
II
i
tI
14
Ii
ENCLOSURE 4
\I
!I
II[ i
i I
\;
I
li
HHS-PSC000230
i!
I I
DoD! 3210.7, May 14,2004

E4.1.8.1. Written statement of the original allegation.
E4.1.8.2. Fonnal notification to the subject of the allegation.
E4.1.8.3. Written outcome of the inquiry phase and supporting documentation.
E4.l.8.4. Written repor:t of the investigation, including the evidentiary record
and supporting documentation; and
E4.1.8.5. Ifapplicable, statement of recommended corrective actions and any
response thereto, including any corrective action plan.
E4.1.9. The documents specified in paragraph E4.1.8. are considered project-related
records that must be retained for 3 years after the [mal decision.
E4.1.1 O. In the event the extramural institution does not comply with the
requirements of the award, the DoD awarding activity may use any available
administrative or other appropriate remedy, including the termination ofaward(s) or
suspension and debannent of the institution. The DoD awarding activity also may
recommend Suspension or debarment of the individual that is the subject of the allegation
after a finding of research misconduct
I
r
..
15
ENCLOSURE 4
I
Ii
I
I
HHS-PSC000231
HHS-PSC000232
25 Shattuck street
Boston. Massachusetts 02115
(617) 432-3191
FAX: (617) 432-0566
"i
Office for Research IssueS
f
I
CONFIDENTIAL
December 13, 2007
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.1
On behalf of Harvard Medical School (HMS), I am writing toinfonn you that we will be
conducting an inquiry into allegations of
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
The:purpose of the inquiry is to determine \\'hether sufficient evidence ofresearch

rilisconductexistsoto warrant fwtherinvestigation. At the time thewotk :was done-and published,
"scientific misconduct" was,definedby the;formerlIMS Pr;nc~lesand Procedures for Dealing
with Allegations ofFaculty Misconduct, and the former Public Health "Services:FinaLRule, 42
CFR~Part 93 as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or otherpractioesthat-senously deviate
from,those that are commonly accepted within the scientific communityfor,proposing,
conducting,orreporling-research." Specifically excludedofromthedefinition were "honest error
or honest differences; inintetpretation orjudgments of data." The definition comes from the
,policy and regulations that were ineffectcatthetime that the:paper referenced-above was
:published. The inquiry wiIlbe conducted in-accordance with the current Public HealthServices
. Regulations, 42 CPR P!.li 93 and the currenHIMS Principles and Procedures for Dealing with
Allegations ofFaculty Misconduct, copies fwhichare enclosed.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(
HHS-PSC000233
\,
believe that any of the individuals selected are not appropriate for the panel, please let me know the
reasons by December 21, 2007. Please do not contact the proposed panel members directly.
My office will be staffing the inquiry panel. Consistent with federal requirements, steps
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

relevant original records or data relating to this matter which you have in your possession, please let
me know immediately. I can be reached at (617) 432-2496 or [email protected]. In
no case, should any existing record be destroyed or altered.
.I
The' inquiry panel may interview you (by person or by telephone) and others who may have
relevant information. Any interviews will be tape recorded. and transcribed and you will be given
tbeopportunity to review and correct the transcript of your interview. You may have someone,
including an attorney or a faculty advisor, come with you to your interview to advise you if you
wish.
.j
. 1
11
At the conclusion of the inquiry, the panel will prepare a draft report with its
recommendation as-to whetherofiuther-investigation is warranted. You will be provided with a copy
of the draft report and. given the opportunity to review an~ make comments on it. As the result of
your comments-the draft report may be changed and at the very least yourconunents will be
appended to the final report.
Please. understand that you are to take no steps to retaliate against anyone who came
.forward with the allegations or against anyone who may participatem the inquiry process.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
! .
I
I
I .
I
J
. -_Please donofhesitate. to caB me if you have any questions.
:I
... i
.j
.,I
..
\
I
Sincerely,
II
I
i
i,
..;\
Enclosures
-.-1
,
,/""~'"
.
J
I'
2
}
HHS-PSC000234
HHS-PSC000235
.' .
I
I
25 Shatfuck Street
Boston, MassachuseHs 02115
(617) 432-3191
FAX: (617) 432{)566
..
CONFIDENTIAL
, I
,Ii
December 13, 2007
I!
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
I
II
I
'I
!
'.'1
'I
',I
On behalf of Harvard Medical School (HMS), I am writing to infonn you that we will be
conducting an inquiIy into
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.1
i .
I, :,
!.
'I
. I
,: 1
1
I
'I
'j
'I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
\
.'
I.
II ::
! ,
Ii
!I
j
,,
;
.!
\
I
i
'I
) ...
The pwpose of-the-inquiry,is to determine whether sufficient evidence ofreseareh

.misconduct exists to,warrant further investigation. At the time the work was done and published,
tlscientificmisconduct" _,was.:defined by the former.HMS Principles and Procedures for Dealing
wilhAliegations, ofFaculty Misconduct, and the fonner Public Health Services Final Rule. 42
CPR Part 93 as tlfabrication,.falsification"plagiarism,or other practices that seriously deviate
from those that are commonly accepted, within the scientific community for proposing,
conducting, Or reporting research~tI SpeCifically excluded from the definition weretlhonest error
or honest differences~ihinterpretation' ol'judgments of data. II The definition comes: from the
.policy and regulations that were in effect at-the. time' that the paper referenced above was
published. The inquiry will be conductectin accordance with the current Public Health services
:Regulations, 42CFRPart93 and the current HMS-Princip/es and Procedures for Dealing with
.. Allegations ofFaculty Misconduct, copies. f which are enclosed.
.
II
Ii
HHS-PSC000236
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

My office will be staffing the inquiry panel. Consistent with federal requirements, steps
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

need. If there are further relevant original records or data relating to this matter which you have in
your possession, please let me know immediately. I can be reached at (617) 432-2496 or
[email protected]. In no case should any existing record be destroyed or altered.
I
i
I
-f
I
The inquiry panel may want to interview you (by person or by telephone) and others who
may have relevant information. Any interviews will be tape recorded and transcn'bed and you will
be,given the opportunity to review and correct the transcript of your interview.
.i.j"
\1
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
~I
We consider this to be a confidentiaLmatter and will make every effort to ensure that
confidentiality is maintained. Please be assured that we are committed to a fair, thorough and
objective process.
-l
-j
Please do not hesitate to contact me ifyou.bave any questions.

Sincerely,
Ii
;
L.n
1 :
I:
Dean fo
. ty and
Research Integrity
.Enclosures
\
-;
-.
2
~'"''''''
')
:,'
-.1
HHS-PSC000237
HHS-PSC000238
()
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
!.
I
i
i
i
I
I
I\
I
I
i
I
/-
I
;
HHS-PSC000239
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
!i
I
l
I
I
l
I
I
:
HHS-PSC000240
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
II
\
r
!
I
t
.\
i'
. I
I,
HHS-PSC000241
I
i
r
SUMMARY
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
! i
I!
1
I
I
I
I
II,
I
'
I:
I
I
HHS-PSC000242
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
!
i,-
II
I
\
HHS-PSC000243
\:
\
TIMELINE OF THE PROJECT AND CONTRIBUTIONS
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
; i
.
.
:1
HHS-PSC000244
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000245
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
. !
HHS-PSC000246
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
II
I
I
rI
1
t:
I
!
I
I
I-
I
I;
I
I
i
HHS-PSC000247
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,
t
I
I
HHS-PSC000248
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
----
11
HHS-PSC000249
.
REANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL DATA
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
12
HHS-PSC000250
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000251
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000252
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
; i
- I
HHS-PSC000253
'
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
j:
HHS-PSC000254
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000255
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
18
HHS-PSC000256
i j
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000257
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
r
HHS-PSC000258
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000259
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000260
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.,
I!
!
, ,i
HHS-PSC000261
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
; j
;l
!!
j
HHS-PSC000262
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000263
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.i
: 1
HHS-PSC000264
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

.'
I
I
!
I
I
!
HHS-PSC000265
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000266
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

"
"
.: !
r:I
11
,'
, I
;! II
i i!
II
11
I!I
" i
t!
I!
II
i:
!
1
Ii
I
I,"
I
!
I
!i
HHS-PSC000267
I,
i
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i
1
I
I
II.
I
HHS-PSC000268
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
; !
: !
!
I,
!I
1\
II
I!
I
1\
, I
:,II
HHS-PSC000269
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.....
iI
i
\
I
I
Ii
I
I
HHS-PSC000270
II
!
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
_00,'
./
HHS-PSC000271
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000272
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,I
,I
. (
!
i
I
t
II
I
I
I
I
HHS-PSC000273
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000274
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000275
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000276
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000277
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
: i
HHS-PSC000278
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
, I
HHS-PSC000279
RECENT EVENTS
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Ii
: i
::
HHS-PSC000280
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i,
. i
:i
;
: t
HHS-PSC000281
APPENDIX
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000282
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000283
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.', .
HHS-PSC000284
ANCILLARY FILES
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000285
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000286
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
!
I
iI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.......
I
I
II
HHS-PSC000287
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
: !
,.
,,
: !
;
II
I
,i
~ i
; I,
,1
!!
HHS-PSC000288
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000289
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000290
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000291
HHS-PSC000292
CONFIDENTIAL
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
TO:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
CC:
FROM:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
DATE:
June 6, 2008
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
RE:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
In light of the (still) massive amount of material (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) supmitted, I suggest we take the
next two or three weeks to look over these files on our individual timetables. I'll then be in touch
with each of you for your thoughts about a realistic and sensible plan f<?r proceeding. If anyone
has immediate suggestions for a different approach, please let me know.
Turning to the files:
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
HHS-PSC000293
(b) (6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c)
I
I
1
I
I
~I
I
r
-I
HHS-PSC000294
I
I
HHS-PSC000295
November 13, 2008

Response to allegations of (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
submitted (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

BACKGROUND ON THE EXPERIMENTS
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

i'
'"
HHS-PSC000296
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
;':.;
I
HHS-PSC000297
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
; .
!
I
/
;"~""'"
".
"\
HHS-PSC000298
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I'
j i
i'
I
I
"1
':
I'i
I!
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
HHS-PSC000299
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
\
r
HHS-PSC000300
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
!.
;
I'
I
I
,r" ~."" ..... I.
HHS-PSC000301
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,; .,
j'
!i:'
,
:
I
!
[1
I:
ti
II
II
It
II
I'
1\
II
I
1'1
[I
!
I!
\1
HHS-PSC000302
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

!
! .
!
!!
I'
;".
' .
,/
HHS-PSC000303
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000304
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
, ;
i
. .,
i:
!; j.
,,
I'
1!
/!
"! 1
!i
~
i 1
d
J.
i1
/'
/j ii
I'
Ii
II
\'
iI
!l-
Ii
II
II
I
I
11
! I
,I
i i
\1
HHS-PSC000305
II
l
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,:
Ii
Iii
I!i \
!
I!
Ii
iI
II
\I
IIIL
III!
i
I[
I!
i I
!I
ii
II
!I
!I
HHS-PSC000306
Ii
il
1
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
r
I
HHS-PSC000307
I
i
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
I
\
HHS-PSC000308
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000309
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
l'
,.
i
I;
HHS-PSC000310
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000311
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
j:
; ;
!;
:, II
/1
~ I
!I
i i
: I
I!
!I
iI
II
III
I
J,
, I
, I
!I
;I
I
HHS-PSC000312
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i;
1
iI,I
ii
i!
II
\I
Ii
\!
, II
'
HHS-PSC000313
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.'
, I
I:
I!
I
II
I~
i'I1
1\
I
[I
! .
II
I
i
i
I
HHS-PSC000314
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

.
HHS-PSC000315
l'
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i
I
I
!.
i;
,J
;
Ii
I\
\
!
I
I
HHS-PSC000316
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

, ,
, ,
: !
\.
HHS-PSC000317
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
".
,
~
Ii
I
I
I
I
i
!
l
HHS-PSC000318
I
t
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Most importantly, a research record such as the one here that is
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Respectfully submitted,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

November 13, 2008 .
Page 24 of 24
HHS-PSC000319
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

I
i
!.
II
II
I
I
I
1
HHS-PSC000320
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

i '
l'
i'
,I,: '
:
-\
1
I
HHS-PSC000321
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
t;
.
i'
~
! :
i
!i
,
I
I
!
i
I
1
I
I
HHS-PSC000322
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i
;
:I
fi
'j
I
I
II
i
1i
I
i
I
I
HHS-PSC000323
\
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000324
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.\ ,
HHS-PSC000325
.
'
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000326
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i;
"
: i
,
1'
ti
f j
;I
:i
~I
!
, I
-:
'\
I
I
I
I
iI
/'
l
\
HHS-PSC000327
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000328
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i,
I'
\ '
i;
11
[ ,
1\
!t
iilI
IiIi
ii!~
I:I!
II
\I'I
II
\1
I
I
II
It"
\
-\-
HHS-PSC000329
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
.,
,.
i~
!
iI
!
HHS-PSC000330
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000331
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000332
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
! '
!
I
, [
I!
,
1
I
.I
l
I-
HHS-PSC000333
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

..
..
"
HHS-PSC000334
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
1j
iI
I
I
HHS-PSC000335
Il
i
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

i
!r
\
I
I
II
t
HHS-PSC000336
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,.,'
HHS-PSC000337
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
j
HHS-PSC000338
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

;
HHS-PSC000339
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
;
;
j
i
Ii
:i
:i
II
I
1\', II
I
I
HHS-PSC000340
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
,'
".
HHS-PSC000341
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
1.
') i'
! '
I,
.)
HHS-PSC000342
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
, <
, 1
I
11
i i
I
i
I ,
I
i l
:1
Ii i,
II
ii
Iii!
H
1\'
II
. 1!-Ii
, I
1;1
-I!
I!
~--'- .......
fl
!1
I;
!!
- I i
HHS-PSC000343
Iii
i
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

:: (f
i :
Ii
i!i;
\II
!
{ 1
'0_.
I:
.i
I!I!
; I.
If
II
!j
II
~:II
II
Ii
!I
!I
Ii
!
I:
HHS-PSC000344
I
! ',
i, it
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i ~
I'
ir
!\
I!'I
;
It
III
I!
I
'lI
....
--~
II
II
'!
...-
\I
HHS-PSC000345
I!
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000346
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
; l
: .J
j:
Ij
,i
i1
j;
I~
I,
.\ 1
I'
I!
!I
!I
:l
.\
,
II
I
II
II
I'
i~
\.\
I
ji
ij
.,
11
HHS-PSC000347
i!
HHS-PSC000348
Page 1 ofl
-Bittinger, Kristin L
From:
Brodnicki, Gretchen A. .
Sent:
Friday, November 06, 2009 4:00 PW!
To:
'Tom Watson'
Cc:
.SubJect:
Bittinger, Kristin l.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Attachments
Tom,
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

.
.
l.ast/y,:J:haVe,cbpjedJ<rlstin Blttinger~our-Directo:- of ScientifIC Integrity who will be our primary
oominislraUve~d:of.t'llS.case-from ouroffice. 'Please do not hesltateto contact either one of us with any
. questions.
Thanks,
Gretchen
Gretchen A Brodnickl, JiD.

:Deanfor Faculty'and,Research Integrity
./
1
fL
. Harvard-Medical'Schoot
Office for Researctl'issues
25 Shatt~Slreet,Sliite1 08
. Boston,Ml\ .02H5
. :(tH6Hl432-2496
:(f) '(617)432."'0566
:GretGhe.'J3rodnickt@hms;harvard~u
Ii
, I
I
i.
HHS-PSC000349
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
Ii
,-
,I
-:
"I.
--I
I- I-
--
i ".
-j
r--
'j
-I
-1oj
~
-l~
,-
: i
I-
i,'C.-.-
'
I-
!'
1
--I
-- -
-j
Ii --- . -- ,--
l -
:.,
':
--
,-
.0
'-:"...
.:-.
.~'..
:" :
I
\
-l
HHS-PSC000350
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
'
.1
'.1
.,
"1
..i
-(
.l
~
'1
I
I
'i.-
-r
I
.
;' ,. ..' ":.
'1
,':
i .
.j
.j .
J
1
'
1
j
I
J '.
t",:'.,I
'r""' .
!
'j
'. j...
'.-!' ,,-:,
:.",' ,..
1\,
... : _.,
-.'
"
".
"
". . ,
HHS-PSC000351
.!
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
/
i
.I
;~
o!
..
!, "
OJ
"j
I
i
"j
:~ .
:i
"I
\
~i
"
,I
i
.--;
0"
"I
,i
!
0"
3
0""
":
HHS-PSC000352
HHS-PSC000353
REPLY TO "Additional Questions for(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) "

The scientific material in this response is provided by (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) . It has been necessary to clarify some
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
of
statements because, while
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
The clarifications and the other material,
particularly that applying the principles for determining what is and what is not scientific misconduct,
are provided by counsel.
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

II :~
: j
: ~;
..
:
Page 1 oI5
-----...."
HHS-PSC000354
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

i
i ,
I'
\ I
I'
I;
I'
!
i;
\
!i i
~
, !
I;
l!
I!
HHS-PSC000355
.\
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

,,
i
!
Ii
I'
ii
, !
,i
I!
I!
i;
I:
I:
Il
II
I
i
I
Ii
I
I
I
HHS-PSC000356
II1\
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

i :
!:
III
i
'\
HHS-PSC000357
I
I
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
Page50f5
;'-
-~-.
HHS-PSC000358
I
I
I .
HHS-PSC000359
Comments of(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) on draft Inquiry Committee Report
Apri130, 2010
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

All statements of fact and scientific material below are provided by (b) (6), (b)(7)(C) All
statements regarding the principles for detennining what is and is not scientific
misconduct are provided by counsel.
All textual materials of the paper, including all versions of the manuscript,
communications with editors, and responses to reviewers, and all figure legends, were
written entirely by (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

,
II
~
i
I
I
- I
I
Pagelof2
HHS-PSC000360
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
I
I
Ii
i
!
----"
)
Page20f2
HHS-PSC000361
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
i
I
I
I
!
HHS-PSC000362
HHS-PSC000363
.-....
..
f.~andSI Gerianne J
r(f
r"
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
itt
!lilt
Friday. Augusl24, 2007 2:28 PM

Sands, Gerianne J
Fwd: about the OC paper
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
:i.~
I~
I~
~
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
':1 ..
...
~
.'
llll'
I
<'.
1.
"~'.
i
1
1-
"j.
,.
1::idt.
!.
P!'
1.
..
,,
.~
.!'S'
Iit'.
~.
I
i '~
. j._
P-!!I!'"
iiA
P
; ..
.1
! .,
~, .\,
':1
E'
'..1
a...
Ii
0.
.I.
,f?"!!
.
.
"
'", '
fI,
..
\
I
,'~!:
Jtl.
\I
",
.:.'
.
-;.-- . .:
II
I
'iE~
.
'1
'I
.-
\
I
\
HHS-PSC000364
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

.~
~.:
-,
-j
-j
1
i
I
~
I
1-
>
>
>
>Content-Type: application/pdf;
>
name=-1_2_3SingleFor,m.pdf"
>Content-Description: 1~2_3SingleForm.pdf
>Content-Disposition: attachment; _
>filename=K1_2_3SingleForm.pdfM
-I
I
>
r"
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
"j
I
1
\
!
I
\
2_
I
"
'i
HHS-PSC000365
HHS-PSC000366
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
1 ;
HHS-PSC000367
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000368
(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)
HHS-PSC000369
E$
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
EEDEF
Monday, March 21,2011 3:16 PM

request
Dear Mr. Dahlberg,

I am curious if you have given any more thought to my request to be apprised of whether and when OR! was
informed of my allegations of misconduct relating to
EEDEF . I thought that I sent
another request to you a week or two ago, but do not have a record of it. Could you please confirm that you
received it? I would like to reiterate that I have never received any solid confirmation that the allegations were
reported to the government.
Thanks,
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000370
E$
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Monday, April 11 ,2011 1 :21 PM
'Swem, Judy (USAWAW)'
Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH); Rochez, Jo An (HHS\OGC)
RE: EEDEF
Ms. Swem,
The OR! contacts at FHCRC, Harvard, and Yale are:
Name: Lawrence Corey MD Title: President and Director Phone: (206) 667-6600
667-5268
Ext:
Fax: (206)
Name: Gretchen A. Brodnicki Title: Director of Research & Faculty Integrtiy Phone: 617-432-2496
Ext:
Fax: 617-432-0566 Email: gretchen [email protected]
Name: Andrew Rudczynski Title: Associate Vice President for Research Administrati
Fax: 203-785-3510 Email: [email protected]
Phone: 203-785-3012
Ext:
Note: At Yale, I normally go to Robert Bienstock, Gneral Counsel's Office: [email protected]
Regarding your comment in your email about there not being issues at FCCRC, I tried to indicate that the issues
that had been identified regarding
EEDEF

240-453-8800
Fr~m: Swem, Judy (USAWAW) [mailto:[email protected]

Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:07 PM
To: Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OASH)
Cc: East, David (USAWAW)
Subject: EEDEF
'Dr. Dahlberg:
Thank you for talking with me this morning.. As I advised, we are conducting an investigation of some grants
awarded to Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (FHCRC), Harvard University, Yale University and
You indicated that you are awaiting reports of investigation from Harvard and FHCRC, but was
not aware ofthe
EEDEF You
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000371
indicated that the preliminary results you had received from
EEDEF
I do appreciate you sending us the contact information for the Research Integrity Officers at FHCRC, Harvard
and Yale, so we can reach out to them as well. As I indicated, we were just like everyone to be aware of our
ongoing investigation and do appreciate your offer for technical assistance on this matter.
As promised, AUSA David East's email address is shown above and his direct dial phone number is 206-5531018. My contact inforr:nation is listed below.
We are looking forward to working with you and appreciate any technical assistance you can provide.
Judy A. Swem
ACE Investigator
US Attorney's Office
Western District of Washington
office: 206-553-4623
cell: 206-718-4712
fax: 206-553-4067
HHS-PSC000372
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter_searcbresults.cfin?&new=l&ic...
Search Results - Nlli RePORTER - NllI Research Portfolio Online R. ..
Skip Nalligation
DWfllatln.
~~.
NLtIONA ... ll'ISt11'lHEIO.. 01: HE;AL'tH
(~~ Research Portfolio Online Repomng Tools (RePORT)

4.'~
REPuRT-S,
o~rAA.'m Ar.AL"'5~S. O~
Home> RePORTER> Search Results
..
NIH RESE,Il.R(;H
...
"~fluIT1E:5
...
..
Search Results
puauCAnoNs
PATENTS
74 RePORTERBfTA
0
0
0
~~~~.=-
VISUAliZE
There Wlre 14 results matching your search criteria.
tf!
b.Qgi!) I Register Font Size:
Show'Hde Search Criteria

C6ck on the column header to sort the results
Contact
Funding
IC
III
Page 1 of 1
FY Total Cost
bylC
EEDEF
Project Number
Sub#
Project Title
Organization
FY
Admin IC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dov.nJoad Readers:
Home
Frequently Requested Reports

Site Map
I
I
II
t~
,~
Reports I Categorical Spending I RePORTER I Glossary I FAQs I Links I Contact Us

Accessibility Statement I Priwcy Statement I Disclaimer I FOIA I Help Dov.nJoading Files
Page Last Updated on April 11, 2011

This site is best llieWld wth Internet ElIplorer (6.0 or higher) or Moziua Firefox (2.0).
RePORTER2
HHS-PSC000373
ofl
411112011 1:28 PM
http://proj ectreporter .nih.govIproj ect_infoJesults.c:fi:n?aid=7096884&...
Project lnfonnation - NIH RePORTER - Nlli Research Portfolio Onli...
Skip Na"';gation
lDIlIiillo:i.
'1t4RePORTERBfTA
Home> RePORTER> Projecllnfonnation
b!!9i!! I ~ Font Size: -
Project Information 0
EEDEF
DCMflload Readers:
Home
Frequently Requested Reports

Site Map
I
I
II i~
ti
l~
Reports I Categorical Spending I RePORTER I Glossary I FAQs I Links I Contact Us

Accessibility Statement I Privacy Statement I Disclaimer I FOIA I Help DCMflloading Files
"-
GRj\NTS GOV
Page Last Updated on April 11, 2011

This site is best 1Ii~ wi!h Internet Elcplorer (6.0 or higher) or Mozilla Firefox (2.0).
RePORTER2
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000374
ofl
4/1112011 1:38PM
E$
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
EEDEF
Thursday, February 24, 2011 3:52 PM
EEDEF
Dear Dr. Dahlberg,

I would like to know whether Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center submitted to ORI (or another
EEDEF
government agency) the results of their preliminary assessment of misconduct allegations regarding
The assessment committee report was
completed on October 9,2007 and provided to me later. I am aware there is no requirement to submit such an
assessment report, but due to the formality of this particular review
EEDEF
regarding it, there may have been information submitted. Subsequently, the RIO at Harvard Medical School
(Margaret Dale) was contacted and the case was transferred there for a formal inquiry. I am aware (from Ms.
Gretchen Brodnicki, current RIO at Harvard) that an inquiry has concluded and therefore a report must have
been submitted to ORI. Could I find out the date of this submission as well? I have cc'd an attorney that I am
working with currently EEDEF and consultant who you may knowEEDEF
may be in contact
with additional questions regarding this case.
EEDEF
Regards,
EEDEF
EEDEF
process should be overseen by neutral unbiased institutional. officials and scientists comprising the committees.
review that begins after receipt of the fmal investigation report.
1
HHS-PSC000375
simply demonstrating that a figure or statement is wrong or falsified. I would add that both institutions dealing
with your allegations have been notably competent in many earlier cases that ORI has reviewed over the years,
and I am unaware of any bias towards protecting institutional interests at either University.
Sincerely,
John Dahlberg, Ph.D
Director, Divison ofInvestigative Oversight
EEDEF


John Dahlberg, Ph.D., Director of Division ofInvestigative Oversight,
QUESTION #1: Is it your opinion that if a review panel investigating allegations of research misconduct is
aware of additional evidence that may influence their decision regarding determinations of falsifications and
culpability, are they required to review this evidence as part of an "objective, and fair response to allegations of
research misconduct"?
QUESTION #2: The sample policy guidelines for an institution include a suggestion that the complainant be
given the opportunity to review any draft inquiry or investigation report, presumably as part of a fair response to
the allegations, though the
42 CFR Part 93
policy does not require an institution to do so. However, if the complainant requests to view the draft report due
to concerns that the investigation ("response") may not be conducted in a fair manner, and complainant has
additional evidence to present to support his original allegations and reputation that he suspects have been
challenged by respondents, should it be considered a breach of an "objective, fair response to allegations of
misconduct" if the complainant is denied the ability to review and comment on the draft report?
The underlying presumption is that an institution is inherently biased against making determinations of
research misconduct against its members (or former members) and thus may not want to review all the evidence
that implicates that member. The institution therefore may do what it can to avoid consideration of additional
Regards,
2
HHS-PSC000376
EEDEF
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000377
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000378
E$

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
EEDEF
Sunday, January 30,2011 12:57 PM

Re: to Dr. John Dahlberg
Hi John,
EEDEF
Regards,
EEDEF

EEDEF
HHS-PSC000379
ongoing process, the institution is expected to consider it, and if not, OR! would do so during its oversight
simply demonstrating that a figure or statement is wrong or falsified. I would add that both institutions dealing
with your allegations have been notably competent in many earlier cases that OR! has reviewed over the years,
and I am unaware of any bias towards protecting institutional interests at either University.
Sincerely,
John Dahlberg, Ph.D
From:
EEDEF
To: OS OPHS askOR! (HHS/OPHS)
John Dahlberg, Ph.D., Director of Division ofInvestigative Oversight,
QUESTION # 1: Is it your opinion that if a review panel investigating allegations of research misconduct is
aware of additional evidence that may influence their decision regarding determinations of falsifications and
culpability, are they required to review this evidence as part of an "objective, and fair response to allegations of
research misconduct"?
QUESTION #2: The sample policy guidelines for an institution include a suggestion that the complainant be
given the opportunity to review any draft inquiry or investigation report, presumably as part of a fair response to
the allegations, though the
42 CFR Part 93
2
HHS-PSC000380
policy does not require an institution to do so. However, if the complainant requests to view the draft report due
to concerns that the investigation ("response") may not be conducted in a fair manner, and complainant has
additional evidence to present to support his original allegations and reputation that he suspects have been
challenged by respondents, should it be considered a breach of an "objective, fair response to allegations of
misconduct" if the complainant is denied the ability to review and comment on the draft report?
The underlying presumption is that an institution is inherently biased against making determinations of
research misconduct against its members (or former members) and thus may not want to review all the evidence
that implicates that member. The institution therefore may do what it can to avoid consideration of additional
Regards,
EEDEF
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000381
EEDEF
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000382

Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:00 PM
From:
Sent:
EEDEF
To:
Cc:
Subject:

RE: to Dr. John Dahlberg
EEDEF
I will attempt to answer your questions for all of the recipients of this email~ as
quite likely I would have been asked to do so in any event. I am sympathetic to your
concerns as the complaint in these two cases that the process has been protracted~ and
has not reached closure. However~ 42 C.F.F;. Part 93 is pretty clear that once
allegations are made and considered to meet the definition of research misconduct~ the
inquiry and investigation process should be overseen by neutral unbiased institutional
officials and scientists comprising the committees. The complainant mayor may not be
a useful fact witness~ depending on circumstances, but has no special status beyond
being a possible fact witness. If you fell you have identified additional evidence of
possible value to an ongoing process, the institution is expected to consider it, and
if not, ORI would do so during its oversight review that begins after receipt of the
final investigation report.
You correctly note that the regulation does not require that the complainant be
provided all of portions of either the inquiry or investiqation report for review. It
is not a complainant's responsibility to judge the merits of the evidence for or
against findings of misconduct. Such decisions are quite complex and based on far more
that simply demonstrating that a figure or statement is wrong or falsified. I would
add that both institutions dealing with your allegations have been notably competent in
many earlier cases that ORI has reviewed over the years, and I am unaware of any bias
towards protecting institutional interests at either University.
Sincerely~
John Dahlberg, Ph.D

Director, Divison of Investigative Oversight Office of Research Integrity
EEDEF
From:

I am writing to ask your opinion regarding PHS Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR
Part 93. It states that a requirement of an institution that accepts PHS funds for
research includes: "A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to allegations
of research misconduct consistent with, and within the time limits of the final rule,
including precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part
of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or
financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses."
1
HHS-PSC000383
QUESTION #1: Is it your opinion that if a review panel investigating allegations of

research misconduct is aware of additional evidence that may influence their decision
regarding determinations of falsifications and culpability~ are they required to review
this evidence as part of an "objective~ and fair response to allegations of research
misconduct"?
QUESTION #2: The sample policy guidelines for an institution include a suggestion that
the complainant be given the opportunity to review any draft inquiry or investigation
report~ presumably as part of a fair response to the allegations~ though the
42 CFR Part 93
policy does not require an institution to do so. However~ if the complainant reque.sts
to view the draft report due to concerns that the investigation ("response") may not be
conducted in a fair manner~ and complainant has additional evidence to present to
support his original allegations and reputation that he suspects have been challenged
by respondents~ should it be considered a breach of an "objective~ fair response to
allegations of misconduct" if the complainant is denied the ability to review and
comment on the draft report?
The underlying presumption is that an institution is inherently biased against making
determinations of research misconduct against its members (or former members) and thus
may not want to review all the evidence that implicates that member. The institution
therefore may do what it can to avoid consideration of additional evidence that it
becomes aware of~ and also attempt to prevent the complainant from seeing the draft
report.
Regards~
EEDEF
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000384
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000385
EEDEF
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:30 PM

OS OPHS askORI (HHS/OPHS)
opinion solicitation

Don Wright, M.D., Director of the Office of Research Integrity,
I am writing to ask your opinion regarding
PHS Policies on Research Misconduct, 42 CFR Part 93. It states that a requirement of an institution
that accepts PHS funds for research includes: "A thorough. competent. objective. ondfair response to allegations ofresearch misconduct consistent with. and within the time limits ofthe final
rule. including precautions to ensure that indiViduals responsible for carrying out any port ofthe research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal. professional. or finoncial
conflicts ofinterest with the complainont. respondent. Or witnesses."
QUESTION #1: Is it your opinion that if a review panel investigating allegations of research misconduct
is aware of additional evidence that may influence their decision regarding determinations of
falsifications and culpability, are they required to review this evidence as part of an "objective, and fair
response to allegations of research misconduct"?
QUESTION #2: The sample policy guidelines for an institution include a suggestion that
the complainant be given the opportunity to review any draft inquiry or investigation report, presumably
as part of a fair response to the allegations, though the
42 CFR Part 93
policy does not require an institution to do so. However, if the complainant requests to view the draft
report due to concerns that the investigation ("response") may not be conducted in a fair manner, and
complainant has additional evidence to present to support his original allegations and reputation that he
suspects have i?een challenged by respondents, should it be considered a breach of an "objective, fair
response to allegations of misconduct" if the complainant is denied the ability to review and comment on
the draft report?
EEDEF
Regards,
EEDEF
EEDEF
1
HHS-PSC000386
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000387
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000388
E$

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
EEDEF
Friday, November 19, 2010 5:24 PM

EEDEF
Hi John,
We just talked on the phone. I was the complainant in the case involving
EEDEF at
Harvard and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. I have not been informed regarding what stage the
process is currently at from either institution. All I know is that a preliminary assessment went forward and I
provided my allegations to Harvard to do a formal inquiry.
I read under the regulations that an inquiry is to be completed within 60 days of allegations being made and
that the complainant is to be interviewed early in the process or an investigation. Is this true? I have not been
informed that the inquiry stage has ended or an investigation begun.
I am concerned that the investigation is not being thorough enough. Is there anything I can do about it at this
point?
Also, by the Freedom of Information Act, can I request the reports for this or other cases? At this point, I
would like to request the report related to
EEDEF Thanks for talking with me.
Regards,
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000389
E$
Dahlberg, John E (HHSIOPHS)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Thursday, September 16, 2010 1:00 PM
Dahlberg, John E (HHS/OPHS)
retractions
JohnHere is the information aboutE$ , at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center:

Two papers are being retracted:
EEDEF
Let me know if you want any further information. I spoke with Gerianne Sands about how to handle questions- they have
an "if ask media" release set up where they will say the investigation is ongoing and they can't comment on it.
Shara
Shara Kabak, PhD
Division of Investigative OverSight
Phone: 240-453-8428
HHS-PSC000390
EEDEF
rl.. ~"'r... ,..ll rk ~
\CIlmt.ji
\CI.,t ~,..... loI0
nytimes.com
Pr;!INTER.F'RIENDU FORM"AT
EEDEF
spo"""o BY I
NEVER LET
MEr-.n
.....
'-'
WATCH THE TRAILER
EEDEF
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

H
~riYll~ ~oIit:! l ~"~h I ~orrectjollS_I~~~s.Ll_~~:"".kl ~ 1__ ~~I1t~c~~~ Lvvo~forus_l ~~e_"",p_ _ _____
HHS-PSC000391
1 of 1
9116/20101:25 PM
(...t!f.
~
...V1c....
DEPARTMENT OF HL._TII &. HUMAN SERVICES
~,~<~~~
Office of Public Health and Science

1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite, 750
Rockville MD 20852
Ph. 240-453-8800
FAX 301-594-0043
e-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://ori.dhhs.gov/
CONFIDENTIAL
March 10,2010
Gerianne J. Sands, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Avenue N.
J6-205
PO Box 19024
Seattle, W A 98109-1024
RE:
E$
Dear Ms. Sands:

The Division of Investigative Oversight (DIO) of the Office of Research Integrity (OR!) has
received your letter of February 24,2010, requesting an extension to complete the investigation
of allegations of possible research misconduct on the part ofEEDEF You noted that
EEDEF
would normally be the case. DIO much prefers a careful thorough review and analysis of
allegations to a hasty one, and gladly grants an extension to June 1,2010, to complete the
investigation and provide a report to OR!.
If you have any questions or additional concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.
ohn E. Dahlberg, Ph.D.

Director
HHS-PSC000392
FRED HUTCHINSON
CANCER RESEARCH CENTER

A LIFE OF SCIENCE
E$
Office of the General Counsel
CONFIDENTIAL
John E. Dahlberg, Ph.D.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
RE:
Request for Extension of Misconduct Investigation
EEDEF
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

I am writing on behalf of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (the "Center") to request an
extension from March 6, 2010 to June 1, 2010 for completion of the Investigation in the abovementioned matter.
EEDEF
Due to the challenges of communicating with the Respondent,
the Investigation Committee needs additional time in order
to conduct a thorough Investigation.
Thank you for your consideration of an extension to June 1, 2010 for completion of the
Investigation in the above-mentioned matter. Please contact me at (206) 667-1224 should you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gerianne J. Sands
cc:
Dr. Leland H. Hartwell, President and Director of the Center

Dr. Jonathan Cooper, Investigation Committee Member
Dr. Julio Vazquez-Lopez, Investigation Committee Member
HHS-PSC000393
DEPARTMENT OF HEtu..TH &. HUMAN SERVICES

Office of Public Health and Science
1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite, 750
Rockville MD 20852
Ph. 240-453-8800
FAX 301-594-0043
e-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://ori.dhhs.gov/
CONFIDENTIAL
February 25, 2010
Gerianne J. Sands, Esq.
1100 Fairview Avenue N .
205
PO Box 19204
. Seattle, WA 98109-1024
.:ro-
RE: E$
Dear Ms. Sands:
The Division of Investigative Oversight (DIO) of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has
received your letter of February 24, 2010, requesting an extension to complete the investigation
of allegations of possible research misconduct on the part ofEEDEF . You noted that
because of
EEDEF
would normally be the case. DIO much prefers a careful thorough review and analysis of
allegations to a hasty one, and gladly grants an extension to June 1,2010, to complete the
investigation and provide a report to ORl.
If you have any questions or additional concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.
}rY'
Director
HHS-PSC000394
E$
FRED HUTCHINSON
Ci\NC1+;
F:r~Ji\i\Cll
CENTER
February 24,2010
CONFIDENTIAL
RE:
Request for Extension of Misconduct Investigation
EEDEF
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

I am writing on behalf of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (the "Center") to request an
extension from March 6,2010 to June 1,2010 for completion of the Investigation in the abovementioned matter.
Due to the challenges of communicating with the Respondent,
EEDEF
the Investigation Committee needs additional time in order
to conduct a thorough Investigation.
Thank you for your consideration of an extension to June 1, 2010 for completion of the
Investigation in the above-mentioned matter. Please contact me at (206) 667-1224 should you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gerianne J. Sands
cc:
Dr. Leland H. Hartwell, President and Director of the Center

HHS-PSC000395

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Chapman, Claire [[email protected]]

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:54 PM
Sands, Gerianne J
E$
Request for Extension
022410 Letter to ORI from Gerianne Sands re Extension of
nvestigation (final}.pdf
Sensitivity:
Confidential
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

I attach a letter from Gerianne Sands, Associate General Counsel at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center,
concerning a request for an extension for an Investigation. I have also sent a copy by U.S. Mail in case that is easier for
you.
Thank you for your consideration.
Claire
Claire Chapman

1100 Fairview Avenue North, J6-205
Seattle, WA 98109-1024
(206) 667-1227; (206) 605-0336 - cell
(206) 667-6590 - fax
This electronic message transmission contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual
or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error. please notify us by telephone at (206) 667-6458 or by electronic reply, and delete this
message.
HHS-PSC000396
Page 1 of 1
E$
Fleming, Sheila P (HHS/OPHS)
From:
Synan, Kyle C (HHS/OPHS)
Sent:
Friday, October 02, 2009 1:47 PM
To:
Fleming, Sheila P (HHS/OPHS)
Subject: AccessnDB update 4141 & 4177

Sheila,
Dr. Davidian called Gerianne Sands, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center General Counsel on Friday Oct 2 to
discuss E$ and 15 They came to the conclusion that
EEDEF
15
I put Dr. Garfinkels' 9/25/09 phone conversation document fromlinto the existing E$ . I let Dr. Dahlberg
know of Gerianne Sands call to Dr. Garfinkel and that Dr. 0 th~n called her back and had determined that the 2
calls were related.
HHS-PSC000397
1 1/1 ":;;/')(1(10
CONVERSATION DOCUMENT - CONFIDENTIAL

Division of Investigative Oversight - Office of Research Integrity
Date: 09-25-09
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Est. Dur. 10 min.
ORI Staff: S. Garftnkel
Person Calling / Called (Degree): Gerianne Sands
Affiliation/Address: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
ORIc
E$
Office of General Counsel
Phone: 206-667-6590
Fax:
Call Initiated By: Sands
SUBJECT - REASON FOR CALL: advice on ongoing case

SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION:
EEDEF
TO DO: Wait for inquiry report.

HHS-PSC000398
,. ~ ... -
.'--
.. -
'.
.. '-
E$
May 19,2010
FRED HUTCHINSON
{i\i'-iCEK RESEARCH CENTER

'\
i Iff
() i
> i, II :',' \ !
lee Hartwell. Ph.D.

President & Director
PO Box: 19024; D1.()6{)
Seattle. WA 9811J9.1024
Tel: 206-6675670 Fax: 206-6675268
E:mail: [email protected]
CONFIDENTIAL, VIA EMAIL <[email protected])

RE:
EEDEF
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

This letter is sent in accordance with 42 CFR 93.315 to advise you that Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center ("Center") has completed an Investigation of alleged research misconduct in
relation to the above-referenced research funded, in part, by the NIH.
As the Center's President and Director, 1 have reviewed the Center's Investigation Report
("Report") prepared by the Investigation Committee in the above-reference matter. Based on my
review and consideration of the Report, I have
EEDEF
I enclose a copy of the Report, along with Exhibits A through 1\1, for ORI review in accordance with
42 CFR Part 50. With regard to the Respondent's hard drive, we have included the evidence relied
upon by the Investigation Committee as Exhibits to the Report. We can provide you with any other
evidence that you request.
In the interest of saving some time and paper, I am having the Report and Exhibits sent to you
electronicaLLy. If a hard-copy of the Report and Exhibits would facilitate your review, then please let
Gerianne Sands (the Center's Associate General Counsel and Research Integrity Officer, 206-6671224) know and she can provide that to you.
A considerable amount of data was sequestered at the start of this matter. The Inventory, attached as
Exhibit M to the Report, only includes the evidence considered by the Investigation Committee.
The Inventory does not include evidence sequestered and sent to Harvard Medical School. On April
9, 20lO, Claire Chapman, from the Center's General Counsel's office, spoke with Ann Hohmann,
Ph.D., M.P.H, of your office, who confirmed this was an appropriate approach for the Inventory, and
she suggested that we note that we discussed this with her.
EEDEF
1100 Fairview Avenue North
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle. WA 98109-1024
Phone: 206 667-5000
www.fhcrc.org
HHS-PSC000399
Please note that ORt granted to the Center an extension of the deadline to complete the Investigation
to June 1,2010.
The Center is notifying Respondent by way of copy of this letter, and is notifying the other funding
agenci<;?s,
1RQ5HVSRQVLYH
by separate correspondence.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Ms. Sands at (206) 667-1224.
Leland H. Hartwell, Ph.D.

President and Director
Enclosures (Report and Exhibits A through M)
cc w/encls.:
EEDEF
Ms. Sands, Associate General Counsel and Research Integrity Officer
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000400
CONFIDENTIAL
FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER

INVESTIGATION REPORT
MAY 19,2010
Allegations of Research Misconduct
E$
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 1 of16
HHS-PSC000401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONFIDENTIAL .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
I.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3
A.
Factual History ................................................................................................................................................ 3
B.
Data Sequestration .......................................................................................................................................... 4
C.
Pre-Inquiry Preliminary Assessment ............................................................................................................... 4
D.
Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
E.
Investigation .................................................................................................................................................... 4
PHS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 5
II.
III.
INVESTIGATION PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 6
IV .
ALLEGATION ............................................................................................................................................... 6
V.
INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS ........................................... 7
VI.
RESPONDENT'S APRIL 1,2010 COMMENTS ON DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT .................... 12
See Exhibit J ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
VII.
COMPLAINANT'S APRIL 1,20 I0 AND MAY 6, 20 10 COMMENTS ON DRAFT INVESTIGATION
REPORT See Exhibit K........................................................................................ ;.................................................... 12
VIII.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 12
IX.
CENTER'S PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATlON ................ 14
X.
EEDEF
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
Exhibit D: December 2, 2008 "Report of Allegations" (J 8 pages) ........................................................... 15

Exhibit E: January 16,2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages) .................................. 15
Exhibit F: May 18,2009 Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report (2 pages) ......................... 15
Exhibit G: May 18,2009 Comments from Complainant re Draft Inquiry Report (9 pages) ....................... 15
Exhibit H: September 30, 2009 Final Inquiry Report (9 pages)................................................................... 15
Please note, in the interest of consolidating exhibits, the Exhibits A-G to the Inquiry Report are the same as the
Investigation Report above, with one exception. The correspondence on and after November 4, 20 lOin Exhibit C
only apply to the Investigation Report ........................................................................................................................ 15
XVJ1I.
Exhibit I: January 20, 2010 Responses from Complainant to Investigation Committee's Questions (3
pages)
.................................................................................................................................................................. 15
XIX.
Exhibit J: April], 20 I 0 Comments from Respondent re Draft Investigation Report (2 pages) ................. 15
XX.
Exhibit K: April 4, 2010 and May 6, 20 I 0 Comments from Complainant re Draft Investigation Report (32
pages) ................... :.................................................................................................................................................. 15
XXI.
Exhibit L: 2003 Manuscript (unpublished) (19 pages) ............................................................................... 15
XXII. Exhibit M: Inventory (43 pages) ................................................................................................................. 15
XXIII.
Endnotes: .................................................................................................................................................. ] 6
xvn.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 16
HHS-PSC000402
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
May 19,2010
Dr. Lee Hartwell, President and Director
Dr. Mark Groudine, Executive Vice President and Deputy Director
FROM:

Re:
Allegations of Research Misconduct Investigation, Case E$
Respondent EEDEF
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
In early August of 2007, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center ("Center") management
received a report of suspected research misconduct ("Case E$ related to a EEDEF
The first author of the article is EEDEF
("Respondent"), who was principally responsible for the research and manuscript as a
EEDEF
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 3 of 16
HHS-PSC000403
that article will be necessary because EEDEF confirmed that Respondent only

contributed a minor piece of confirmatory data to that article.
B. Data Sequestration
EEDEF
c.
Pre-Inquiry Preliminary Assessment
On March 18, 2008.

EEDEF
to review Respondent's work while at the Center. On July 29. 2008, we concluded in the
PreJiminary Assessment Committee Report that an Inquiry should proceed EEDEF
D. Inquiry
On November 10. 2008. Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as the Inquiry Committee and
charged us with conducting a preliminary review of the allegations of research misconduct
("Inquiry") under the Center's "RC?search Misconduct Policy and Procedures" ("Policy"), a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit BVl. and to make findings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell,
President and Director of the Center, for appropriate action. On September 17, 2009, we
submitted our final Inquiry Report to Dr. Hat1well.
EEDEF
E. Investigation
On November 4. 2009 Dr. Hartwell sent to Respondent a letter notifying
of the
Investigation, attached as Exhibit C. On November 7, 2009, the Investigation commenced upon
the Center receiving Respondent's email that he had received Dr. Hartwell's letter notifying him
of the Investigation. On November 12,2009, Dr. Hartwell sent to Respondent a letter notifying
him of the allegation of research misconduct, attached as Exhibit C.
EEDEF
On November 9, 2009, Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as the Investigation Committee and
charged us with conducting a review of the allegation of research misconduct ("Investigation")
under the Center's Policy, and to make findings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell. President
and Director of the Center, for appropriate action.
This is the Investigation RepOlt that makes those findings and recommendations. As
Investigation Committee' members. we agreed to conduct the Investigation in an objective
manner free of bias. conflicts of interest (personal. professional or financial) or conflicts of
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 40f16
HHS-PSC000404
commitment. Respondent did not object to our appointment to the Investigation Committee.
(See Exhibit C).
The Investigation Committee's contact with Respondent,
EEDEF
In a November 12, 2009 letter sent by email, and again, in a December email, Respondent was
offered the opportunity to be interviewed by the Investigation Committee. (See Exhibit C). On
December 7,2009, in an email, Respondent declined the opportunity to be interviewed bythe
Investigation Committee by phone or in person. (See Exhibit C).
On December 16, 2009, we met as the Investigation Committee to discuss the matter.
On December 18, 2009, in lieu of an interview, we submitted questions for written answers to
EEDEF
On January 20, 2010,
EEDEF
responded in writing to our questions. (See Exhibit I),
On January 28, 2010, we sent EEDEF responses to Respondent, and on January 28, 2010,
Respondent declined to comment. (See Exhibit C).
On February 8, 2010, we met as the Investigation Committee to discuss EEDEF
and our findings.
On March 4, 2010, a draft of this Investigation Report was shared with Respondent and
Complainant. On April I, 2010, Respondent sent to us
comments to the draft Investigation
Report. On April 4, 2010 and May 6, 2010, Complainant sent to us
comments to the draft
Investigation Report. Their comments on the draft are attached as Exhibit J and Exhibit K,
respectively.
EEDEF
EEDEF
On May 12,2010, a final, draft Investigation Report was sent to Dr. Hartwell. On May 19,2010,
II.
EEDEF
EEDEF
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 5 of 16
HHS-PSC000405
III. INVESTIGATION PROCESS

The purpose of the Investigation is to provide a finding as to whether, by a preponderance of
evidence (i.e. more likely than not, 50+%), research misconduct did or did not occur for each
separate Allegation of research misconduct identified during the Investigation. At the time the
work was done and the 2005 Manuscript was published, "scientific misconduct," which we will
refer to as "research misconduct," was defined by the former Center "Policy For Dealing With
And Reporting Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research," and the former PHS Final Rule, 42
CFR Part 93 as intentional or knowing "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices
that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for
proposing, conducting, or reporting research." Although the fonner Center policy did not
specifically define "fabrication" or "falsification," federal policy defined these terms as foIloW:
"fabrication" means "making up data or results and recording or reporting them;"
and
"falsification" means "manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes
or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record."
See Office of Science and Technology Policy (65 FR 76260, December 6, 2000). The phrase "or
other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific
community" is not defined by law or regulation and remains a matter of interpretation.
Specifically excluded from the definition are "honest error or honest differences in interpretation
or judgments of data." These definitions come from the policy and regulations that were in
effect at the time that the
EEDEF , so we have been advised by the RIO
that this is the standard that is applicable to our review of this matter. The procedures used in the
Investigation were consistent with the current PHS Regulations, 42 CFR Part 93 and the current
Center Policy.
IV. ALLEGATION
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 6 of 16
HHS-PSC000406
V. INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS

The Investigation Committee addressed whether the following two-part test for research
misconduct was met:
EEDEF
~ONFIDENTIAL
Page 7 of 16
HHS-PSC000407
EEDEF
Basis for findings
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 8 of16
HHS-PSC000408
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 9 of 16
HHS-PSC000409
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 10 of 16
HHS-PSC000410
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 11 of16
HHS-PSC000411
EEDEF
VI. RESPONDENT'S APRIL I. 2010 COMMENTS ON DRAFT INVESTIGATION
REPORT
See Exhibit J.
VII. COMPLAINANT'S APRIL I. 2010 AND MAY 6, 2010 COMMENTS ON DRAFT
See Exhibit K.
VIII. CONCLUSION
EEDEF
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 12 of16
HHS-PSC000412
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 13 of 16
HHS-PSC000413
IX. CENTER'S PRESIDENT

INVESTIGATION
AND
DIRECTOR'S
DECISION
REGARDING
EEDEF
Dr. Leland Hartwell, President and Director
CONFIDENTIAL
May 19,2010
Page 14 of 16
HHS-PSC000414
EEDEF
X. Exhibit A:
XI. Exhibit B: Center Research Misconduct Policy ("Policy") (8 pages)

XII.
Exhibit C: Center Correspondence with Respondent
A. November 10, 2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Allegations and
Initiation ofInquiry
B. December 5, 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2, 2008
Report of Allegations
C. December 12 and 17,2008 Letters from the RIO to Respondent, re: Inquiry Committee's December 2,
2008 Report of Allegations
D. November 4,2009 Letter from RIO to Respondent re: Notification of Commencement of Misconduct
Investigation
E. November 12,2009 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re: Commencement of Research Misconduct
Investigation
F. December 7, 2009 Email response from Respondent re: Commencement of Research Misconduct
Investigation (No objections to Investigation Committee Members and Respondent's right to be
interviewed)
G. JanuaryEEDEF
28,2010 Email to Respondent and from Respondent re: Investigation Committee'S Written
Questions to
H. Mal'ch 4, 2010 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re: Draft Investigation Report
XIII.
Exhibit D: December 2, 2008 "Report of Allegations" (18 pages)
XIV.
Exhibit E: January 16, 2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages)
XV.
Exhibit F: May 18,2009 Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report (2 pages)
XVI.
Exhibit G: May 18, 2009 Comments from Complainant re Draft Inguity Report (9
XVII. Exhibit H: September 30, 2009 Final Inquiry Report (9 pages)
EEDEF
XVIII. Exhibit I: January 20,2010 Res,ponses from Complainant to Investigation Committee's
Questions (3 pages)
XIX.
Exhibit J: April I, 20) 0 Comments from Respondent re Draft Investigation Report (2
XX. Exhibit K: April 4, 2010 and May 6, 2010 Comments from Complainant re Draft
Investigation Report (32 pages)
XXI.
Exhibit L:
EEDEF
XXII. Exhibit M: Inventory (43 pages)
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 15 of 16
HHS-PSC000415
XXllI.Endnotes!
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 16 of 16
HHS-PSC000416
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000417
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000418
EEDEF
--"'
HHS-PSC000419
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000420
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000421
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000422

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICY AND PROCEDURES
RESTATED 3114107
In all of its research activities, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (the "Center") expects the highest
standards of professional conduct. The enterprise of scientific research relies upon the trust and confidence
of both the scientific community and the public at large. Unethical behavior undermines confidence in the
reliability of science and the integrity of the Center. For these reasons, the Center considers misconduct in
science a betrayal of fundamental scientific principles and shall deal with all instances of possible research
misconduct firmly in accordance with the Center's Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures ("Policy").
Situations that do not constitute research misconduct may be reviewed under the Center's other policies,
including but not limited to the Center's Research Integrity Policy and Procedures. In some cases, the
alleged conduct under review may be subject to both this Policy and the Center's Research Integrity Policy.
This Policy is developed to prevent, detect and deal with possible research misconduct in the Center's
research programs. It is designed to balance the need to deal firmly and effectively with allegations of
possible research misconduct with the need for openness and creativity in the scientific enterprise. In
responding to allegations of research misconduct, the Center also must comply with all applicable laws and
regulatory requirements of federal agencies supporting the research in question, as well as Center policies
and procedures. In cases involving research funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
("HHS"), the Office of Research Integrity ("OR!") oversees the Center's compliance with HHS research
misconduct regulations (~ Exhibit "AD). In cases involving research funded by the National Science
Foundation rNSF") ~ Exhibit "B") and other federal agencies, the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG")
generally carries out enforcement of research misconduct regulations. This Policy will refer throughout simply
to ORI except in those instances In which the procedures mandated by NSF regulations differ from those
imposed by HHS.
The Center's President and Director ("Director"} has the final authority and responsibility for defining the
ethical standards for the Center.
This Policy replaces in its entirety the Center's prior policy dated September 24, 2003.
The Center expects intellectual honesty in all of its endeavors. All employees should maintain open
communication, submit work for peer review, disclose and cooperate in the management of conflicts of
interest, commit to self-regulation. and comply with Center processes for the disclosure and management of
conflicts of interest. (See: http://www.fhcrc.org/intranetlgeneral counsel/conflict interest 2002.pdf)
The Center shall educate and inform all employees regarding Its ethical standards, its guidelines for
conducting and reporting research, its philosophy and policy of dealing with and reporting possible research
misconduct and the importance of complying with the relevant policies and procedures.
As a regular element of its policy of maintaining the highest possible standard of scientific productivity, the
Center will continue to maintain a regular and rigorous system of review of the quality of the scientific
programs of its investigators.
HHS-PSC000423

The Center's Director shall appoint a Research Integrity Officer to (I) assist with the education of all staff and
employees regarding the Center policies and procedures relating to research misconduct; (ii) provide
clarification and information to Individuals with concerns regarding potential incidents of misconduct; (iii) assist
Individuals in understanding the Center's policies and procedures In this area; (Iv) assist with the
administration of this Policy including Inquiries and Investigations conducted pursuant to this Policy; and (v)
provide mediation services where Indicated.
The Center shall periodically evaluate its policy and procedures for educating its staff about the proper
conduct of research and assess whether additional efforts are necessary.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing

research, or In reporting research results.
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or
results such that the research Is not accurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of
data.
A finding of research misconduct requires that (i) there is a significant departure from accepted practices of
the relevant research community; (Ii) the misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
(iii) the allegation of research misconduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. There may be a
different standard of proof for misconduct under other Center policies.
The procedures described in this Policy represent the general approach to be employed by the Center In
instances of possible research misconduct, since no policy and procedures can anticipate every possible
issue that might arise in the course of an inquiry or investigation. The Center's Director is responsible for
implementing these procedures and modifying them as necessary to ensure adherence to the Policy.
I.
CONFIDENTIALITY
To the extent allowed by law, the Center shall maintain the identity of the individual(s) against whom the
allegation of research misconduct is made ("respondents") and the individual(s) bringing forward the allegation
(complainants~) securely and confidentially and shall not disclose any Identifying information, except to:
A. those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research
--misconduct llroceeding;and
B. ORI as it conducts its review of the research misconduct proceeding and any subsequent
proceedings.
To the extent allowed by law, any information obtained during the research misconduct proceeding that might
identify the subjects of research shall be maintained securely and confidentially and shall not be disclosed,
except to those who need to know in order to carry out the research misconduct proceeding.
The Center prohibits retaliation of any kind against a person who, acting in good faith, reports or provides
Information about suspected misconduct.
HHS-PSC000424

II. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS-CRITERIA. REPORTS. ANP TIME LlMITATIONS1
A. Preliminary Assessment
Disclosures of possible research misconduct received by the Center through any means of
communication ("Allegation") shall be promptly referred to the director of the division In which the
alleged research misconduct occurred ("Division Director"). The Division Director shall assess the
Allegation to determine if:
1. It meets the definition of research mlsconduct2;
2. It involves Public Health Service ("PHS") supported research, applications for PHS
research support, or research records 3 ;
3. it is sufficiently credible and specifiC so that potential evidence of research misconduct
may be identified; and
4. it Is tlmely.4
If the Division Director determines that these criteria have not been met, then the matter will not
proceed to inquiry and may be reviewed under the Center's other policies, including but not limited to
the Center's Research Integrity Policy and Procedures. If the Center's Division Director determines
that these criteria have been met, then the matter will proceed to inquiry.
B. Inquiry5.
An Inquiry is an initial review of the evidence to determine if the criteria for conducting an investigation
have been met. The criteria for determining whether or not an investigation may be required Include a
finding that:
1. There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within this Policy's
definition of research misconduct; and
2. The preliminary review of the facts indicates that the Allegation has substance.
The Center shall complete the inquiry, including preparation of the inquiry report and giving the
respondent a reasonable opportunity to comment on it, within sixty (60) calendar days of its initiation,
unless the circumstances warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to
complete, the Center shall include documentation of the reasons for the delay In the inquiry record.
The Inquiry report shall contain the following information:
1. The name and position of the respondent;
2. A description of the Allegation of research misconduct;
3. The PHS support Involved, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications.
contracts, and publications listing PHS support;
4. The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation; and
5. Any comments on the report by the respondent or the complainant.
The Center's Director will make a written determination of whether an Investigation Is warranted. If the
Center's Director determines that an investigation is not warranted, 1henthe matter maybe reviewed
1 NSF proceeding requirements can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.4 and Section 689.6 (See Exhibit B). In
absence of any specific requirements, the Center may follow the HHS requirements.
2 The definition of research misconduct can be found above and in 42 CFR Section 93.1 03 ~ Exhibit A)
and/or in 45 CFR Section 689.1 ~ Exhibit B).
3 HHS describes research In 42 CFR Section 93.1 02(b) ~ Exhibit A}. NSF describes research in 45 CFR
Section 689.1 ~ Exhibit B).
" In cases involving PHS supported research, the time limitations can be found in 42 CFR Section 93.103 (See
Exhibit A).
5NSF time limitations and extensions for an Inquiry can be found In 45 CFR Section 689.4 (See Exhibit B).
HHS-PSC000425

under the Center's other policies, Including but not limited to the Centers Research Integrity Policy
and Procedures, if warranted in the sole discretion of the Center's Director.
C. InvestigatlonB
If the Center's Director determines that an investigation is warranted, then the Center shall begin the
Investigation within thirty (30) calendar days of that determination and, on or before the date on which
the investigation begins, send the inquiry report and the written determination to ORI. The Center
shall use its best efforts to complete the investigation within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar
days of the date on which it began, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of
findings, providing the draft report for comment, and sending the final report to ORI. If it becomes
apparent that the Center cannot complete the investigation within that period, the Center shall
promptly request an extension in writing from ORI.
In conducting all investigations, the Center shall:
1. Use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and Sufficiently
documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to
reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation;
2. Interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been
reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the
investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent. and record or transcribe each
interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the
recording or transcript in the record of investigation;
3. Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant
to the investigation. including any evidence of additional Instances of possible research
misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion; and
4. Otherwise comply with the requirements for conducting an investigation 7
The Center shall prepare the draft and final institutional investigation reports in writing and provide the
draft report for comment as provided elsewhere in these poliCies and procedures and as required by
law8 . The final investigation report shall:
1. Describe the nature of the Allegation of research misconduct;
2. Describe and document the PHS support, including, for example any grant numbers,
grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;
3. Describe the specific Allegation of research misconduct considered in the investigation;
4. Include the Center's policies and procedures under which the investigation was
conducted, If not already provided to ORI;
5. Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and Identify any
evidence taken into custody, but not reviewed. The report should also describe any
relevant records and evidence not taken into custody and explain why.
6. Provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur for each
separate Allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, and If
misconduct was found:
a. id~ntify itas-faISificstion,fabric:stioh, or plagiarism and whether it was intentional,
knowing, or in reckless disregard;
b. summarize the facts and the analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the
merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent and any evidence that rebuts
the respondent's explanations;
c. identify the specific PHS support;
NSF requirements for an inquiry can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.4 ~ Exhibit B).
HHS requirements for conducting an investigation can be found in 42 CFR Section 93.310 ~ Exhibit A).
NSF requirements for conducting an investigation can be found in 45 CFR Section 6S9.6 ~ Exhibit B).
8 HHS requirements for Investigation reports can be found In 42 CFR Section 93.312 ~ Exhibit A). NSF
requirements for Investigation reports can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.6 ~ Exhibit B).
6
HHS-PSC000426

d. identify any publications that need correction or retraction;
e. identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct, and
f. list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the
respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies.
7. Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the
draft investigation report.
The Center shall maintain and provide to ORI upon request all relevant research records and records of the
Center's research misconduct proceeding, Including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings
of such interviews.
III, ENSURING A FAIR RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING
The Center shall take all reasonable steps to ensure an impartial research misconduct proceeding to the
maximum extent practicable. The Center shall select those conducting the Inquiry or Investigation on the
basis of scientific expertise that Is pertinent to the matter and, prior to selection, the Center shall screen them
for any unresolved personal, profeSSional, or financial conflicts of Interest with the respondent, complainant,
potential witnesses, or others involved in the matter. Any such conflict which a reasonable person would
consider to demonstrate potential bias shall disqualify the Individual from selection.
A. Notice to Respondent and Complainanti~
During the research misconduct proceeding, the Center shall provide the following notifications to all
identified respondents 10:
B. Initiation of Inguiry.
Prior to or at the beginning of the inquiry, the Center shall provide the respondent written notification of
the inquiry and contemporaneously sequester all research records and other evidence needed to
conduct the research misconduct proceeding. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional
respondents. they shall be promptly notified in writing.
C. Comment on Inguirv Report.
The Center shall provide the respondent, and may provide complainant at the Center's discretion, an
opportunity to comment on the inquiry report in a timely fashion so that any comments can be
aHached to the report. If there is more than one respondent, then the Center may prepare separate
reports to preserve confidentiality.
D. Results of the Inquiry.
The Center shall notify the respondent. and may notify the complainant at the Center's discretion, of
the results of the inquiry and attach to the notification copies of the inquiry report and the Center's
policies and procedures for the handling of research misconduct Allegations.
E. Initiation of Investigation.
Within a reasonable time after the Center's determination that an investigation is warranted, but not
later than thirty (30) calendar days after that determination, the Center shall notify the respondent, and
may notlfy1he complalnant-at the eenter'sdiscretion, in-writing-of the Allegation to-be investigated.
The Center shall give respondent written notice of any new Allegation within a reasonable time after
determining to pursue any Allegation not addressed in the inquiry or in the initial notice of the
investigation.
" NSF notification requirements can be found In 45 CFR Section 689 (See Exhibit B).
10 ORI notification requirements can be found in 42 CFR Section 93.309(a) (See Exhibit A). NSF notification
requirements can be found in 45 CFR Section 689 (See Exhibit B).
HHS-PSC000427
F. Scheduling of Interview.
The Center will notify the respondent sufficiently in advance of the scheduling of hisJher interview in
the investigation so that the respondent may prepare for the interview and anange for the attendance
of legal counsel at his/her own expense, if the respondent wishes.
G. Comment on Draft Investigation Report.
The Center shall give the respondent, and may provide the complainant at the Center's discretion, a
copy of the draft investigation report, and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the
evidence on which the report is based and notify the respondent and complainant that any comments
must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the date on which he/she received the draft report. If there
is more than one respondent, then the Center may prepare separate reports to preserve
confidentiality. The Center shall ensure that these comments are Included and considered in the final
investigation report.
IV. NOTIFYING ORI OF THE DECISION TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION AND OF INSTITUTIONAL
FINDINGS AND ACTIONS FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION
On or before the date on which the Investigation begins (the investigation must begin within thirty (30)
calendar days of the Center's finding that an investigation is warranted), the Center shall provide ORI with the
written finding by the Center's Director and a copy of the Inquiry report containing the Infonnation required by
law11. Upon a request from ORI, the Center shall promptly send to ORI:
1. a copy of the Center's policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;
2. the research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews. and copies
of all relevant documents; and
3. the charges for the investigation to consider.
The Center shall promptly provide to ORI after the investigation:
1. a copy of the investigation report and all attachments;
2. a statement of whether the Center found research misconduct and, if so, who committed It;
3. a statement of whether the Center accepts the findings in the investigation report; and
4. a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
V. MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODY OF RESEARCH RECORDS AND EVIDENCE~
The Center shall take the following specific steps to obtain, secure, and maintain the research records and
evidence pertinent to the research misconduct proceeding:
A. Either before or when the Center notifies the respondent of the Allegation, the Center shall
prompUy take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and
evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory those materials, and
sequester them in a secure manner. As an exception, in those cases where the research records or
evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to
copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially
equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
B. Where appropriate, tMCenter shall givetne respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised
access to the research records.
C. The Center shall undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional
research records and evidence discovered during the course of the research misconduct proceeding.
including at the inquiry and investigation stages, or if new Allegations arise, subject to the exception
for scientific instruments in A. above.
11
12
~ 42 CFR Section 93.309(a) (See Exhibit A) and/or 45 CFR Section 689.4 (!! exhibit B).
NSF requirements for records and evidence can be found in 45 CFR Section 689 (See Exhibit B).
HHS-PSC000428

D. The Center shall maintain all records of the research -misconduct proceeding 13, for seven (7)
years after completion of the proceeding, or any ORI or HHS proceeding 14, whichever is later, unless
the Center has transferred custody of the records and evidence to HHS, or ORI has advised the
Center that it no longer need to retain the records.
VI. INTERIM PROTECTIVE ACTIONS
At any time during a research misconduct proceeding. the Center shall take appropriate Interim actions to
protect public health, federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the PHS supported research process.
The necessary actions will vary according to the circumstances of each case, but examples of actions that
may be necessary include delaying the publication of research results, providing for closer supervision of one
or more researchers, requiring approvals for actions relating to the research that did not previously require
approval, auditing pertinent records, or taking steps to contact other institutions that may be affected by an
Allegation of research misconduct.
VII. NOTIFYING ORI OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY REQUIRE PROTECTIVE ACTIONSH
At any time during a research misconduct proceeding, the Center shall notify ORI immediately If the Center
has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
A. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal
subjects.
B. HHS resources or interests are threatened.
C. Research activities should be suspended.
D. There is a reasonable indication of violations of civil or criminal law.
E. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct
proceeding.
F. The Center believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely, so
that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights ofthose involved.
G. The Center believes the research community or public should be informed.
VIII. INSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO FINAL FINDINGS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
The Center will cooperate with and assist ORI and HHS as needed, to carry out any administrative actions
those agencies may impose as a result of a final finding of research misconduct.
Violations of this Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures may result in discipline up to and including
termination of employment.
including but not limited to the Center's Research Integrity Policy and Procedures.
IX. RESTORING REPUTATIONS
A. Responaents.The Center shelll undertake all reasonal5le iffons to proteCt and restore the
reputation of any person alleged to have engaged in research misconduct. but against whom no
finding of research misconduct was made, if that person or his/her legal counselor other authorized
representative requests that the Center do so.
B. Complainants. Witnesses, and Committee Members. The Center shall undertake all reasonable
efforts to protect and restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness, or committee
13 The
HHS definition for records is defined in 42 CFR Section 93.317(a) ~ Exhibit A).
The HHS description of proceedings can be found in Subparts 0 and E of 42 CFR Part 93 (see Exhibit A).
15 NSF notification requirements can be found in 45 CFR Section 689 (See Exhibit B).
14
HHS-PSC000429

member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against those complainants, witnesses and
committee members.
X. COOPERATION WITH OHlli

The Center shall cooperate fully and on a continuing basis with ORI during its oversight reviews of this
Institution and its research misconduct proceedings arid during the proc.ss under which thetespOndent may
contest ORI findings of reaearchmisconduct and proposed HHSadminlstrative actions; this Includes
providing, as necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence. all witnesses, research records,
and other evidence under the Center's control or custody, or In the possesSion of, or accesSible to, all persons
that are subject to the Center's authOrity.
Reporting to QRI The Center will report to ORI any proposed settlements, admissions of research
misconduct, or the Center's findings of misconduct as required by law.
Exhibit A: 42 CFR Part 93 (See: http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/42
cfr parts 50 and 93 2005.Pdf
Exhibit B: 45 CFR Section 689 (See: http://www.nstgov/oiglresmisreg.pdO
16
The Center will cooperate with NSF as required under 45 CFR Section 689
c.su Exhibit B).
.,
HHS-PSC000430

A. November 10, 2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re
Notification of Allegations and Initiation of Inquiry
HHS-PSC000431
II
FRED
HUTCHINSON
CANCER
RESEARCH
CENTEFI
Lee Hartwell, Ph.D.

Phone: 206-667-5670
Pax: 2066675268
November 10, 2008
CONFIDENTIAL VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
EEDEF
Re: Formal Notice of Inquiry Into Allegations
of Research Misconduct
EEDEF
This letter serves as a formal notice that Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
("Center") will be conducting an inquiry into allegations of research misconduct

("Inquiry") that have been raised related to the research conducted by you that was
EEDEF
As you will see from a review of the Inquiry process, it is critical that you submit a written
response to the Center within 30 days of your receipt of this letter and fully participate in
the process described below. I would like to briefly review the definition of research
misconduct, the allegations, and the Inquiry process under Center policy.
Definition of Research/Scientific Misconduct
As required by federal regulations, the Center has established its own research misconduct
policies and procedures for investigating and reporting alleged research misconduct
("Policy',). Included in the Policy are tenus that are used throughout an Inquiry.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000432
EEDEF
November 10. 2008

Page 2
CONFIDENTIAL
The pwpose of the Inquiry is to determine whether sufficient evidence of research

misconduct exists to WlUTant further investigation. At the time the work was done and the
2005 Manuscript was published. "scientific misconducf" was defmed by the fonner Center
"Policy For Dealing With And Reporting Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research." and
the fonner PHS Final Rule, 42 CFR Part 93 8S "fabrication, falsification. plagiarism, or
other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the
scientific community for proposing. conducting, or reporting research." Although the
former Center Policy did not specifically define "fabrication" or "falsification,h federal
policy defined these tenDs as follows:
"fabrication" means "making up data or results and recording or reporting
them;" and
"faisifieation" means "manipulating research materials, equipment, or

processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is
not accurately represented in the research record."
~ Office of Science and Technology Policy (65 FR 76260, December 6, 2000). The
phrase "or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted
within the scientific community" is not defined by law or l'egWation and remains a matter
of interpretation.
Specifically excluded from the definition were "honest error or honest differences in
interpretation or judgments of data.,. These definitions come from the policy and
regulations that were in effect at the time that the 2005 Manuscript was published, so this is
what the Center will use. The procedures of the Inquiry will be conducted in accordance
with the cUlTent PHS Regulations, 42 CFR Part 93 and the Center's current "Research
Misconduct Policy and Procedures, a copy of which is enclosed." If you would like to
have copies of the regulations. please let Gerianne Sands, the Center's Associate General
Counsel and Research Integrity Officer, know.
Speeifie AUegatiODS
EEDEF
2I
will refer to scientific misconduct as research misconduct.
HHS-PSC000433
EEDEF
November 10, 2008

Page 3
CONFIDENTIAL
EEDEF
I encourage you to send a written response to these allegations as quickly as possible. but
no later than 30 days from your receipt of this letter. Ms. Sands will be managing the
Inquiry, so you can submit your response to Ms. Sands. and she will forward your response
to me and to the Inquiry Committee. Should the Inquiry Committee require additional
information from you or wish to speak with you directly. you will be notified by Ms.
Sands. Ms. Sands can be reached at:
Oerianne J. Sands
Mail StopJ6-20S
Seattle, Washington 98109-1024
(206) 667-1224
[email protected]'g
Inquirv Process
The Inquiry process is an information-gathering and initial fact-finding process to

determine whether the allegations of research misconduct warrant formal inVestigation.
The purpose of the Inquiry is to cull out any insufficiently substantiated, eIToneous, or bad
faith allegations before a respondent is subjected to an investigation. The Inquiry does not
retum a finding whether research misconduct has occurred. but rather determines only
whether a fonnal investigation is warranted.
Consistent with federal requirements, steps have been taken to secure original research
records for the duration of this review. Ifthere are further relevant original records or data
relating to this matter that you have in your possession, please let Ms. Sands know
immediately. In no case should any existing record be destroyed or altered.
HHS-PSC000434
EEDEF
November 10.2008
Page 4
CONFIDENTIAL
It is the Center's goal to conduct a fair, thorough. and objective review according to the
EEDEF
Inquiry procedures outlined in the Center's Policy.
This committee will
review evidence and may interview you and others. by person or by telephone, who may
have relevant information. Any interviews may be tape recorded and transcribed. You
may have an attorney come with you to your interview to advise you if you wish.
During the course of the Inquiry, if you need access to the original research records and
other evidence submitted or sequestered in this case, which evidence Ms. Sands has
secured and inventoried. then please contact her. When you need to examine original
evidence. Ms. Sands, or someone from her office. will be present to assure that it is kept in
order and so that the chain of custody cannot be challenged.
If, during the course of the Inquiry, additional information becomes available that
substantially changes the subject matter of the Inquiry. or would suggest additional
respondents or amending the allegations, then Ms. Sands will notify you of the new subject
matter or provide notice to additional respondents.
.At the conclusion of the Inquiry. the Inquiry Committee will draft a report to me. as the
Center's President and Director, as to whether or not, based on its review, further
investigation is warranted. The format of the Inquiry Report is described in Section n.B. of
the Policy. For each allegation, the Inquiry Committee should decide that an investigation
is warranted if it fmds:
A reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the
The allegation may have substance, based on the Inquiry Committee's
preliminary review.
The Inquiry Committee should cite in its report the pertinent evidence and the committee's
basis for recommending whether or not an investigation is wananted.
Ms. Sands will provide you with a copy of the draft report, and you will be given the
opportunity to review and make comments on it As the result of your comments, the
Inquiry Committee may change its report, and at the very least, your comments will be
appended to the final report provided to me. As President and Director of the Center. I will
make the final i:letermination as to whether or not the matter will' proceed to investigation.
Please understand that you are to take no steps to retaliate against anyone who came
forward with the allegations or against anyone who may participate in the Inquiry process.
HHS-PSC000435
EEDEF
November 10, 2008

PageS
CONFIDENTIAL
The Center considers this matter to be a confidential matter, and will make every effort to
ensure that confidentiality is maintained. In addition, all communications about this matter
should go through Ms. Sands or me to protect the integrity of the procedures. Please be
assured that we are committed to a fair, thorough, and objective process.
We appreciate your cooperation with this matter. Please do not hesitate to call Ms. Sands
if you have any questions.
Lee Hartwell, Ph.D.

Enclosure
cc: Gerianne J. Sands, Associate General Counsel and Research Integrity Officer
HHS-PSC000436

B. December 5, 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Inquiry
Committee's December 2, 2008 Report of AUegations
HHS-PSC000437
I h:F i
"
December 5, 2008
HUTCHINSON
i L ;'I',f\I;: i i
I IJ I
,J I
',I 11
CENTER
i~
( I

EEDEF
Re:
Report of Allegations of Research Misconduct

E$
(Center File
EEDEF
As a follow-up to Dr. Hartwell's November 10, 2008 letter notifYing you of the Inquiry, I
enclose a December 2, 2008 report of"Allegations of Research Misconduct" ("Report").
This Report was prepared to assist you in responding to the allegations pending in the
Center's Inquiry. If you did not receive IX. Hartwell's letter, please contact me
immediately using the contact information listed below.
To give you time to process this additional information and prepare a written response to
the Center, we encourage you to respond to both this letter and Dr. Hartwell's letter within
30 days of your receipt of this letter.
[ will be managing the Inquiry, so )UU can submit your response to me, and I will forward
your response to the Inquiry Committee and to Dr. Hartwell. I can be reached at:
Gerianne J. Sands
Mail StopJ6-205
(206) 667-1224
gjsands@fhc[C.org
We appreciate your cooperation with this matter. Please do not hesitate to call me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Associate General Counsel and Research Integrity Officer

Enclosure
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000438

C. December 12 and 17,2008 Letters from the RIO to Respondent, re:
Inquiry Committee's December 2, 2008 Report of Allegations
HHS-PSC000439
IRHJ HUTCHINSON
( /\:-;( "1101 I;':ESF/W< "II CENTER

,\ lIn 01
December 12,2008
S( 11.1-;( l
EEDEF
Re:
Report of Al
E$
(Center File
EEDEF
Last Friday, December Slit, I attempted to send to you a letter regarding the Report of
Allegations of Research Misconduct. Federal Express not been able to confirm its
delivery, so I enclose a copy of that letterand enclosure.
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Geri
J. Sands
Enclosure
cc wlo encl.:
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000440
F'~':U
HUTCHINSON
i. ;\Nnl~ I~I SII\I~CH

A 1111
December 17> 2008
or .,(
CENTER
II:NCI
EEDEF
Re:

(Center File E$
EEDEF
Thank you for sending us your new address. To malee sure you have everything, I am
resending:
a copy of Dr. Hartwell's November 10th , 2008 letter to you,
a copy of the Center's current Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures,
a copy of my December 5th and 12th, 2008 letters to you; and
a copy of the Allegations of Researoh Misconduct
As mentioned in Dr. Hartwell's letter, it is critical that you submit a written response to the
Center within 30 days of your receipt of this December 17, 2008 letter, and fully participate
in the Inquiry process described in his letter.
have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~
V~~~~:~
Sands
Enclosure
cc w/o encl.:
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000441

D. November 4, 2009 Letter from RIO to Respondent re: Notification of
Commencement of Misconduct Investigation
HHS-PSC000442
FI\.I::J) HUTCHINSON
'. !'-J I.. [ [
i~;~d
. , 1 I!!
,k( ;; CENTER
{);
',t :
>< { i
Ofiice of the General Counsel
November 4, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL, VIA EMAIL

EEDEF
RE:
EEDEF
EEDEF
Dr. Hartwell reviewed the September 17,2009 Inquiry Report prepared by EEDEF
, a copy of which report is enclosed. Based on his

review and on further discussions with the Inquiry Committee, on September 30, 2009,
Dr. Hartwell decided that an investigation should be conducted regarding the allegations
of research misconduct.
This letter serves as a formal notice to you that Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
will be conducting an investigation into allegations of research misconduct
("Investigation") that have been raised related to the research conducted by you that was
EEDEF
I will be in touch with you about the Investigation process. In the meantime. if you have
any questions concerning this matter, please call me at (206) 667-1224 or email me at
gj sands(a),fhcrc.org.
Sincerely,
/~/~
1'/ Genanne 1. Sands
cc:
EEDEF
Leland H. Hartwell, Ph.D., President and Director
EEDEF
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000443

E. November 12,2009 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re:
Commencement of Research Misconduct Investigation
HHS-PSC000444
ikL[i HUTCHINSON
",,' : I:
[<I':'f\l\;
,!
CENTER
November 12, 2009

EEDEF EMAIL
EEDEF
RE:
EEDEF
My October 30, 2009 letter to you serves as a formal notice to you that Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center ("Center") will be conducting an investigation into an allegation of research
misconduct ("Investigation") that has been raised related to the research conducted by you that
EEDEF
This letter reviews the definition of research misconduct, the allegation, the Investigation process
under Center policy, your rights, and the potential actions that may be taken by the Center and by
the principal federal oversight agency for NIH, the Office of Research and Integrity ("ORI").
DEFINITION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

As required by federal regUlation, the Center has established research misconduct policies and
procedures for investigating and reporting alleged research misconduct ("Policy"), a copy of
which is enclosed. Included in the Policy are terms that are used throughout an Investigation.
The purpose of the Investigation is to determine whether or not research misconduct occurred.
At the time the work was done and the 2005 Manuscript was published, "scientific misconduct,"
which we will refer to as "'research misconduct," was defined by the former Center "Policy For
Dealing With And Reporting Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research," and the former PHS
Final Rule, 42 CFR Part 93 as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism. or other practices that
seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for
proposing, conducting, or reporting research." Although the former Center policy did not
specifically define ''fabrication'' or "falsification," federal policy defmed these terms as follows:

and
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000445
EEDEF
November 12, 2009

''falsification'' means "manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes
or judgments of data.,. These defmitions come from the policy and regulations that were in
EEDEF
in the Investigation are consistent with the current PHS Regulations, 42 CFR Part 93 and the
current Center Policy.
ALLEGATION
EEDEF
INVESTIGATION PROCESS
The Center will follow the investigation procedures outlined in the Center's Policy. This
includes the appointment of an Investigation Committee. At this time, EEDEF
have been appointed to that committee. You have a right to object to these
appointments based on conflict of interest, so please let me know whether or not you have any
objections to these appointments by noon on Monday, November 22, 2009.
The Investigation Committee will conduct a "de novo review" of this matter, meaning that they
will start fresh and review the documentation and conduct interviews of persons who they think
have relevant information. Those interviews will be transcribed. At the discretion of the
Investigation Committee, all or a portion of the transcripts of those interviewed may be provided
to you upon request if necessary to prepare for your interview.
HHS-PSC000446
EEDEF
November 12, 2009

In advance of your interview with the Investigation Committee, you will be provided a list of
individuals who have already been interviewed and the documents to be reviewed during the
interview. Once you have reviewed the materials, you will be provided an opportunity to request
that the Investigation Committee interview additional individuals and review additional data.
While this matter is under Investigation, please do not use the manuscript in question, for
reference or for publication, pending completion of this Investigation process.
Consistent with federal requirements, steps have been taken to secure original research records
for the duration of this review. If there are further relevant original records or data relating to
this matter that you have in your possession, please let me know immediately. In no case should
any existing record be destroyed or altered.
During the course of the Investigation, if you need access to the original research record and
other evidence submitted or sequestered in this case, which evidence I have secured and
inventoried, then please contact me. When you need to examine original evidence, either I, or
someone from my office, will be present to assure that it is kept in order and so that the chain of
custody cannot be challenged.
If, during the course of the Investigation, additional information becomes available that
substantially changes the subject matter of the Investigation, or would suggest additional
respondents or amending the allegation, then I will notify you of the new subject matter or
provide notice to additional respondents.
It is the Center's goal to conduct a fair, thorough, and objective review according to the
Investigation procedures outlined in the Center's Policy.
At the conclusion of the Investigation, the Investigation Committee will draft a report to Dr. Lee
Hartwell, the Center's President and Director, as to whether or not, based on its review, research
misconduct has occurred. The format of the Investigation Report is described in Section II.C. of
the Policy. For each allegation, the Investigation Committee will make a finding whether or not,
by a preponderance of evidence (i.e. more likely than not) research misconduct has occurred.
The Investigation Committee should cite in its report the pertinent evidence and the committee's
basis for finding whether or not research misconduct has occurred.
I will provide you with a copy of the draft report, and you will be given the opportunity to review
and make comments on it. As the result of your comments, the Investigation Committee may
change its report, and at the very least, your comments will be included in the final report. Dr.
Hartwell, as President and Director of the Center, will make the final determination as to whether
or not research misconduct has occurred.
Please understand that you are to take no steps to retaliate against anyone who came forward
with the allegation or against anyone who may participate in the Investigation.
HHS-PSC000447
EEDEF
November 12, 2009

The Center considers this matter to be a confidential matter, and will make every effort to ensure
that confidentiality is maintained. In addition, all communications about this matter should go
through me to protect the integrity of the procedures. Please be assured that we are committed to
a fair, thorough, and objective process.
Your Rights
It is critical that you, and any attorney you select to advise you, understand the rights provided to
you in the Investigation process. Those rights include but are not limited to:
the right for the proceedings to be conducted as confidentially as possible (See Section I
of the Policy);
the right to challenge the membership of the Investigation Committee based on conflict
of interest;
the right to be interviewed by the Investigation Committee, and the right to correct the
recording or transcription of that interview (See Section II.C.2 of the Policy);
the right to sufficient notice in advance of your interview with the Investigation
Committee so you can prepare (See Section III.F of the Policy);
the right to arrange for legal counsel at your own expense (See Section HI.P of the
Policy);
the right to copies of or reasonable, supervised access to research records (See Section
V.B of the Policy);
the right to review a copy of the draft Investigation Report and comment on it within a
reasonable time established by the Investigation Committee, and to have those comments
considered by the Investigation Committee and included in the final Investigation Report
(See Section III G of the Policy); and
the right to receive a copy of the final Investigation Report.
You should be aware that the OR! will perform an oversight review of the report regarding PHS
issues. Also, you have the right to request a hearing before the Department of Health and
Human Services Departmental Appeals Board if there is an OR! fmding of misconduct under the
PHS definition. The ORI has general information on research misconduct at its website:
www.ori.dhhs.gov.
Since other funding sources were involved with the research for the 2005 Manuscript, those
agencies may require additional infonnation and/or procedures.
HHS-PSC000448
CONFIDENTIAL. VIA EMAIL
EEDEF
November 12,2009
Contact Information
I will be managing the Investigation, and I will forward correspondence from you to the
Investigation Committee, as is appropriate. Should the Investigation Committee require
additional information from you or wish to speak with you directly, you will be notified by me. I
can be reached at:
Gerianne J. Sands
11 00 Fairview Avenue North
Mail StopJ6-205
(206) 667-1224
[email protected]
As for your contact informatio~ you have requested that we correspond with you by email.as
you do not currently have a physical address or telephone number. Please update us immediately
with any changes to your contact information.
The Center appreciates your cooperation with this matter. I encourage you to participate in
responding to the allegation as we request, as quickly as possible. As mentioned earlier in this
letter, please let me know whether or not you have any objections to the Investigation Committee
appointments by noon on Monday, November 22, 2009.
Please do not hesitate to call or email me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, ~
GeriannJ.
Enclosure (Research Misconduct Policy)
cc:
Lee Hartwell, Ph.D., President and Director
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000449

F. December 7, 2009 Email response from Respondent re: Commencement
of Research Misconduct Investigation (No objections to Investigation
Committee Members and Respondent's right to be intenriewed).
HHS-PSC000450
Page 10f2
Chapman, Claire
From:
EEDEF
Sent:
To:
Monday, December 07.20096:43 PM

Chapman, Claire
Subject: Re: FW: 11/12109 Letter re Investigation
No.
On Tue. Dec 8, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Chapman, Claire <cchapman@ihcrc,org> wrote:
EEDEF
Thanks.
Claire
Claire Chapman

1100 Fairview Avenue North, J6-205
(206) 667-1227; (206) 605-0336 - cell
(206) 667-6590 - fax
This electronic message transmission contains information which may be confldentlal or privileged. The informatlon is intended to be for the use of
the individual or entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying. distribution or use of the contents
of this informatlon is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone at (206) 667-6458 or by
electronic reply, and delete this message.
From: Chapman, caire
Sent: Thursdayr November 12, 2009 4: 10 PM
EEDEF
Cc: EEDEF Hartwell, lee;

SUbject: 11/12/09 Letter re Investigation
Sensitivity: Confidential
EEDEF
Sands, Gerianne J
EEDEF
Gerianne asked that I send to you the attached letter from her regarding the Investigation.
Thanks.
Claire
412212010
HHS-PSC000451
Page 2 of2
Claire Chapman

1100 Fairview Avenue North. J6-205
Seattle. WA 98109-1024
(206) 667-1227; (206) 605-0336 - cell
(206) 667-6590 - fax
ThIs electronic message transmIssIon contaIns InfonnaUon whIch may be confidenUal or privileged. The Infonnat/on Is Intended to be for the ule of
the Individual or entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient. be aware that any dIsclosure. copying. distribution or use of the contents
of this InfonnaUon Is prohlbHed. If you have receIved thIs electronic transmissIon In error. please notify us by telephone at (206) 667-6468 or by
electronic reply. and delete this message.
4122/2010
HHS-PSC000452

G. January 28, 2010 Email to Respondent and from Respondent re:
Investigation Committee's Written Questions to EEDEF
HHS-PSC000453
Page 1 of4
Chapman, Claire
From:
Sent:
EEDEF
To:
Thursday, January 28,20105:24 AM

Chapman, Claire
Subject: Re: Information For the Investigation Committee
Hi Clarie,
EEDEF
On
Thu, Jan 28,2010 at 7:45 AM, Chapman, Claire <[email protected]> wrote:
EEDEF
: Thank you for your response.
EEDEF
; Thanks.
Claire
i
Claire Chapman
: Office of the General Counsel

; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
; 1100 Fairview Avenue North, J6-205
(206) 667-1227; (206) 605-0336 - cell
(206) 667-6590 - fax
This electronic mesaage transmission contains infonnatlon which may be confidential or privileged. The Information Is Intended to be for the use of
the individual or entity named above. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information Is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission In error, please notify us by telephone at (206) 667-6458 or by
electroniC reply, and delete this message.
HHS-PSC000454

H. March 4, 2010 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re: Draft
HHS-PSC000455
i-l~LL}
HUTCHINSON
.' i!< ? ic,l\f~'H
March 4,2010
CENTER
Ofiice of the General Counsel
CONFIDENTIAL VIA EMAIL AT RESPONDENT'S REQUEST
EEDEF
Re:
Draft Investigation Report

E$
(Center File
EEDEF
In accordance with the Center's "Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures" ("Policy"),
I attach a copy of the draft Investigation Report ("Report") regarding the recent allegations
of research misconduct. At your request, I am sending this to you by email. Please
promptly confirm your receipt by way of reply email.
The Investigation Committee; consisting solely of
with my assistance as the Center's Research Integrity Officer, reviewed relevant
documentation and data to determine whether, by a preponderance of evidence (i.e. more
likely than not), research misconduct did or did not occur for each allegation of research
misconduct identified during the Investigation. This draft Report states the Investigation
Committee's findings.
EEDEF
You may provide your written comments to me by email. Your comments will be included
with the final Report. Please return your comments to me no later than Monday morning,
April 5th. If I do not hear from you by then, I will assume that you do not have any
comments, and I will forward the Report to Dr. Hartwell for his determination. In addition,
the Office of Research Integrity and appropriate funding agencies will be notified.
ensure that confidentiality is maintained. Please be assured that the Center is committed to
a fair, thorough, and objective process.
We appreciate your cooperation with this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me, at
(206) 667-1224 or [email protected], if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~/~
/o;r:~e
J. Sands
Enclosures
cc w/o encl.: EEDEF
HHS-PSC000456
CONFIDENTIAL
FRED HUTCIDNSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER

DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT
Case E$
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 14
HHS-PSC000457
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONFIDENTIAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3
A.
Factual History ............................................................................................................................................... 3
B.
Data Sequestration.......................................................................................................................................... 4
C.
Pre-lnquiry Preliminary Assessment .............................................................................................................. 4
D.
inquiry ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
E.
Investigation .................................................................................................................................................... 4
n. PHS SUPP{)RT ................................................................................................................................................... 5
HI.
INVESTIGATION PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 5
IV.
ALLEGATION .............................................................................................................................................. 6
V.
INVESTlGATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS .......................................... 6
VI.
RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT ............................................ II
See Exhibit J. ...... ............................ ....................... ...................................... ..................... ........................... ....... ........ II
VII.
COMPLAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFTINVESTIGATION REPORT ......................................... II
See Exhibit K. ...... .......... ................. .......... ......... ...... ................. ....................... .............. .............. ................... ...... ...... II
VIII.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ II
lX.
CENTER'S PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION ............... 13
X.
EEDEF .................. 14
Xl.
Exhibit B: Center Research Misconduct Policy ("Policy") (8 pages) ......................................................... 14
XU.
Exhibit C: Center Correspondence with Respondent .................................................................................. 14
A.
November 10, 2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Allegations and Initiation of
Inquiry ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
B.
December 5, 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2,2008 Report of
Allegations .............................................................................................................................................................. 14
C.
December 17, 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent, remailing prior correspondence .......................... 14
D.
November 4,2009 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification oflnvestigation ...................... 14
E.
November 12,2009 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re lnvestigation .................................................... 14
xm. Exhibit D: December 2,2008 "Report of Allegations" (18 pages) ............................................................. 14
XIV.
Exhibit E: January 16,2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages) ................................... 14
XV.
Exhibit F: Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report (2 pages) ................................................. 14
XVI.
Exhibit G: Comments from Complainant re Draft Inquiry Report (9 pages) .............................................. 14
XVII. Exhibit H: September 30,2009 Final Inquiry Report
(9 pages) ................................................................... 14
EEDEF
XVIII.
Exhibit I: January 20, 2010 Responses from
o Investigation Committee's Questions (3
pages)
14
XIX.
Exhibit J: Comments from Respondent re Draft Investigation Report (1 pages) ......................................... 14
XX.
Exhibit K: Comments from Complainant re Draft Investigation Report (1 pages) ..................................... 14
XXI.
Endnotes: ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 14
HHS-PSC000458
MEMORANDUM
DRAFT
CONFIDENTIAL
DATE:
TO:
March 4, 2010
FROM:
Re:
EEDEF
Respondent EEDEF
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 3 ofl4
HHS-PSC000459
EEDEF
EEDEF
C. Pre-Inquiry Preliminary Assessment
On March 18,2008, Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as a Preliminary Assessment Committee

to review Respondent's work while at the Center. On July 29,2008, we concluded in the
Preliminary Assessment Committee Report that an Inquiry should proceed on the 2005
Manuscript
D. Inquiry
On November 10, 2008. Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as the Inquiry Committee and
("Inquiry") under the Center's "Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures" ("Policy"), a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit Bvi. and to make findings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell,
President and Director of the Center, for appropriate action. On September 17. 2009. we
submitted our final Inquiry Report to Dr. Hartwell. On September 30, 2009, Dr. Hartwell agreed
with our findings that the matter should proceed to Investigation EEDEF
E. Investigation
On November 4. 2009 Dr. Hartwell sent to Respondent a letter notifying
of the
Investigation, attached as Exhibit C. On November 7. 2009, the Investigation commenced upon
the Center receiving Respondent's email that had received Dr. Hartwell's letter notifying
of the Investigation. On November 12.2009. Dr. Hartwell sent to Respondent a letter notifying
of the allegation of research misconduct, attached as Exhibit C.
EEDEF
EEDEF
EEDEF
EEDEF
On November 9, 2009, Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as the Investigation Committee and
charged us with conducting a review of the allegation of research misconduct (''Investigation'')
under the Center's Policy. and to make findings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell, President
and Director of the Center. for appropriate action.
This is the Investigation Report that makes those findings and recommendations.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 4 ofl4
HHS-PSC000460
As Investigation Committee members, we agreed to conduct the Investigation in an objective

manner free of bias, conflicts. of interest (personal, professional or fmancial) or conflicts of
commitment Respondent did not object to our appointment to the Investigation Committee.
On December 16,2009 we met as the Investigation Committee to discuss the matter.
ber 18, 2009, in lieu of an interview, we submitted questions for written answers to
EEDEF
On January 20, 2010,
EEDEF
On January 28, 2010, we sent

declined to comment.
esponded in writing to our questions.
EEDEF
EEDEF
esponses to
and on January 28, 2010,
EEDEF
EEDEF
On February 8, 2010, we met as the Investigation Committee to discuss

and our findings.
responses
On March 4, 2010, a draft of this Investigation Report was shared with Respondent and
Complainant. Their comments on the draft are attached as Exhibit Jand Exhibit K.
respectively. On [ ].2010, a final Investigation Report was sent to Dr. Hartwell. On [ ] 2010,
Dr. Hartwell (agreed or disagreed) with the Investigation Committee that research misconduct
(did or did not) .occur.
II. PHS SUPPORT
EEDEF
EEDEF
III. INVESTIGATION PROCESS

evidence (i.e. more likely than not), research misconduct did or did not occur for each separate
Allegation of research misconduct identified during the Investigation. At the time the work was
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 5 of 14
HHS-PSC000461
proposing, conducting, or reporting research." Although the fonner Center policy did not
specificalIy define "fabrication" or "falsification," federal policy defined these tenns as follows:
and
See Office of Science and Technology Policy (65 FR 76260, December 6,2000). The phrase "or
EEDEF
Center Policy.
IV. ALLEGATION
EEDEF
V. INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS
The Investigation Committee addressed whether the following two-part test for scientific
misconduct was met:
(1) whether, by a preponderance of evidence (i.e. more likely than not, 50+%),
EEDEF
EEDEF
or intentionally or knowingly engaged in other practices that seriously

deviated from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community, and
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 6 of14
HHS-PSC000462
(2) that these actions did not involve error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments
of data
To perfonn this Investigation, we reviewed numerous docwnents and images, and relied
primarily on:
EEDEF
Basis for fmdings
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 7 of 14
HHS-PSC000463
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 8 of 14
HHS-PSC000464
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 9 of 14
HHS-PSC000465
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 100f14
HHS-PSC000466
EEDEF
VI;. RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFf INVESTIGATION REPORT
See EXhibit J.
VII.
COMPLAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INYESTIGATIONREPORT

See Exhibit K.
VIII. CONCLUSION
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 11 ofl4
HHS-PSC000467
EEDEF
Submitted by:
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 12 of 14
HHS-PSC000468

INVESTIGATION
AND
DIRECTOR'S
DECISION
REGARDING
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
[],2010
Page 13 of 14
HHS-PSC000469
X. Exhibit A:
EEDEF

Xll.
A. November 10,2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re NotifICation of AUegations and
Initiation of Inquiry
B. December S, 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2, 2008
C. December 17. 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent, rem ailing prior correspondence
D. November 4,2009 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Investigation
E. November 12, 2009 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Investigation
XIII. Exhibit D: December 2. 2008 "Report of Allegations" (18 pages)

XIV. Exhibit E: January 16.2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages)
XV.
Exhibit F: Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report (2 pages>
XVI. Exhibit G: Comments from Complainant re Draft Inqui", Report (9 pages)

XVII. Exhibit H: September 30. 2009 Final Inquiry Report (9 pages)
XVIII. Exhibit I: January 20. 2010 Responses from
Committee's Questions (3 pages)
EEDEF
to Investigation
XIX. Exhibit J: Comments from Respondent re Draft Investigation Report (1 pages)
xx.
Exhibit K: Comments from Complainant re Draft Investigation Report (1 pages)
XXI. Endnotes:
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 14 of 14
HHS-PSC000470
ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
EEDEF
page 1
HHS-PSC000471
EEDEF
page 2
HHS-PSC000472
EEDEF
page 3
HHS-PSC000473
EEDEF
page 4
HHS-PSC000474
EEDEF
pageS
HHS-PSC000475
EEDEF
page 6
HHS-PSC000476
EEDEF
page 7
HHS-PSC000477
EEDEF
page 8
HHS-PSC000478
EEDEF
page 9
HHS-PSC000479
EEDEF
page 10
HHS-PSC000480
EEDEF
page II
HHS-PSC000481
EEDEF
page 12
HHS-PSC000482
EEDEF
page 13
HHS-PSC000483
EEDEF
page 14
HHS-PSC000484
EEDEF
page 15
HHS-PSC000485
EEDEF
page 16
HHS-PSC000486
EEDEF
page 17
HHS-PSC000487
3 Summary
EEDEF
Date:
['2./'1.1 D t
page 18
HHS-PSC000488
January 16, 2009

Response to Allegations of Research Misconduct
EEDEF
- 1-
HHS-PSC000489
EEDEF
-2-
HHS-PSC000490
EEDEF
-3-
HHS-PSC000491
EEDEF
-4-
HHS-PSC000492
EEDEF
- 5-
HHS-PSC000493
May 18,2009
Comments on "042909 Draft Inquiry Report to Respondent and Complainant"
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000494
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000495
EEDEF
COMMENTS ON:
DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT: ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT BY EEDEF
NOTE: 'AnACHED' FIGURES ARE LOCATED AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000496
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000497
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000498
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000499
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000500
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000501
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000502
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000503
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000504
CONFIDENTIAL

INQUIRY REPORT
Case E$
September 30, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL.
INQUIRY REPORT
Page I of9
HHS-PSC000505
Table of Contents
CONFIDENTIAL .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
I.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3
A.
Factual History ................................................................................................................................................ 3
B.
C.
Pre-Inquiry Preliminary Assessment. .............................................................................................................. 4
D.
Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
II.
PHS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 5
INQUIRY PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 5
III.
IV.
ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 5
V.
INQUIRY COMMITTEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS ......................................................... 6
VI.
RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT.. ........................................................... 7
See Exhibit F................................................................................................................................................................. 7
COMPLAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT.. ........................................................ 7
VlI.
See Exhibit G ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
VHI.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 7
IX.
CENTER'S PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATlON .................. 8
This Section IX is intentionally left blank ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
EEDEF......................... 9
X.
Exhibit A:
XI.
Exhibit B: Center Research Misconduct Policy ("Policy") ( 8 pages) ........................................................... 9
XII.
Exhibit C: Center Correspondence with Respondent ..................................................................................... 9
A.
November 10, 2008 Letter fi'om Dr. Haltwell to Respondent I'e Notification of Allegations and Initiation of
Inquiry ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
B.
December 5, 2008 Letter fi'om RIO Sands to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2,2008 Report
of Allegations ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
C.
December ]7,2008 Letter from RIO Sands to Respondent, remailing prior correspondence ........................ 9
XIII.
Exhibit D: December 2, 2008 "Report of Allegations" (I8 pages) ................................................................ 9
XIV.
Exhibit E: January 16,2009 Comments ITom Respondent re Allegations (5 pages) .................................... 9
XV.
Exhibit F Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report .................................................................... 9
XVI.
Exhibit G: Comments ITom Complainant I'e Draft Inquiry Report ................................................................ 9
XVII. Endnotes: ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 2 of9
HHS-PSC000506
MEMORANDUM
.CONFIDENTIAL
DATE:
September 17,2009
TO:

FROM:
Re:
EEDEF
Inquiry Report
Allegations of Research Misconduct Inquiry, Case E$
Respondent - EEDEF
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 3 of9
HHS-PSC000507
EEDEF
EEDEF
On March 18, 2008, Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as a Preliminary Assessment Committee
Manuscript.
D. Inquiry
On November 10, 2008, Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as the Inquiry Committee and
of which is attached as Exhibit Bvi , and to make findings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell,
President and Director of the Center, for appropriate action. This is the Inquiry Report that
makes those findings and recommendations.
As Inquiry Committee members, we agreed to conduct the Inquiry in an objective manner free of
bias, conflicts of interest (personal, professional or financial) or conflicts of commitment.
The Policy provides that the Inquiry be completed within sixty (60) days from the date
Respondent receives notice of the allegations unless additional time is warranted. We requested
from Dr. Hru1well two requests for extensions of time due to: i)
i) the challenges of
locating the relevant evidence for the Inquiry; and iii) delays relating to the efforts by the RIO to
contact Respondent and his counsel to propose a resolution of the matter through a Respondent's
admission in coordination with the Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Public Health Services of
the U.S. Department of Health and Hwnan Services ("PHS").
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 4 of9
HHS-PSC000508
II. PHS SUPPORT
EEDEF
III.INQUIRY PROCESS
The purpose of the Inquiry is to determine whether sufficient evidence of research misconduct
exists to warrant further investigation. A
EEDEF
"scientific misconduct," which we will refer to as "research misconduct," was
defined by the former Center "Policy For Dealing With And Reporting Possible Scientific
Misconduct in Research," and the fOlmer PHS Final Rule, 42 CFR Part 93 as "fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly
accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research."
Although the former Center policy did not specifically define "fabrication" or "falsification,"
federal policy defined these terms as follows:

and
See Office of Science and Technology Policy (65 FR 76260, December 6,2000). The phrase "01'
EEDEF
Inquiry were consistent with the current PHS Regulations, 42 CFR Part 93 and the current Center
Policy.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 5 of9
HHS-PSC000509
EEDEF
v.
INQUIRY COMMITTEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 6 of9
HHS-PSC000510
EEDEF
VI. RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT

Sec Exhibit F.
VIle
COMPLAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT

See E~hibjt G.
VIII. CONCLUSION
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 7 of9
HHS-PSC000511

INVESTIGATION
AND
DIRECTOR'S
DECISION
REGARDJNG
EEDEF
September 30, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 80f9
HHS-PSC000512
X. Exhibit A:
EEDEF
XL ExhibitB: Center Research Misconduct Policy ("PoliCY") ( 8 pag~s)
XII.
A. November to. 2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Allegations aud
Initiation oflnquiry
B. December 5. 2008 Letter from RIO Sands to Respondent i'e Inquiry Committee's December 2,
C. Deeember 17. 2008 Letter from RIO Sands to Respondent,remallhlg prior correspondence
XIIl. Exhibit D: December 2. 2008 "Report of Allegations" <18 pages)

XIV. Exhibit E: January 16.2009 Comments from Respond.ent reAliegations (5 pages)
XV.
Exhibit F Comments Ironi Respondent re DrafHnguiry Report
XVI. Exhibit G: Comments from Complainant i'e DraftInguiry Report
XVII. Endnotes:
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 90f9
HHS-PSC000513
FRED
CANCE
MEMORANDUM
Decmber 18, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL
TO:
EEDEF
FROM: Gerianne J. Sands

Re:
Research Misconduct Investigation, Case: EEDEF

Questions from the Investigation Committe
As we discussed by telephone earlier this week, the Investigation Committee in this case met
and considered what additional information they may need to complete their review. They
EEDEF
they would ask you to submit written responses to the questions outlined below.
Since we are required to complete the Investigation within 120 days and the Committee needs
to share the questions and responses with the Respondent for comment before the
Investigation concludes, we are requesting that you please answer each of the following
questions from the Investigation Committee to the best of your recollection, and return your
answers to me by January 11 th, 2010. Please call me if you need more time to respond.
EEDEF
1100 Fairview Ave. N. Mail Stop J6-205 PO Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024 206.667.5000 www.fhcrc.org
HHS-PSC000514
Questions fi'om the Investigation Committee

December 18, 2009
Page 2
CONFIDENTIAL
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000515
Questions from the Investigation Committee

December 18, 2009
Page 3
CONFIDENTIAL
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000516
Chapman, Claire
From:
EEDEF
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thursday, April 01, 2010 7:20AM

Chapman, Claire
Re: Draft Investigation Report (03/04110)
Attachments:
Response-to-030410.doc
Response-to-03041
EEDEF
On Fri, Mar 5,2010 at 8:19 AM, Chapman, Claire <[email protected]> wrote:
::
EEDEF
::>
::>
>
::>
::>
::>
>
::>
>
::>
::>
::>
>
>
I attach, for your review, the draft Investigation Report and Exhibits
A-H, along with a letter from Gerianne Sands. As the letter states,
please respond with your comments to the Report by the morning of
Monday, April 5th.
Also, please promptly reply to this email to confirm your receipt.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Claire
Claire Chapman
::> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 1100 Fairview Avenue North,
> J6-205 Seattle, WA 98109-1024
::> (206) 667-1227; (206) 605-0336 - cell
> (206) 667-6590 - fax
::>
>
::>
This electronic message transmission contains information which may be

confidential or privileged; The information is intended to be for the
::> use of the individual or entity named above.
If you are not the
::> intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.
::> If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please
::> notify us by telephone at
(206)
> 667-6458 or by electronic reply, and delete this message.
::>
>
>
::>
HHS-PSC000517
Response to "030410 Draft Investigation Report"
EEDEF
Other comments on "030410 Draft Investigation Report"
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000518
To: Gerianne
Sands
EEDEF
From:
Date: 4/4/10
Re: Draft Investigation Report, Allegations of Research Misconduct, case E$
I have reviewed the Draft Investigation Report, which I received on 3/4/10. I
agree with its conclusions.
In the attached PDF of the Report document I received, I have made a number of
minor corrections for you to review. Most of these are corrections of the
designations of names for figures under discussion or the locations of specific
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000519
CONFIDENTIAL

Allegations of Researeh Misconduct
Case E$
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 14
HHS-PSC000520
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONFIDENTIAL ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
I.
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3
A.
Factual History ............................................................................................................................................... 3
B.
Pre-Inquiry Preliminary Assessment .............................................................................................................. 4
C.
Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
D.
E.
Investigation ................................................................................................................................................... 4
II.
PHS SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................... 5
IH.
INVESTIGATION PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 5
IV .
ALLEGATION .............................................................................................................................................. 6
V.
INVESTIGATION COMMmEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS .......................................... 6
VI.
RESPONDENrSCOMMENTSON DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT ............................................ 11
See Exhibit J............................................................................................................................................................... II
VII.
COMP.LAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT ......................................... II
See Exhibit J(. ...... ........ ..... ........................ .............................. ............... ........ .... ......... ....... ....... .................... ...... ........ II
VIII.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 11
lX.
CENTER'S PRESIDENT AND DlRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION ............... 13
EEDEF........................ 14
X.
Exhibit A:
Xl.
Exhibit B: Center Research Misconduct Policy ("Policy") (8 pages) ......................................................... 14
XU.
Exhibit C: Center Correspondence with Respondent ........ ........ ............ .............. ........ .............. ..... ............. 14
A.
November 10, 2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Allegations and Initiation of
Inquiry .................................................................................................................................................................... 14
B.
December 5,2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2,2008 Report of
Allegations .............................................................................................................................................................. 14
C.
December 17, 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent, remailing prior correspondence .......................... 14
D.
November 4,2009 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Investigation ...................... 14
E.
November 12, 2009 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Investigation .................................................... 14
XIII.
Bxhibit D: December 2, 2008 "Report of Allegations" (18 pages) ............................................................. 14
XIV.
Exhibit E: January 16, 2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages) ................................... 14
XV.
Exbibit F: Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report (2 pages)................................................. 14
XVI.
Exhibit G: Comments from Complainant re Draft Inquiry Report (9 pages) .............................................. 14
XVII. Exhibit H: September 30,2009 Final Inquiry Report (9 pages) ................................................................... 14
XVIIl.
Exhibit 1: January 20,2010 Responses from EEDEF o Investigation Committee's Questions (3
pages)
14
XIX.
Exhibit J: Comments from Respondent re Draft Investigation Report (?pages)......................................... 14
XX.
Bxhibit K: Comments from Complainant re Draft Investigation Report (? pages) ." ...... ....... ..................... 14
XXI.
Endnotes: ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 14
HHS-PSC000521
MEMORANDUM
DRAFT
CONFIDENTIAL
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Re:
March 4,2010
EEDEF
Respondent - EEDEF
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
In early August of2007, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center ("Center") management
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 3 of14
HHS-PSC000522
EEDEF
B. nata Sequestration
EEDEF
C. Pro-Inquiry Preliminary Assessment
to l"eView Respondent's work while at the Center. On July 29, 2008, we concluded in the
Manuscript.
D. Inquiry
charged us with conducting a preliminary review of the allegations of research. misconduct
("Inquiry") under the Center's "Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures" ("Polley'" a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit BVI, and to make findings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell,
President and Director of the Center, for appropriate action. On September 17. 2009. we
submitted our final Inquiry Report to Dr. Hartwell. On September 30,2009. Dr. Hartwell agreed
with our findings that the matter should proceed to Investigation on one of the
EEDEF
E. InvestigatioD
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 4 of14
HHS-PSC000523
EEDEF
II. PHS SUPPORT
EEDEF
III.INVESTIGATION PROCESS
evidence (i.e. more likely than not), research misconduct did or did not occur for each separate
Allegation of research misconduct identified during the Investigation. At the time the work was
EEDEF
Reporting Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research," and the former PHS Final Rule, 42 CFR
Part 93 as intentional or knowing "fabrication, falsification. plagiarism, or other practices that
seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for
CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFf INVESTIGATION REPORT
Page 5 of 14
HHS-PSC000524
proposing, conducting. or reporting research." Although the former Center policy did not
specifically define "fabrication" or "falsification,tt federal policy defined these terms as follows:
and
Office of Science and Technology Policy (65 FR 76260, December 6, 2000). The phrase "or
Specifically excluded from the definition are "honest error or honest differences in inteipretation
EEDEF
.
Center Policy.
lVALLEGATION
EEDEF
V. INVESTIGATION COMMIITEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page60fl4
HHS-PSC000525
EEDEF
Basis for findinn
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 7 of 14
HHS-PSC000526
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 8 of 14
HHS-PSC000527
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 9 of 14
HHS-PSC000528
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT'
Page 10of14
HHS-PSC000529
EEDEF
VI. RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ON BRAFf INVESTIGATION REPORT

See Eshibit J.
VII.
COMPLAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INVESTIGATION REPORT
~ExhibitK.
VIII. CONCLUSION
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 11 of14
HHS-PSC000530
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 12 of 14
HHS-PSC000531
X. Exhibit A:
EEDEF

XIL
A. November 10, 2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwdl to Respondent re Notifaeation of Allegations and
B. Deeember 5, 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2, lOO8
C. December 17,2008 Letter from tile RIO to Respondent, remalling prior correspondence
D. November 4.1009 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notlfitation of Investigation
E. November 11, 2009 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Investigation
XIII. Exhibit D: Dec:ember 2. 2008 "Report of AUegations" (18 pages)

XIV.
Exhibit E: January 16.2009 Comments from Respondent re AUegations (5 pages)
XV.
Exhibit F: Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report (2 pages)
XVI. Exhibit G: Comments from Complainant re Draft Inquiry Report (9 pages)

XVIL Exhibit H: September 30. 2009 Final Inquiry Report (9 pages)
XVDI.Exhibit I: January 20. 2010 Responses from
Committee's Questions (3 pages)
EEDEF
to Investigation
XIX.
Exhibit J: Comments from Respondent re Draft Investigation Report (?D!I!es)
XX.
Exhibit K: Comments from Complainant re Draft Investigation Report (?pges)
XXI.
Endnotes:
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 14 of 14
HHS-PSC000532
my edits to Revised Draft Investigation Report
Page 1 of3
Chapman, Claire
From:
EEDEF
Sent:
Thursday, May 06, 20106:56 PM
To:
Subject:
Chapman, Claire
my edits to Revised Draft Investigation Report
Attachments: 042610 Draft Inv.LB.editdoc
Dear Claire,
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000533
CONFIDENTIAL

ABegaaons of Researcla Miscondud

Case E$
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 1 ofl6
HHS-PSC000534
TABLE OF CONTE"'TS
~N~~~~UND:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::: t
A.
'
')-D_telead;...;.;.;;.;.;.:';..3_ _ _ _ _ _-:
Deleted: 3
FactwII History ................. ,.................. ,..........,............................ ,......................., .......................................... ;.,~'
~: ':::,es::~;:~~i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i-
. Deleted:)
re~ P';~~~~~l--:;:~:::-;:-::;;:;::~:;::~:J
V.
VL
Deleted: 4
Deleted: 4
Deleted: 4
lNVESTIGATlON COMMrITEE FCNDINGS/ANAL YSIS OF ALLEGATIONS .......................................... fl.'

RESPONDENT'S APRIL t, 2010 COMMENTS ON DRAFT INVESTiGATION REPORT ........... ,....... ll.:'
--<
;.-Del_eted
__:_s_ _ _ _ _ _
~~ Exhi~!:iPLAiNANT;SAPRiLi:20ioCOMMEN:rsONDRAFTlNVESTiGATIONREPORT:::::::::::::::: if" ',' ~)-=----::-------=i~
~~I~hi~~~CLUS[ON:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: fr-'~,"" ': >-Deleted---:-12-------<
CENTE
ON ............... li,.. , ' DeWell: 12
EEDEF..................... ti~\ .. , >-DeItII--....
ExbibitA:
- - :1-2-------<
XI.
Exhibit B: Center ~search Misconduct Policy ("policyn) (8 pages) ..................................................... ,... ti '.', .
r-~"
. 1 - - with Respond eal.. ................................................................................ -'-"'
I ~'".. ' ", "' \ ~~~
Deleted: _
12 _ _ _ _ _ _
I It C'.......
"er Co rrespon"",....,
XI ,t.
A. . November 10.2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Allegations and Initiation of,:' " ,1~DeIeted~_::-:_12_ _ _ _ _ _
X.
X.
Exh'b'
-<
--i!
~~:;~~~f~~~~-=~~;g~~~=~~~.ti~ \\l)-:=--le-Id-:-:-;-::------->~,Il
D.
E.
November 4,2009 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Investigation ......................
November 12, 2009 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re Investigation .................................................... ti.
.',,' I Deleted: IS
. " ' ';)--;.;.;;.~-------;
~ ~her~:!~~~.~.~.~~.~~~~.~.~,~~!.~.~.~.~.~.v~~~~~.~.~~. ~~.~~. ~':',,:, f~:. . . ;IeIeI.;.;eta.;,; .; d;. ::;;.:_ _ _ _ _ _-<

Exhibit D: December 2, 200& "Report of Allegations" (18 pages) ............................................................. ti:'. ""{DeIemII: 15
Exhibit E: JIIIlWIr}' 16, 2009 Comments from. Respondent re Allegations (5 pages) ................................... ti . ',' \r>-----------;
XIn.
XIV,
XV.
X'V1.
XVII.
XVlll.
Exhibit F: Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report (2 pages} ................................................. ti= ,', ,'. \ )?-Delebld:
___'_S_ _ _ _ _ _-<
Exh~~t G: ~enlS from CorDflainant re Draft Inquiry Report (9 pages) .............................................. ti~\",', 1>-D_Ield--.I1!1..;.d;.."I;..S _ _ _ _~~""
September 30,2009 Fmal Inqwry Report (9 pages} ................................................................... ti.' ',', ' l Deleted: IS
Exhibit [: January 20, 2010 Responses from Complainant to investigation Committee's Questions (3
..'.. ' ',' '?-D-IeI-eII..;.lI!I...;d--------.<
ExhlbltH:
:;;.;-------<
Ffl :::~~: ~~114,2~~~O~=~~1~=~:::~r~~~ne:!:~0~t!~.~~~~.::::::::::::::::::fr>,:::::~?-:::..-..;IItII!II.;,;;.;.;..:

XXI.
Exhibit L: 2003 Manuscript (unpublished) (19 pages) ................................................................................ ti~\'.
'. ':.DeIeI:::-~IItIec-~d~:-IS------~
~l ~~~~~~~~.~:..~:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: tt':',:::,,<
Deleted: IS
':'\ ,.\?-DeIeI-eta--d:-I-S-~---==<:
,"\ '"
Deleted: IS
, ,';.;-.;.;.;,;;.;.;;.;,;..-------:
DeIeIJed: IS
"" \~==..;;..-------i
DeIeIJed: IS
',','
,\;-.;.;.;,;;.;.;;..;;..-------<
" DeIeIied: IS
i DeIetecl: IS
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 16
HHS-PSC000535
MEMORANDUM
DRAFT
CONFIDENTIAL
DATE:
April 1, 2010
TO:

FROM:
Re:
EEDEF
DRAIT Investigation Report
Allegations ofR.esearch Misconduct Investigation, Case

Respondent -
E$
EEDEF
BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 3 of 16
HHS-PSC000536
EEDEF
EEDEF
C. Pre-Inquiry Preliminary Asselsment
On March 18,2008, Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as a Preliminary Assessment Committee
to review Respondent's work while at the Center. On July 29, 2008, we concluded in the
Preliminary Assessment Committee Report that an Inquiry should proceed on the 200S
Manuscript.
D. Inquiry
On November 10, 2008. Dr. Hartwell appointed us to serve as the Inquiry Committee and
of which is attached as Exhibit Bvi, and to make fmdings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell,
President and Director of the Center. for appropriate action. On September 17. 2009, we
submitted our final Inquiry Report to Dr. Hartwell. On September 30, 2009, Dr. Hartwell agreed
with our fmdings that the matter should proceed to Investigation on one of the EEDEF
E. Investigation
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 4 of 16
HHS-PSC000537
EEDEF
IL PHS SUPPORT
EEDEF
m.INVESTIGATION PROCESS
CONFIDENTIAL
DRAFr INVESTIGATION REPORT
PageS of16
HHS-PSC000538
The purpose of the Investigation is to provide a finding as to whether. by a preponderance of

evidence (i.e. more likely thannot. 50+%). research misconduct did or did not occur for each
separate Allegation of research misconduct identified during the Investigation. At the time the
EEDEF
And Reporting Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research." and the fonner PHS Final Rule, 42
CFR Part 93 as intentional or knowing "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism. or other practices
that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific commWlity for
proposing. conducting. or reporting research." Although the former Center policy did not
specifically defme ''fabrication" or "falsification," federal policy defined these terms as follows:
and
Office of Science and Technology Policy (65 FR 76260, December 6. 2000). The phrase "or
EEDEF
Investigation were consistent with the current PHS Regulations. 42 CPR Part 93 and the current
Center Policy.
EEDEF
IV. ALLEGATION
V.
~STIGATION COMMITTEE
CONFIDENTIAL
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS
Page 6 of 16
HHS-PSC000539
EEDEF
Basis for findings

CONFIDENTIAL
Page7of16
HHS-PSC000540
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
PageS of 16
HHS-PSC000541
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page90fl6
HHS-PSC000542
EEDEF
C01\"FIDENTIAL
DRAFT' INVESTIGA nON REPORT
Page 10 of 16
HHS-PSC000543
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 11 of16
HHS-PSC000544
EEDEF
VI. REspoNDENT'S
REPORT
APRIL
I. 2010 COMMENTS ON
DRAFT
myEmGATION
~ExhtbitJ,
VII.
COMPLAINANT'S
REPORT
APRD...
I. 2010 COMMENTS ON PRAFf INYEmGATION
~ExhibitK.
vm.
CONCLUSION
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 12 of16
HHS-PSC000545
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 13 of16
HHS-PSC000546

INVESTIGATION
AND
DIRECTOR'S
DECISION
REGARDING
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
May[],2010
Page 140f 16
HHS-PSC000547
EEDEF
X. Exbibit A:
XL Exhibit B: Center Researcb Misconduct Policy ("Policy") (8 pages)
XlL
Exbibit C: Center Correspondence witb Respondent
A. November 10,2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Allegations and
laitiatioa of IIlquiry
B. Deulllber S. 2008 Letter from the RIO to Respondent re lJIquiry Committee's Dece:mber 1, 2008
C. Dettmber 17.2088 Letter from tile RIO to RespOIldeat, remailiag prior correspoadenee
D. November 4,lOO9 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Rapoadent re Notification of InvestigatiOD
E. November Il, lOO9 Letter from tile RIO to Respoadent re lavestigation
F. Deumber 7,lOO9 Eman rapoase from IlespoRdeat re objeetioBS to InvutigaiioA Committe.:
Members and right to be interviewed
xlIr. Exhibit D: December 2. 2008 "Report of Allegations" (18 pages)

XIV. Exhibit E: January 16,2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages)
XV.
Exhibit F: Comments from Respondent re Draft Ingniry Report (2 pages)
XVI.
Exbibit G: Comments from Complainant re Draft Inguiry RePOrt (9 pages)
XVIl. Exhibit H: September 30,2009 Finallnguiry Report (9 pages)

XVIII. Exhibit [: January 20. 2010 Responses from Complainant to Investigation
Committee's Ouestions (3 pages)
XIx. Exhibit J: April 1, 2010 Comments from Respondent re Draft Investigation Report
pages)
(2
xx.
Report
Exhibit K:
April 4, 2010 Comments from Complainant re Draft Investigation
XXI. Exbibit L: 2003 Manuscript (unpublished) Cl9 pages)

XXII. Exbibit M: Inventory (1 pages)
XX[f(. Endnotes:
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 15 of 16
HHS-PSC000548
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 160f16
HHS-PSC000549
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000550
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000551
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000552
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000553
EEDEF
5
HHS-PSC000554
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000555
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000556
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000557
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000558
EEDEF
10
HHS-PSC000559
EEDEF
11
HHS-PSC000560
EEDEF
12
HHS-PSC000561
EEDEF
13
HHS-PSC000562
EEDEF
14
HHS-PSC000563
EEDEF
15
HHS-PSC000564
EEDEF
16
HHS-PSC000565
EEDEF
17
HHS-PSC000566
EEDEF
18
HHS-PSC000567
EEDEF
19
HHS-PSC000568
EEDEF
5/12/2010
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
HHS-PSC000569
-~~-
--
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit II Evidence Number Record Description (What, num;;;rpages or slides, 'iiid'dates Date Received From
=
1.
E$
Receipt!
Copies Re1!!Ted to
Copies to
Chain of Custody (Date, who

!:Viewed, with wh~~, ~ ~..:.L
EEDEF
2.
i---3.
Confidential
Page 2
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000570
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Number Record Description (What, n~fpages or slides, and dates Date Received From
or Date
etc.L.
E$
.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
~--.-...-
Copies to
Chain7r'Custody (Date, who

reviewed, with whom, what etc.)
EEDEF
4.
5.
6.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000571
INVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # E;ceNumber Record Description (What, nwnber of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
'"-
E$
Receipt/
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
7.
8.
Confidential
Page 4
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000572
E$
lNVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Number Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
9.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
10.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000573
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
E$
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
Confidential
Page 6
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000574
E$
lNVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
II.
Confidential
Page 7
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000575
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
&hibit# Evidence Number Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
E$
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to
Chain of CustDdy (Date, who

EEDEF
12.
13.
Confidential
Page 8
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000576
E$
lNVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
or Date
14.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
15.
16.
Confidential
Page 9
5/1212010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000577
E$
NVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Retwned to
Copies to

EEDEF
17.
IS.
Confidential
Page to
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000578
E$ NVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
19.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
20.
Confidential
Page 11
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000579
E$
INVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
etc.)
2l.
22.
--
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000580
E$
lNVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibil# Evidence Nwnber Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
-I
Receipt!
Copies to
EEDEF
23.
24.
25.
Confidential
Page 13
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000581
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
--
Receipt!
Cooies Returned 10
Copies 10

EEDEF
26.
27.
28.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000582
E$
lNVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Nwnber Record Description (What, nwnber of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Retwned to
Copies to

EEDEF
-~~
29.
30.
Confidential
Page 15
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000583
E$
NVENTORY
NFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Number Record Descripti;;;i' (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
31.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
Confidential
Page 16
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000584
E$
INVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
32.
33.
Confidential
Page 17
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000585
E$
Exhibit # Evidence Number !Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates
etc.)
NVENTORY
FIDENTIAL
Date Received From
ReceiptJ
CODies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
34.
35.
_ .. ___
Confidential
Page 18
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000586
E$
NVENTOR\,
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
36.
Confidential
Page 19
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000587
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
37.
38.
Confidential
Page 20
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000588
E$
INVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Retwned to
Copies to

EEDEF
39.
Confidential
Page 21
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000589
E$
INVENTORY
CoNFIDENTIAL
40.
Receipt!
CODies Returned 10
Copies 10
Chain ofCuslOdy (Date, who

EEDEF
etc.)
41.
42.
---'-
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000590
E$
INVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

reviewed. with whom, what etc.)
EEDEF
43.
44.
Confidential
Page 23
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000591
E$
NVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Number Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From I
etc.)
or Date
I
Receipt!
CODies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
45.
46.
Confidential
Page 24
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000592
E$
lNVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
47.
48.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000593
E$
lNVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Nurnber Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
49.
Confidential
Page 26
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000594
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
50.
51.
Confidential
Page 27
5/1212010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000595
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
52.
Confidential
Page 28
5112/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000596
E$
llNVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
53.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
54.
Confidential
Page 29
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000597
E$
IINVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
55.
Receipt!
Conies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
56.
.-.-~
Confidential
Page 30
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000598
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Retunled to
Copies to

EEDEF
57.
5S.
--~L
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000599
E$
NVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Covies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
59.
Confidential
Page 32
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000600
E$
iNVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned 10
Copies 10

EEDEF
60.
61.
Confidential
Page 33
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000601
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Nwnber Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

with whom, what etc.)
EEDEF
~,
62.
Confidential
Page 34
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000602
E$
lNVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Nwnber Record Description (What, nwnber of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
Copies Retwned to
Copies to

EEDEF
63.
64.
EEDEF
5/12/2010
HHS-PSC000603
E$
NVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
65.
66.
Confidential
Page 36
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000604
-~
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Number Record Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates Date Received From I
etc.)
or Date
Receipt!
CODies Returned to
Copies to
Cruun of Custody (Dwre, who

EEDEF
67.
Confidential
Page 37
. 5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000605
E$
INVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Nwnber Record Description (What, nwnber of pages or slides. and dates Date Received From
etc.)
or Date
68.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to
Chain of Custody (Date. who

reviewed. with whom. what etc.)
EEDEF
I
69.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000606
E$
NVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
ReceiptJ
CODies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
70.
71.
Confidential
Page 39
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000607
E$
INVENTORV
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
or Date
ReceiptJ
Copies Returned to
Copies to
C-hain of Custody (Date, who

EEDEF
72.
Confidential
Page 40
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000608
E$
"
INVENTORY
NFIDENTIAL
Exhibit # Evidence Nwnber R.erord Description (What, number of pages or slides, and dates
etc.)
Date Received From
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
73.
-'
Confidential
Page 41
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000609
E$
INVENTORY
CONFIDENTIAL
etc.)
74.
Receipt!
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
Confidential
Page 42
5/12/2010
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000610
E$
NVENTORV
NFIDENTIAL
or Date
etc.)
r--::-:
75.
~~_",,
Receiptl
Copies Returned to
Copies to

EEDEF
EEDEF
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000611
FRED HUTCHINSON
C/\t"iCER RESEARCH CENTER

A LIFE OF SCIENCE
E$
October 30,2009
CONFIDENTIAL
RE:
Notification of Commencement of Misconduct Investigation
EEDEF
Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

This letter is to sent in accordance with 42 CFR 93.309 to advise you that Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center ("Center") has initiated an investigation of alleged research misconduct in relation to the
above-referenced research funded, in part, by the
EEDEF
EEDEF
I enclose a copy of the Center's Inquiry Report, dated September 30, 2009, that details the Inquiry
Committee's recommendation and a written fmding by Dr. Lee Hartwell that the matter should proceed to
investigation. Consequently, the Center plans to move forward with its investigation.
Please contact me at (206) 667-1224 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,

Enclosures
cc wi enc1s.:
Leland H. Hartwell, Ph.D., President and Director, the Center
EEDEF
1-
. ~"OJ~, '~;.:;F~[(!~'( ':~"r[;. ~L 1~~~;..'Gi~
}W5~,:re\.~ ~;'.';J~j~'-~
i(:..>~~;(r~ ,\{y/;'1 ~}_c>~~~J-: r~p2~~
.Y~~I~.- iJ~I.'~,,-~~J]g~
HHS-PSC000612
!~\i!:&,"\'!JiJy!~~.jJt)~i--.
~ _
.-
~,_L
HHS-PSC000613
CONFIDENTIAL

INQUIRY REPORT
Case E$
September 30, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 1 of9
HHS-PSC000614
Table of Contents
~-.
CONFIDENTIAL .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
I.
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 3
A.
Factual History ................................................................................................................................................ 3
B.
Data Sequestration ......................................................................................................................................... 4
C.
Pre-Inquiry Preliminary Assessment ...............................................................................................................4
D.
Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
D. PHS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 5
m.
IN"QUIRY PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 5
IV.
ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 5
V. IN"QUIRY COMMIITEE FINDIN"GS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS ........................................................ 6
VI.
RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT ............................................................. 7
See Exhibit F................................................................................................................................................................. 7
VD.
COMPLAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT .......................................................... 7
See Exln"bit G................................................................................................................................................................ 7
vm. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 7
IX.
CENTER'S PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR'S DECISION REGARDING INVESTIGATION .................. 8
This Section IX is intentionally left blank. ................................................... ;.............. Error! Bookmark not defmed.
X. ExIn"bitA:
EEDEF .................................. 9
XI.
Exhibit B: Center Research Misconduct Policy (''Policy'') ( 8 pages) ........................................................... 9
XII.
Exhibit C: Center Correspondence with Respondent ..................................................................................... 9
A.
November 10,2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of Allegations and Initiation of
Inquiry ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
B.
December 5, 2008 Letter from RIO Sands to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2, 2008 Report
of Allegations ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
C.
December 17, 2008 Letter from RIO Sands to Respondent, remailing prior correspondence ........................ 9
XIII.
Exhibit D: December 2,2008 "Report of Allegations" (18 pages) ................................................................ 9
XIV. Exhibit E: January 16,2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages) .................................... 9
XV.
ExIn"bit F Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report .................................................................... 9
XVI. ExIn"bit G: Comments from Complainant re Draft Inquiry Report ....................:........................................... 9
XVII. Endnotes: ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 2 of9
HHS-PSC000615
MEMORANDUM
CONFIDENTIAL
DATE:
September 17, 2009
TO:

FROM:
Re:
EEDEF
Inquiry Report
Allegations of Research Misconduct Inquiry, Case E$
Respondent - EEDEF
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual History
I'
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 3 of9
HHS-PSC000616
EEDEF
EEDEF
Manuscript.
D. Inquiry
("Inquiry") under the Center's "RC?search Misconduct Policy and Procedures" ("Poliey"), a copy
of which is attached as Exhibit BV., and to make findings and recommendations to Dr. Hartwell,
President and Director of the Center, for appropriate action. This is the Inquiry Report that
makes those findings and recommendations.
As Inquiry Committee members, we agreed to conduct the Inquiry in an objective manner free of
bias, conflicts of interest (personal, professional or financial) or conflicts of commitment.
The Policy provides that the Inquiry be completed within sixty (60) days from the date
Respondent receives notice of the allegations unless additional time is warranted. We requested
from Dr. Hartwell two requests for extensions of time due to: i) EEDEF
ii) the challenges of
locating the relevant evidence for the Inquiry; and iii) delays relating to the efforts by the RIO to
contact Respondent and his counsel to propose a resolution of the matter through a Respondent's
admission in coordination with the Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Public Health Services of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("PHS").
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 4 of9
HHS-PSC000617
n.PHSSUPPORT
EEDEF
ID.INQUIRY PROCESS
The purpose of the Inquiry is to determine whether sufficient evidence of research misconduct
EEDEF
defined by the former Center "Policy For Dealing With And Reporting Possible Scientific
Misconduct in Research," and the former PHS Final Rule, 42 CFR Part 93 as "fabrication,
falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly
accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research)'
Although the former Center policy did not specifically define "fabrication" or "falsification,"
federal policy defined these terms as follows:
''fabrication'' means ''making up data or results and recording or reporting them;"

and
EEDEF
Inquiry were consistent with the current PHS Regulations, 42 CFR Part 93 and the current Center
Policy.
IV. ALLEGATIONS
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 5 of9
HHS-PSC000618
EEDEF
V. INQUIRY COMMITTEE FINDINGS/ANALYSIS OF ALLEGATIONS
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 6 of9
HHS-PSC000619
EEDEF
VI. RESPONDENT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT

See Exhibit F.
VIT.
COMPLAINANT'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT

See Exhibit G.
VID. CONCLUSION
EEDEF
""
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 70f9
HHS-PSC000620

INVESTIGATION
AND
DIRECTOR'S
DECISION
REGARDING
EEDEF
September 30, 2009
CONFIDENTIAL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 8 of9
HHS-PSC000621
~~'~~"~-
x.
Exhibit A:
EEDEF
XI. Exhibit B: Center Research Misconduct Policy ("Policy") ( 8 pages)

XU.
A. November 10, 2008 Letter from Dr. Hartwell to Respondent re Notification of AUegations and
.
B. December 5, 2008 Letter from RIO Sands to Respondent re Inquiry Committee's December 2,
C. December 17,2008 Letter from RIO Sands to Respondent, remailing prior correspondence
XIII. Exhibit D: December 2,2008 "Report of Allegations" (18 pages)

XIV. Exhibit E: January 16,2009 Comments from Respondent re Allegations (5 pages)
xv.
Exhibit F Comments from Respondent re Draft Inquiry Report
XVI. Exhibit G: Comments from Complainant re Draft Inquiry Report

XVTI. Endnotes:
EEDEF
CONFIDEl\'7!AL
INQUIRY REPORT
Page 90f9
HHS-PSC000622
>
HHS-PSC000623
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000624
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000625
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000626
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000627
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000628
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000629
HHS-PSC000630

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POUCY AND PROCEDURES
RESTATED 3114107
p()L,ICY$.tAt~E:Nt
In all of its research activities, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (the MCenter") expects the highest
standards of professional conduct. The enterprise of scientific research relies upon the trust and confidence
of both the scientific community and the public at large. Unethical behavior undermines confidence in the
reliability of science and the integrity of the Center. For these reasons, the Center considers misconduct in
science a betrayal of fundamental scientific principles and shall deal with all instances of possible research
misconduct firmly in accordance with the Center's Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures ("Policy").
Situations that do not constitute research misconduct may be' reviewed under the Center's other policies,
including but not limited to the Center's Research Integrity Policy and Procedures. In some cases, the
alleged conduct under review may be subject to both this Policy and the Center's Research Integrity Policy.
This Policy is developed to prevent, detect and deal with possible research misconduct in the Center's
research programs. It is designed to balance the need to deal firmly and effectively with allegations of
possible research misconduct with the need for openness and creativity in the scientific enterprise. In
responding to allegations of research misconduct, the Center also must comply with all applicable laws and
regulatory requirements of federal agencies supporting the research in question, as well as Center policies
and procedures. In cases involving research funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
("HHS"), the Office of Research Integrity ("ORn oversees the Center's compliance with HHS research
misconduct regulations ~ Exhibit "Ae). In cases involving research funded by the National Science
Foundation (MNSF-) ~ Exhibit "Be) and other federal agencies, the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG-)
generally carries out enforcement of research misconduct regulations. This POlicy will refer throughout Simply
to ORI except in those instances in which the procedures mandated by NSF regulations differ from those
imposed by HHS.
I'
The Center's President and Director ("Director") has the final authority and responsibility for defining the
ethical standards for the Center.
This Policy replaces in its entirety the Center's prior policy dated September 24, 2003.
P:R~NTlQ~.
The Center expects intellectual honesty in all of Its endeavors. All employees should maintain open
communication, submit work for peer review, disclose and cooperate in the management of conflicts of
interest, commit to self-regulation, and comply with Center processes for the disclosure and management of
conflicts of interest. (See: http://www.fhcrc.orglintranetlgeneral counsel/conflict interest 2002.pdf)
The Center shall educate and inform all employees regarding its ethical standards, Its guidelines for
conducting and reporting research, its philosophy and policy of dealing with and reporting possible research
misconduct and the importance of complying with the relevant policies and procedures.
As a regular element of its policy of maintaining the highest possible standard of Scientific productivity, the
Center will continue to maintain a regular and rigorous system of review of the quality of the scientific
programs of its investigators.
HHS-PSC000631

The Center's Director shall appoint a Research Integrity Officer to (Q assist with the education of all staff and
employees regarding the Center policies and procedures relating to research misconduct; (iQ provide
clarification and information to individuals with concerns regarding potential incidents of misconduct; (iii) assist .
individuals in understanding the Center's pOlicies and procedures in this area; (iv) assist with the
administration of this POlicy including inquiries and investigations conducted pursuant to this Policy; and (v)
provide mediation services where indicated.
The Center shall periodically evaluate its policy and procedures for educating its staff about the proper
conduct of research and assess whether additional efforts are necessary.
t{l~iii1;t'~~~t:l~;,;ql:H~;f~}j:32~;X'~f::tf!~jJ;;~Ii~)m8~!{~~~1Q.8~Q~Q~tJa;:tEGtiiS:ilt:i};i}2:i'r~i::i:~:;:;;/L(;::.:,
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing

research, or in reporting research results.
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or
results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of
data.
A finding of research misconduct requires that (i) there is a Significant departure from accepted practices of
the relevant research community; (Ii) the misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
(iii) the allegation of research misconduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence. There may be a
different standard of proof for misconduct under other Center pOlicies.
The procedures described in this POlicy represent the general approach to be employed by the Center in
instances of possible research misconduct, since no policy and procedures can anticipate every possible
issue that might arise in the course of an inquiry or investigation. The Center's Director is responsible for
implementing these procedures and modifying them as necessary to ensure adherence to the Policy.
I.
CONFIDENTIAUTY
To the extent allowed by law, the Center shall maintain the identity of the individual(s) against whom the
allegation of research misconduct is made (-respondents-) and the individual(s>. bringing forward the allegation
(complainants-) securely and confidentially and shall not disclose any identifying information, except to:
A. those who need to know in order to carry out a thorough, competent, objective and fair research
misconduct proceeding; and
B. ORI as It conducts its review of the research misconduct proceeding and any subsequent
proceedings.
To the extent allowed by law, any information obtained during the research misconduct proceeding that might
identify the subjects of research shall be maintained securely and confidentially and shall not be disclosed;
except to those who need to know in order to carry out the research misconduct proceeding.
The Center prohibits retaliation of any kind against a person who, acting in good faith, reports or provides
infonnation about suspected misconduct.
2
HHS-PSC000632

II. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PROCEEPINGS-CBlTERIA. REPORTS. AND nME LlMITATIONSl
A. Preliminary Assessment
Disclosures of possible research misconduct received by the Center through any means of
communication (MAIlegationB) shall be promptly referred to the director of the division in which the
alleged research misconduct occurred (MDivision Director"). The Division Director shall assess the
Allegation to determine if:
.
1. it meets the definition of research misconduct2 ;
2. it involves Public Health Service (PHSB) supported research, applications for PHS
research support, or research records 3 ;
3. it is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct
may be identified; and
4. It is timely. 4
If the Division Director determines that these criteria have not been met, then the matter will not
proceed to inquiry and may be reviewed under the Center's other policies, including but not limited to
the Center's Research Integrity Policy and Procedures. If the Center's Division Director determines
that these criteria have been met, then the matter will proceed to inquiry.
B. Inquiry6
An inquiry is an initial review of the evidence to determine if the criteria for conducting an investigation
have been met. The criteria for determining whether or not an investigation may be required include a
finding that:
1. There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the Allegation falls within this Policy's
2. The preliminary review of the facts indicates thJt the Allegation has substance.
The Center shall complete the inquiry, including preparation of the inquiry report and giving the
respondent a reasonable opportunity to comment on It, within sixty (60) calendar days of Its initiation,
unless the circumstances warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to
