An assistant professor presented his department chair with a
Howard Hughes Foundation grant proposal for her signature prior to sending it
off. The dean’s signature and those of other university offi cials were already
on the routing form. As usual, like most overworked administrators, the chair
checked the budget but did not read the grant. However, unlike many
administrators, this chair, after the grant was submitted, took the time to
read it. She became suspicious that several fi gures and tables in the grant
application had not been based on valid data. A discussion with the assistant
professor did not alleviate her concerns, and she fi led a complaint to the
university. After the university completed its investigation, the chair’s
suspicion was borne out: Several tables and fi gures had been altered to fi t
the overall hypothesis of the grant proposal. The assistant professor fi nally
admitted the falsifi cation.
• In this case, misconduct has already been determined. The
question here is whether the misconduct simply involved the actions of a “bad
apple” and was unavoidable, or whether the necessity of the university’s
investigative process could have been prevented, “bad apple” or not. If it was
avoidable, how could prevention have occurred? By individuals doing their jobs
better within a system that works, or by changing the system? For each
alternative, how could misconduct have been prevented?
• Should the university have ever investigated this problem,
given that the grant proposal is submitted to a private foundation?
Leave a Reply