paper help# Chemistry - 化学
b*d
1 楼
nature上专门讨论了。里面提了一个University of Central Florida教授,同时被Air force, NSF, DARPA资助被发
现。后来被NSF禁止两年内申请钱。
http://www.nature.com/news/duplicate-grant-case-puts-funders-un
he recent charges were brought against Craig Grimes, who until 2010 was a
professor of electrical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. Last
month, he pleaded guilty to charges that included accepting grants from the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to
fund the same research on solar conversion of carbon dioxide into
hydrocarbons. “It is not a problem to apply for funds for the same research
at different funding agencies, but it is illegal to accept and use the
funding,” says Christine Boesz, a former inspector-general for the NSF.
Such duplicate funding is banned in many leading scientific nations. Boesz
says that there is no way of knowing how prevalent the problem is, but that
cases tend to come to light only if peer reviewers spot similarities in
grant applications.
Grimes raised money for his research on carbon dioxide conversion through a
2009 NSF grant, and went on to accept a second grant later in the year from
the DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), while claiming
that he had no other source of funding. Lisa Powers, a spokeswoman for his
former university, says that university administrators did question Grimes
about having two grants that sounded very similar, but that he assured them
there was no overlap. Yet in a 2010 paper (S. C. Roy et al. ACS Nano 4,1259
–1278; 2010) he openly acknowledged both the NSF and ARPA-E for supporting
the same work. That year, the DOE inspector- general spotted the similarity
between the grants, the NSF began its investigation, and Grimes resigned his
university position.
The charges against Grimes also include misappropriating National Institutes
of Health funds intended to test a blood sensor in newborn babies. “Due to
the pending criminal case, Dr Grimes has no comment other than to say that
he is dedicated to his scientific research and is hopeful that he will be
able to continue to make progress in his work,” says Grimes’s attorney,
Tina Miller of Farrell & Reisinger in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
For example, the discovery of duplicated text triggered a 2010 inquiry into
electrical engineer Guifang Li of the University of Central Florida in
Orlando, who was accused of plagiarizing material from another research
group’s paper in his grant proposal to the US Air Force. Air Force and NSF
investigations subsequently revealed that duplicate text had appeared in
successful applications submitted to the Air Force, the Pentagon’s research
agency DARPA and the NSF. Concluding that this was a case of duplicate
funding for the same work, the NSF barred Li from applying for federal
funding for two years. It referred his case to the US Department of Justice,
which did not prosecute because of the low amounts of money involved, and
because there was no proof that Li had criminal intent.
Li says that he disagrees with the NSF’s assessment of the case and its
conclusion that he broke the rules. Although he submitted partly identical
grant proposals to save time, he says, other parts of the proposals differed
and would have led to different research projects. But he adds that he is
trying to put the episode behind him, and is continuing with his research
career.
“It was a unique situation in which everyone wanted to fund” the work, he
says. “Basically, I had an idea that everybody loved, and that’s the sad
part of it.”
现。后来被NSF禁止两年内申请钱。
http://www.nature.com/news/duplicate-grant-case-puts-funders-un
he recent charges were brought against Craig Grimes, who until 2010 was a
professor of electrical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. Last
month, he pleaded guilty to charges that included accepting grants from the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to
fund the same research on solar conversion of carbon dioxide into
hydrocarbons. “It is not a problem to apply for funds for the same research
at different funding agencies, but it is illegal to accept and use the
funding,” says Christine Boesz, a former inspector-general for the NSF.
Such duplicate funding is banned in many leading scientific nations. Boesz
says that there is no way of knowing how prevalent the problem is, but that
cases tend to come to light only if peer reviewers spot similarities in
grant applications.
Grimes raised money for his research on carbon dioxide conversion through a
2009 NSF grant, and went on to accept a second grant later in the year from
the DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), while claiming
that he had no other source of funding. Lisa Powers, a spokeswoman for his
former university, says that university administrators did question Grimes
about having two grants that sounded very similar, but that he assured them
there was no overlap. Yet in a 2010 paper (S. C. Roy et al. ACS Nano 4,1259
–1278; 2010) he openly acknowledged both the NSF and ARPA-E for supporting
the same work. That year, the DOE inspector- general spotted the similarity
between the grants, the NSF began its investigation, and Grimes resigned his
university position.
The charges against Grimes also include misappropriating National Institutes
of Health funds intended to test a blood sensor in newborn babies. “Due to
the pending criminal case, Dr Grimes has no comment other than to say that
he is dedicated to his scientific research and is hopeful that he will be
able to continue to make progress in his work,” says Grimes’s attorney,
Tina Miller of Farrell & Reisinger in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
For example, the discovery of duplicated text triggered a 2010 inquiry into
electrical engineer Guifang Li of the University of Central Florida in
Orlando, who was accused of plagiarizing material from another research
group’s paper in his grant proposal to the US Air Force. Air Force and NSF
investigations subsequently revealed that duplicate text had appeared in
successful applications submitted to the Air Force, the Pentagon’s research
agency DARPA and the NSF. Concluding that this was a case of duplicate
funding for the same work, the NSF barred Li from applying for federal
funding for two years. It referred his case to the US Department of Justice,
which did not prosecute because of the low amounts of money involved, and
because there was no proof that Li had criminal intent.
Li says that he disagrees with the NSF’s assessment of the case and its
conclusion that he broke the rules. Although he submitted partly identical
grant proposals to save time, he says, other parts of the proposals differed
and would have led to different research projects. But he adds that he is
trying to put the episode behind him, and is continuing with his research
career.
“It was a unique situation in which everyone wanted to fund” the work, he
says. “Basically, I had an idea that everybody loved, and that’s the sad
part of it.”