complete, the Center shall include documentation of the reasons for the delay in the inquiry record.
The inquiry report shall contain the following information:

1. The name and position of the respondent;
2. A description of the Allegation of research misconduct;
3. The PHS support involved, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications,
contracts, and publications listing PHS support; .
4. The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation; and
5. Any comments on the report by the respondent or the complainant.
The Center's Director will make a written determination of whether an investigation is warranted. If the
Center's Director determines that an investigation is not warranted, then the matter may be reviewed
1 NSF proceeding requirements can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.4 and Section 689.6 (B Exhibit B). In
absence of any specific requirements, the Center may follow the HHS requirements.
2 The definition of research misconduct can be found above and in 42 CFR Section 93.103 <ti Exhibit A)
and/or in 45 CFR Section 689.1 (B Exhibit B).
3 HHS describes research in 42 CFR Section 93.1 02 (b) ~ Exhibit A). NSF describes research in 45 CFR
Section 689.1 ~ Exhibit B).
4 In cases involving PHS supported research, the time limitations can be found in 42 CFR Section 93.103 (!!,
Exhibit A).
5NSF time limitations and extensions for an inquiry can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.4 (u Exhibit B).
3
HHS-PSC000633

under the Center's other policies, including but not limited to the Center's Research Integrity Policy
and Procedures, if warranted in the sole discretion of the Center's Director.
C. Investigation6
If the Center's Director detennlnes that an investigation is warranted, then the Center shall begin the
investigation within thirty (30) calendar days of that determination and, on or before the date on which
the investigation begins, send the Inquiry report and the written determination to ORI. The Center
shall use its best efforts to complete the investigation within one hundred and twenty (120) calendar
days of the date on which it began, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of
findings, providing the draft report for comment, and sending the final report to ORI. If it becomes
apparent that the Center cannot complete the investigation within that period, the Center shall
promptly request an extension in writing from ORI.
In conducting all investigations, the Center shall:
1. uSe diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently
documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to
reaching a decision on the merits of the Allegation;
2. Interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been
reasonably identified as having Infonnation regarding any relevant aspects of the
investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each
interview, provide the recording or transcript to the intervieWee for correction, and include the
recording or transcript in the record of investigation;
3. Pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant
to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research
misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion; and
4. Otherwise comply wittl the requirements for conducting an investigation7
The Center shall prepare the draft and final institutional investigation reports in writing and provide the
draft report for comment as provided elsewhere in these policies and procedures and as required by
lawS. The final investigation report shall:
1. Describe the nature of the Allegation of research misconduct;
2. Describe and document the PHS support, including, for example any grant numbers,
grant applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support;
3. Describe the specific Allegation of research misconduct considered in the investigation;
4. Include the Center's policies and procedures under which the investigation was
conducted, If not already provided to ORI;
5. Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and Identify any
evidence taken into custody, but not reviewed. The report should also describe any
relevant records and evidence not taken into custody and explain why.
6. Provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur for each
separate Allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, and if
misconduct was found:
a. identify it as falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism and whether it was intentional,
knowing, or in reckless disregard;
b. summarize the facts and the analysis supporting the conclusion and consider the
merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent and any evidence that rebuts
the respondent's explanations;
c. identify the specific PHS support;
NSF requirements for an inquiry can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.4 (i! Exhibit B).
HHS requirements for conducting an investigation can be found in 42 CFR Section 93.310 (B Exhibit A).
NSF requirements for conducting an investigation can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.6 ~ Exhibit B).
SHHS requirements for investigation reports can be found in 42 CFR Section 93.312 (!! Exhibit A). NSF
requirements for investigation reports can be found in 45 CFR Section 689.6 ~ Exhibit B).
HHS-PSC000634

d. identify any publications that need correction or retraction;
e. identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct, and
f. list any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the
respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies.
7. Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the
draft investigation report.
The Center shall maintain and provide to ORI upon request all relevant research records and records of the
Center's research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings
of such interviews.
III. ENSURING A FAIR RESEARCH MISCONDUCT PROCEEDING
The Center shall take all reasonable steps to ensure an impartial research misconduct proceeding to the
maximum extent practicable. The Center shall select those conducting the inquiry or investigation on the
basis of scientific expertise that is pertinent to the matter and, prior to selection, the Center shall screen them
for any unresolved personal, profesSional, or financial conflicts of interest with the respondent, complainant,
potential witnesses, or others involved in the matter. Any such conflict which a reasonable person would
consider to demonstrate potential bias shall disqualify the individual from selection.
A. Notice to Respondent and Complainanti ..

During the research misconduct proceeding, the Center shall provide the following notifications to all
identified respondents 10:
B. Injt!ation of Inquirv.
Prior to or at the beginning of the inquiry, the Center shall provide the respondent written notification of
the inquiry and contemporaneously sequester all research records and other evidence needed to
conduct the research misconduct proceeding. If the inquiry subsequently identifies addjt!onal
respondents, they shall be promptly notified in writing.
C. Comment on Inquirv Report.
The Center shall provide the respondent, and may provide complainant at the Center's discretion, an
opportunity to comment on the inquiry report in a timely fashion so that any comments can be
attached to the report. If there is more than one respondent, then the Center may prepare separate
reports to preseNe confidentiality.
D. Results of the Inquirv.
The Center shall notify the respondent, and may notify the complainant at the Center's discretion, of
the results of the inquiry and attach to the notification copies of the inquiry report and the Center's
policies and procedures for the handling of research misconduct Allegations.
E. Initiation of Investiqation.
Within a reasonable time after the Center's determination that an investigation is warranted, but not
later than thirty (30) calendar days after that determination, the Center shall notify the respondent, and
may notify the complainant at the Center's discretion, in writing of the Allegation to be investigated.
The Center shall give respondent written notice of any new Allegation within a reasonable time after
determining to pursue any Allegation not addressed in the inquiry or in the injt!al notice of the
investigation.
NSF notification requirements can be found in 45 CFR Section 6S9 (n Exhibit B).
ORI notification requirements can be found in 42 CFR Section 93.309(a) ~ Exhibit A). NSF notification
requirements can be found in 45 CFR Section 6S9 (!! exhibit B).
10
5
HHS-PSC000635

F. Scheduling of Interview.
The Center will notify the respondent sufficiently in advance of the scheduling of hislher interviENIln
the Investigation so that the respondent may prepare for the interviENI and arrange for the attendance
of legal counsel at hislher own expense, If the respondent wishes.
G. Comment on Draft Investigation Report.
The Center shall give the respondent, and may provide the complainant at the Center's discretion, a
copy of the draft Investigation report, and concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the
evidence on which the report Is based and notify the respondent and complainant that any comments
must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the date on which he/she receivecl the draft report. If there
is more than one respondent, then the Center may prepare separate reports to preserve
confidentiality. The Center shall ensure that these comments are included and considered in the final
investigation report.
IV. NOTIfYING ORI OF THE DECIIION TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION AND OF INSTITUTIONAL
FINDINGS AND ACTIONS FOLLOWING THE INVESTIGATION
On or before the date on which the investigation begins (the investigation must begin within thirty (30)
calendar days of the Center's finding that an investigation is warranted), the Center shall provide ORI with the
written finding by the Center's Director and a copy of the inquiry report containing the information required by
law11 Upon a request from ORI, the Center shall promptly send to ORI:
1. a copy of the Center's policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;
2. the research records and evidence reviewed, tranScripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies
of all relevant documents; and
3. the charges for the investigation to consider.
The Center shall promptly provide to ORI after the investigation:
1. a copy of the investigation report and all attachments;
2. a statement of whether the Center found research misconduct and, If so, who committed It;
3. a statement of whether the Center accepts the findings in the investigation report; and
4. a description of any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
V. MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODY OF RESEARCH RECORDS AND EVIDENCE'u
The Center shall take the following specific steps to obtain, secure, and maintain the research records and
evidence pertinent to the research misconduct proceeding:
A. Either before or when the Center notifies the respondent of the Allegation, the Center shall
promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all research records and
evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory those materials, and
sequester them in a secure manner. As an exception, in those cases where the research records or
evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to
copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially
equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
B. Where appropriate, the Center shall give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised
access to the research records.
C. The Center shall undertake all reasonable and practical efforts to take custody of additional
research records and evidence discovered during the course of the research misconduct proceeding,
including at the inquiry and investigation stages, or If new Allegations arise, subject to the exception
for scientific instruments in A. above.
11
12
See 42 CFR Section 93.309(a) ~ Exhibit A) and/or45 CFR Section 689.4 ~ exhibit B).
NSF requirements for records and evidence can be found in 45 CFR Section 689 ~ Exhibit B).
6
HHS-PSC000636

D. The Center shall maintain all records of the research misconduct proceeding 13, for seven (7)
years after completion of the proceeding, or any ORI or HHS proceeding 14, whichever is later, unless
the Center has transferred custody of the records and evidence to HHS, or ORI has advised the
Center that Hno longer need to retain the records.
VI. INTERIM PROTECTIVE ACTIONS
M. any time during a research misconduct proceeding, the Center shall take appropriate interim actions to
protect public health, federal funds and eqUipment, and the integrity of the PHS supported research process.
The necessary actions will vary according to the circumstances of each case, but examples of actions that
may be necessary include delaying the publication of research results, providing for closer supervision of one
or more researchers, requiring approvals for actions relating to the research that did not previously require
approval, auditing pertinent records, or taking steps to contact other institutions that may be affected by an
Allegation of research misconduct.
VII. NOTIFYING ORI OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY REQUIRE PROTECTIVE ACTlONS1i
M. any time during a research misconduct proceeding, the Center shall notify ORI immediately if the Center
has reason to believe that any of the following conditions exist:
A. Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal
subjects.
B. HHS resources or interests are threatened.
C. Research activities should be suspended.
D. There is a reasonable indication of violations of civil or criminal law.
E. Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct
proceeding.
F. The Center believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely, so
that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
G. The Center believes the research community or public should be informed.
VIII. INSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO FINAL FIN pINGS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
The Center will cooperate with and assist ORI and HHS as needed, to carry out any administrative actions
those agencies may impose as a result of a final finding of research misconduct.
Violations of this Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures may result in discipline up to and including
termination of employment.
including but not limited to the Center's Research Integrity Policy and Procedures.
IX. RESTORING REPUTATIONS
A. Respondents. The Center shall undertake all reasonable efforts to protect and restore the
reputation of any person alleged to have engaged in research misconduct, but against whom no
finding of research misconduct was made, if that person or his/her legal counselor other authorized
representative requests that the Center do so.
B. Complainants. Witnesses. and Committee Members. The Center shall undei'take all reasonable
efforts to protect and restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness, or committee
The HHS definition for records is defined in 42 CFR Section 93.317(a) (U Exhibit A).
The HHS description of proceedings can be found in Subparts 0 and E of 42 CFR Part 93 (See Exhibit A).
15 NSF notification requirements can be found in 45 CFR Section 689 (u. Exhibit B).
13
14
7
HHS-PSC000637
member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against those complainants, witnesses and
committee members.
X. COOPERA110N WITH ORIl
The Center shall cooperate fully and on a continuing basis with ORI during its oversight reviews of this
institution and Its research misconduct proceedings and during the process under which the respondent may
contest ORI findings of research misconduct and proposed HHS administrative actions. This includes
providing, as necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence, all witnesses, research records,
and other evidence under the Centers control or custody, or in the possession of, or accessible to, all persons
that are subject to the Center's authority.
Reporting to ORI The Center will report to ORI any proposed settlements, admissions of research
misconduct, or the Center's findings of misconduct as required by law.
Exhibit A: 42 CFR Part 93 (See: http://orLdhhs.gov/documents/42 cfr parts 50 and 93 2005.pdf
Exhibit B: 45 CFR Section 689 (See: htto:/lwww.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf)
16
The Center will cooperate with NSF as required under 45 CFR Section 689 (.!! Exhibit B).
8
HHS-PSC000638
HHS-PSC000639
II
FRED
HUTCHINSON
CANCER
RESEARCH
CENTER
Lee Hartwell, PIa.D.

Plesident and Director
Phone: 206-6675670
Fax: 206-6675268
November 10, 2008
EEDEF
Re: Formal Notice of Inquiry Into Allegations

EEDEF
This letter serves as a formal notice that Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
("Center") will be Conducting an inquiry into allegations of research misconduct
("Inquiry'') that have been raised related to the research conducted by you that was
EEDEF
As you will see from a review of the Inquiry process, it is critical that you submit a written
response to the Center within 30 days of your receipt of this letter and fully participate in
the process described below. I would like to briefly review the defiirltion of research
misconduct, the allegations, and the Inquiry process under Center policy.
pefinition of ResearehlScientiftc Misconduct
As required by federal ~gulations, the Center has established its own research misconduct
policies and procedures for investigating and reporting alleged research misconduct
("Policy"). Included in the Policy are terms that are used throughout an Inquiry.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000640
EEDEF
CONFIDENTIAL
November 10, 2008

Page 2
The purpose of the Inquiry is to determine whether sufficient evidence of research

EEDEF
misconduct exists to wammt further investigation.
was defined by the fonner Center
"Policy For Dealing With And Reporting Possible Scientific Misconduct in Research," and
the fonner PHS Final Rule, 42 CFR Part 93 as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or
other' practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the
scientific community for proposing, Conducting, or reporting research." Although the
fonner Center Policy did not specifically define "fabrication" or "falsification," federal
policy defined these terms as follows:
"fabrication" means ''making up data or results and recording or reporting
them;" and
"falsification" means ''manipulating research materials, equipment, or

processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is
not accurately represented in the research record.."
Office of Science and Technology Policy (65 FR 76260, December 6, 2000). The
phrase "01' other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted
within the scientific community" is not defined by law or regulation and remains a matter
of interpretation.
~
Specifically excluded from the defj.nition were "honest en'Or or honest differences in
interpretation or judgments of data." These definitions come from the policy and
EEDEF
with the current PHS Regulations, 42 CFR Part 93 and the Center's current "Research
Misconduct Policy and Procedures, a copy of which is enclosed." If you would like to
have copies of the regulations, please let Gerianne Sands, the Center's Associate General
Counsel and Research Integrity Officer, mow.
Specific Allegations
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000641
EEDEF
November 10, 2008

Page 3
CONFIDENTIAL
EEDEF
I encourage you to send a written response to these allegations as quickly as possible. but
no later than 30 days from your receipt of this letter. Ms. Sands will be managing the
Inquiry, so you can submit your response to Ms. Sands, and she will forward your response
to me and to the Inquiry Committee. Should the Inquiry Committee require additional
infonn.ation from you or wish to speak with you directly, you will be notified by Ms.
Sands. Ms. Sands can be reached at:
Gerianne J. Sands

Mail StopJ6-20S
Seattle, VV~n 98109-1024
. (206) 667-1224
[email protected]'g
Inama Process
The Inquiry process is an information-gathering and initial fact-finding process to
determine whether the allegations of research misconduct warrant fonnal investigation.
The purpose of the Inquiry is to cull out any insufficiently substantiated, erroneous, or bad
faith allegations before a respondent is subjected to an investigation. The Inquiry does not
return a finding whether research misconduct has occurred, but rather determines only
whether a formal investigation is warranted.
Consistent with federal requirements, steps have been taken to secure original research
records for the duration ofthis review. If there are further relevant original records or data
relating to this matter that you have in your possession, please let Ms. Sands know
immediately. In no case should any existing record be destroyed or altered.
HHS-PSC000642
EEDEF
November 10. 2008

Page 4
CONFIDENTIAL
It is the Center's goal to conduct a fair, thorough, and objective review according to the
EEDEF
Inquiry procedures outlined in the Center's Policy. The Center has appointed
to an Inquiry Committee. This committee will
review evidence and may interview you and others, by person or by telephone, who may
have relevant information. Any interviews may be tape recorded and transcribed. You
may have an attorney come with you to your interview to advise you if you wish.
During the course of the Inquiry, if you need access to the original research records and
other evidence submitted or sequestered in this case, which evidence Ms. Sands has
secured and inventoried, then please contact her. When you need to examine original
evidence, Ms. Sands, or someone from her office, will be present to assure that it is kept in
order and so that the chain of custody cannot be challenged.
If, dwing the course of the Inquiry, additional information becomes available that
substantially changes the subject matter of the Inquiry, or would suggest additional
respondents or amending the allegations, then Ms. Sands will notify you of the new subject
matter or provide notice to additional respondents.
At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Inquiry Committee will draft a report to me, as the
Center's President and Director, as to whether or not, based on its J;Cview, further
investigation is warranted. The format of the Inquiry Report is described in Section n.B. of
the Policy. For each allegation, the Inquiry Committee should decide that an investigation
is warranted if it finds:
A reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the
The allegation may have substance, based on the Inquiry Committee's
prelimjnary review.
The Inquiry Committee should cite in its report the pertinent evidence and the committee's
basis for recommending whether or not an investigation is warranted.
Ms. Sands will provide you with a copy of the draft report, and you will be given the
opportunity to review and make comments on it As the result of your comments, the
Inquiry Committee may change its report, and at the very least, your comments will be
appended to the final report provided to me. As President and Director of the Center, I will
make the final determination as to whether or not the matter wilr proceed to investigation.
Please understand that you are to take no steps to retaliate against anyone who came
forward with the allegations or against anyone who may participate in the Inquiry process.
HHS-PSC000643
EEDEF
November 10, 2008

Page 5
CONFIDENTIAL
ensure that confidentiality is maintained. In addition, all communications about this matter
should go through Ms. Sands or me to protect the integrity of the procedures. Please be
assmed that we are committed to a fair, thorough, and objective process.
We appreciate your cooperation with this matter. Please do not hesitate to call Ms. Sands
if you have any questions.
Lee Hartwell, Ph.D.

Enclosure
cc: Gerianne J. Sands, Associate General Counsel and Research Integrity Officer
HHS-PSC000644
r- I, l-I
'.:
HUTCHINSON
,',j
'r i:'<! ; CENTER
,\ I. II L ( .. ! ,;
December 5, 2008
r.
II
:< (
I:
EEDEF EDERAL EXPRESS
Re:

(Center File E$
EEDEF
As a follow-up to Dr. Hartwell's November 10, 2008 letter notifying you of the Inquiry, I
enclose a December 2, 2008 report of "Allegations of Research Misconduct" ("Report").
This Report was prepared to assist you in responding to the allegations pending in the
Center's Inquiry. If you did not receive Dr. Hartwell's letter, please contact me
immediately using the contact information listed below.
To give you time to process this additional information and prepare a written response to
the Center, we encourage you to respond to both this letter and Dr. Hartwell's letter within
30 days of your receipt of this letter.
I will be managing the Inquiry, so you can submit your response to me, and I will forward
your response to the Inquiry Committee and to Dr. Hartwell. I can be reached at:
Gerianne J. Sands
Mail StopJ6-205
Seattle, Washington 981 09~ 1024
(206) 667-1224
[email protected]
have any questions.
Sincerely,

Enclosure
cc:
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000645
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.,,
FRED HUTCHINSON
( "i\NCt:!.(
RESF.t\I~CH
December 12, 2008

EEDEF
Re:

(Center File E$ )
EEDEF
Last Friday, December 5th, I attempted to send to you a letter regarding the Report of
t,
have any questions.
~,
CENTER
A lift OF SCI[NCE
Allegations of Research Misconduct. Federal Express not been able to confirm its
delivery, so I enclose a copy of that letter and enclosure.
Sincerely,
t,
a
t,
l
l
Geri
e J. Sands
Associate General counsel and Research Integrity Officer
Enclosure
cc wlo encl.:
EEDEF
.--------------------------------------~~---------HHS-PSC000646
~.-
FRED HUTCHINSON
(j\0JCER
,II
December 17, 2008
1~I:.SfARCI-I
urr or
CENTER
S(J[,,!U
Office of the Geoer.lI Counsel
EEDEF

(Center File E$ )
Re:
EEDEF
Thank you for sending EEDEF To make sure you have everything, I am

resending:
a copy of Dr. Hartwell's November IOIIl, 2008 letter to you,
a copy of the Center's current Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures,

a copy of my December 5th and 12th, 2008 letters to you; and
a copy of the Allegations of Research Misconduct
As mentioned in Dr. Hartwell's letter, it is critical that you submit a written response to the
Center within 30 days of your receipt of this December 17, 2008 letter, and fully participate
in the Inquiry process described in his letter.
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gerianne J. Sands
Associate Genera1 Counsel and Research Integrity Officer

Enclosure
cc wlo enc!.:
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000647
,
_"
f,
It,
;.
r ~-
tTl
-...
~ ..
c;.:
~ ...
HHS-PSC000648
ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
EEDEF
page 1
HHS-PSC000649
EEDEF
page 2
HHS-PSC000650
r,,
~
~
EEDEF
t,
~
~
~
t
a
~
I'
t
t
t
t
t
page 3
HHS-PSC000651
J"
EEDEF
page 4
HHS-PSC000652
J~'
~
~
EEDEF
t,
t
~
~
t
l
~.
~
~
~
page 5
HHS-PSC000653
EEDEF
page 6
HHS-PSC000654
EEDEF
page 7
HHS-PSC000655
EEDEF
f'
page 8
HHS-PSC000656
EEDEF
page 9
HHS-PSC000657
EEDEF
page 10
HHS-PSC000658
EEDEF
page 11
HHS-PSC000659
EEDEF
page 12
HHS-PSC000660
EEDEF
page 13
HHS-PSC000661
EEDEF
page 14
HHS-PSC000662
EEDEF
page 15
HHS-PSC000663
EEDEF
page 16
HHS-PSC000664
EEDEF
page 17
HHS-PSC000665
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t.
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
3 Summary
EEDEF
.'
I,
t
t
page 18
HHS-PSC000666
trl
HHS-PSC000667
January 16, 2009

Response to Allegations of Research Misconduct
EEDEF
- 1HHS-PSC000668
EEDEF
-2-
HHS-PSC000669
EEDEF
-3HHS-PSC000670
EEDEF
-4HHS-PSC000671
EEDEF
- 5HHS-PSC000672
HHS-PSC000673
May 18,2009
Comments on "042909 Draft Inquiry Report to Respondent and Complainant"
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000674
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000675
HHS-PSC000676
EEDEF
COMMENTS ON:
DRAFT INQUIRY REPORT: ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT BY EEDEF
NOTE: 'ATTACHED' FIGURES ARE LOCATED AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT.
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000677
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000678
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000679
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000680
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000681
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000682
EEDEF
~
~
.
~
~
~
HHS-PSC000683
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000684
EEDEF
~
HHS-PSC000685
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000686
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000687
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000688
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000689
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000690
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000691
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000692
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000693
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000694
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000695
EEDEF
HHS-PSC000696
Bittinger, Kristin L
EE&
From:
Sent:
To:
Monday. July 27.200912:41 PM
EE&
Cc:
EE&
EEDEF
Subject: more pies
51512010
HHS-PSC000697
EEDEF
I
I
-'~\
.i
I!
51512010
HHS-PSC000698
, i
"l
EEDEF
EE&
5/5/2010
HHS-PSC000699

HHS Combined FOIA Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Combined FOIA Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Combined FOIA Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

GRETCHEN BRODNICKI, J.D.

DEAN FOR FACULTY AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY

TEL: (617) 432-2496

Dear Dr. Dahlberg:

Kristin Bittinger (w/o enclosures)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

MASSACHUSEITS GENERAL HOSPITAL~ HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

John Homans Professor of Surgery

May 22, 2012

On behalf of the Harvard Medical School Standing Committee on Facility Conduct, I am

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

PAUL S. RUSSELL, M.D.

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

PAUL S. RUSSELL, M.D.

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

We agree with the conclusion of the investigative panel tha

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

In particular, it does not

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) primary data

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) This might have

Paul S. Russell, M.D.

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF MEDICINE

May 29, 2012

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Dean of the Faculty of Medicine

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) Professor (b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Report of the Investigative Panel Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct against

Date: March 13,2011

Following is the report of an Investigation Panel established to examine allegations that

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) .

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

. Because the research in

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Dean Brodnicki arrived at HMS in July 2008.

Ms. Bittinger arrived at HMS in April 2009.

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C) expressed by

(b) (6), (b)(7)

In a previous paper, using the

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)

Based on experience derived from this paper,

(b) (6), (b)(7)(C)