Researcher Jailed for Falsifying Research

Caldeso writes "For the first time in U.S. history, a researcher has received jail time for falsifying research data to obtain federal grants. Eric Poehlman pled guilty to defrauding the government to the tune of nearly 3 million dollars by changing and making up research and was sentenced to a year in a federal prison work camp and a lifetime ban on further federal grants."

Comments

libelous summary

[macklin01]

The slashdot summary is not only inaccurate, but libelous. By the article, he pleaded guilty to one $542,000 grant. So, he's only been found legally accountable for that amount, not the $2.9 million claimed by the prosecution:

In an agreement with prosecutors, he pleaded guilty in connection with one $542,000 grant; the government said he defrauded federal agencies out of $2.9 million.

Re:libelous summary

[Caldeso]

Actually, I'm the one who misread the article and threw in the 3 mill instead of the proper number. This one's not on the editors.

Re:Fair pay...

[freemywrld]

Its not 3 million that goes into their own pocket. While a 3 million dollar research budget is a nice chunk of change for a project, its not like it goes into the researcher's personal account or can be used for personal gain. Grant funds are closely watched as to what is charged to them. Illegitimate spending from grant money is another great way to lose funding.
Besides, after getting caught, any remaining money left in that budget would be confiscated as well. Plus, this probably means the end of his career, especially considering he'll never eligable for future grants. NOT worth it IMHO (especially as someone who has spent time as a researcher).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:why are we surprised

[Somnus]

(IANAL)

It should be noted that the power for the federal government to fund scientific research is granted under the accepted interpretation of the "general welfare" clause of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

This should be distinguished from pork, which by definition does not provide a "general" benefit.

Re:Funny thing

[physicsphairy]

To be fair, if you view the purpose of the justice system to rehabilitate, a guy who mugs a 7-11 is probably a much tougher case for that than Martha Stewart.

If you view it's purpose to offer proportionate punishment, then they should probably both do about the same time.

If you view the purpose of the justice system as merely to deter crime, then the punishment divided by the probability of getting caught should be greater than the payoff (the 'equivalence' point).

Personally, I'm a fan of rehabilitation, proportionate punishment, [i]and[/i] deterrence. In fact, the only reason I can conjur for any leniency at all is the possibility of innocent conviction. I just wanted to point out that the discrepancy in sentencing is not necessarily hyprocristy--it could simply constitute a different view on what the purpose of incarceration is.

Re:The problem with federally supported science.

[lbbros]

You have to do quite a bit:

• First of all, you need to have a solid scientific background on what you want to ask the funding for
• If you are already working on this field, you have to present your previous results, with published data
• You have to present a detailed plan of what you want to do, and the rationale for it, and possibly the deadlines for partial results
• You also have to give reasons for using the money, including salaries and equipment

Writing a *good* grant is not that easy. I don't live in the US, but I think that similar guidelines apply there.

Re:Fair pay...

[drjzzz]

That's not the way it should work on US government grants, at least those awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The government will ask for the return of money that is not spent as quickly as planned. However, the grant recipient can request an extra 1-2 years to spend the money. This "no cost extension" is usually allowed if the money can be well spent in attaining the aims of the grant.

Re:Now for the real issue

[evilviper]

Does this apply to the CIA falsifying intelligence to secure a slice of the defence budget?

It wasn't the CIA. Cheney and Rumsfeld created an "intelligence" office in the pentagon to produce the answers they wanted to hear.

The CIA intelligence seems to have been fairly good, with it only being dismissed/corrupted when it got to the highest levels.

Cheney wanted information that linked Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein

But they weren't getting that information from the CIA. And so he put pressure, I think, on Rumsfeld and on the Pentagon to come up with their own estimates.

Inside the Pentagon bureaucracy, Rumsfeld could easily and quietly grow a nearly invisible operation.

They needed an office that would produce the intelligence that the CIA wouldn't produce. Rumsfeld said, "I can solve your problem," and he put Douglas Feith on that issue.

So they're going to do their own analysis. They're going to show what the CIA's been missing all along about the true relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda.

They needed people with experience in the world of intelligence, but they hired politically connected policy analysts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/e tc/script.html

NIH has too much money

[Anonymous Coward]

As a researcher in another field, I'm appalled at how freely NIH spends its enormous research budget. When I saw the headline I immediately (and correctly) guessed that NIH was the agency that had been duped. I've seen people cross over from my field to anything vaguely "health" related and get grants many times larger, and with little oversight. While not committing fraud, they got quite a bit more money than they really needed. The NIH budget has doubled from $13.7B to $28.7B in the last seven years, and it seems they cannot spend the money fast enough. In comparison, DARPA's budget is $3.3B, and due to much better oversight, I feel they get much more return on their investment.

Re:AHEM, GLOBAL WARMING ANYONE!!!

[argoff]

You idiot, nearly every single climate researcher believes that global warming is accelerating at a rate unprecedented in the history of our species....

You are proving that you are the idiot by showing at the very least that you are ignorant about anything else. Like this petition signed by 17000 scientists saying global warming research is a fraud. http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm. Of course, I'm sure you will find a way to blow that off too, don't let the facts get in the way of your TV science now.....