Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 737–741 | Cite as

Incarceration, Restitution, and Lifetime Debarment: Legal Consequences of Scientific Misconduct in the Eric Poehlman Case

Commentary on: “Scientific Forensics: How the Office of Research Integrity can Assist Institutional Investigations of Research Misconduct During Oversight Review”
  • Samuel J. TildenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Following its determination of a finding of scientific misconduct the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) will seek redress for any injury sustained. Several remedies both administrative and statutory may be available depending on the strength of the evidentiary findings of the misconduct investigation. Pursuant to federal regulations administrative remedies are primarily remedial in nature and designed to protect the integrity of the affected research program, whereas statutory remedies including civil fines and criminal penalties are designed to deter and punish wrongdoers. This commentary discusses the available administrative and statutory remedies in the context of a specific case, that of former University of Vermont nutrition researcher Eric Poehlman, and supplies a possible rationale for the legal result.

Keywords

Fraud Scientific misconduct Data Falsification Fabrication 

References

  1. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). (2004). Title 42, Part 50, Subpart A, Section (§)102.Google Scholar
  2. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). (2009). Title 42, Part 93, Sections (§§) 307–317, 400–408.Google Scholar
  3. Dahlberg, J. E., & Davidian, N. M. (2010). Scientific forensics: How the office of research integrity can assist institutional investigations of research misconduct during oversight review. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9208-4.
  4. Fabrikant, R., Kalb, P. E., Hopson, M. D., & Bucy, P. H. (1996). Health care fraud enforcement and compliance. New York, NY: Law Journal Press.Google Scholar
  5. Federal Register (FR). (2005). Vol. 70, pp. 28387 (17 May).Google Scholar
  6. Poehlman v. University of Vermont, et al. (2001). No. 2:01-CV-120, Paper 1, Complaint, pp. 1 and 6 (D. Vt. 16 Apr).Google Scholar
  7. Poehlman v. University of Vermont, et al. (2005a). No. 2:01-CV-120, Paper 34, reply memorandum of United States, Exhibit 1 (Transcript) pp. 47 (D. Vt. 23 Nov).Google Scholar
  8. Poehlman v. University of Vermont, et al. (2005b). No. 2:01-CV-120, Paper 34, reply memorandum of United States, Exhibit 1 (Transcript) pp. 54 (D. Vt. 23 Nov).Google Scholar
  9. United States Code (USC). (2009). Title18, Sections (§§) 287, 1001, 1341, 1343, 1347, 3729, 3730.Google Scholar
  10. United States v. Poehlman. (2005). No. 2:05-CV-66, Paper 2, settlement agreement and stipulation and order for entry of judgment (D. Vt. 21 Mar).Google Scholar
  11. United States v. Poehlman. (2006a). No. 2:05-CR-38-01, Paper 26, judgment in a criminal case (D. Vt. 30 June).Google Scholar
  12. United States v. Poehlman. (2006b). No. 2:05-CR-38-01, Paper 20, sentencing memorandum by Eric T. Poehlman, pp. 17–19 (D. Vt. 21 June).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Attorney at LawBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations