Scientific Misconduct Web-site: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct
A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR)
Part I
Valerian Texeira.
This is my reporting in good faith about a major “Scientific/Research Misconduct” carried out by the world’s leading health institutions, particularly the WHO and the USDHHS in regard to their health promulgations publications or on the matters of ‘alcohol (substance) dependence’. Its ‘legacy’ can be seen clearly in their textbook science literatures (ICD-10 and DSM-IV among others). However, the roots of this scientific misconduct (falsification) are so widespread and EMBEDDED deeply in most of the research reports dealing with “alcohol” use disorders, dependence, alcoholism problems that gets published in the peer-reviewed journals ‘inherits’ this basic research falsification (omission) more or less! Therefore it is not fair to single out only the two above-mentioned health institutions and the two books. They may have borrowed it mainly from those journals and they in turn accepted it from the research scientists working in the prestigious Universities/Colleges, academic institutions, which in turn employed in their students education that once again goes back into the new alcohol research pool. It all seems to be going round into a vicious circle. However, it is mainly in the Textbook Science and its related alcohol research literatures of these two (WHO and USDHHS) institutions’ promulgations that the EVIDENCE of this research misconduct appears more “pronounced” that I mainly deal in this first part.
The principle Textbook Science literature that I am alleging here can be found in the above-mentioned institutions endorsed promoted, sponsored alcohol research reports promulgations, publications, especially dealing with alcohol "Dependence". This includes the ICD-10 and DSM-IV and other such literatures, which diagnoses people as alcohol dependents. Its primary or principal symptom described as the “impaired (loss of) control”. In my deeper investigation into these alcohol research, I found that it basically contains “FALSIFICATION” in its essence when it asserts or advocates that: ‘if the alcohol “dependent” (alcoholic) people start consuming any alcoholic beverages then they do not succeed if they attempt to cut down their alcohol consumption, as the consequence not able to come out of the dependence’. (This is why “total abstinence” is said to be the only treatment recovery option for the people diagnosed with alcohol dependence.) However, so far to my search on this matter I found NO such clinical, experimental, epidemiological, survey study documentations reports in the institutions’ entire research record database to prove this principle tenet of alcohol dependence in regard to the low-alcoholic beverage consumption. This principle “OMISSION” or the negligence in this alcoholism research, or in its conduct in fact ‘seriously deviates from the practices or conducts that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting the academic research’. It can be pointed mainly as a falsification in the conduct of research, which under the principles of Ethics in Science, broadly termed as Scientific Misconduct or distinctly as the ‘research misconduct’ under the US. PHS Part 93.
Most importantly, I appealed to the leading ‘alcohol research institutions’ to scrutinize or investigate the subject matter several times to which they refused to oblige or not responded at all. Now I am challenging those authority under their own research misconduct policy to show me the fundamental “frontier science” primary, empirical epidemiological alcohol research to refute my above-mentioned scientific misconduct allegation on their “Textbook science and its related Primary, Secondary alcohol Research Literatures”. Further, I am asking them if they have any such basic clinical research (preferably, fulfilling the criterion or conditions of the “Zero Alcohol Drink- Alcohol Detoxification Clinical Therapy” {ZAD-ADCT} the treatment proposal given in my “Alcoholics Curewell” website), which nevertheless conforms to their above mentioned alcohol dependence promulgations. In that case, I will immediately withdraw this allegation with due apologies. However, if they don’t have the appropriate clinical empirical research evidence or data, then they should conduct an immediate inquiry and a thorough investigation into this matter. Most importantly to prevent any further harm damage to the public health also to protect the reputations and avoid all the unnecessary misunderstanding, defamation, hurt on all the sides.
If the authorities do not have the above-mentioned alcohol research evidence (as I found it out) then my findings confirm to be true. This will raise several fundamental questions on alcoholism. First of all, does alcohol in the drink really or to what extent trigger the “impaired (loss of) control” symptom or episode in the people who have been diagnosed so far as having alcohol dependence? Or, is it primarily due to the dangerously high alcohol content of the beverages designated as the “Standard Alcohol Drinks”? This also questions the ethics or wisdom of the researchers who formulated the Controlled Alcohol Drinking Guidelines based on such a treacherous “standard alcohol drinks”. Did they follow the safety standards, precautions to include the low-alcohol content beverage in their moderate, safe controlled drinking stipulations in order to safeguard or protect the people who are prone to alcohol use disorders, especially its dependence? Did they consult the low-alcohol content beverage licensing legislatures benchmarks before formulating these alcohol drink standards? If not, what is the reason for not following these responsible conduct in this research? This also brings into question the alcohol policy makers’ ethical responsibility in allowing such a high alcohol content standard alcohol drink public consumption without conducting proper research to find out, if choosing (opting) between the high or low alcohol drinks make any fundamental difference in causing or preventing the alcohol use disorders particularly its dependence or the alcoholism problems among the alcohol drinking population? Finally a basic question: does the alcoholism problems and the mayhem it creates (at least a significant portion of it) in our world happen mainly because of the falsification in these health institutions’ century-old “alcoholism” Textbook Science and its related Secondary, Primary Research Literatures Falsification? My biggest concern, fear or the nightmare of this entire matter is; as a result of this basic alcohol research omission, hundreds of millions of alcohol afflicted people in the world today continue to suffer immensely, million of them die years after years, its economic cost or the burden to the worlds nations may be accounted in trillions of dollars (not to mention those billions of dollars spent on the alcohol research). Anyhow, there is a urgent need for an extensive and comprehensive experimental/clinical research to find out the outcome of the low-alcohol drinking in the prevention and treatment of alcoholism, which the concerned institutions seems to have ignored or failed to take up so far.
My quest started in the year1998 when I first discovered that by opting to drink the low-alcohol drink, successfully removed my fast 15 years of chronic alcohol dependence, which I later named as the Zero Alcohol Drink (ZAD) method. From there began my mission to share the information of my findings, experience with the people concerned also to study and to know more on this subject matter. Thereafter in the year 2000 I was able to publish its book titled: “A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: THE ZERO ALCOHOL DRINK THEORY”. It is in the year 2003, ‘Alcoholics Curewell’ website: <http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell > was hosted. In the year 2004 and 2005 two of my most important alcohol research papers that far, added and still available in that site. However, my great “break-through” finding of this alcohol research misconduct by the leading alcohol institutions came in the year 2006. First I conceived it as the “Medical Malpractice”, (I have brought out a paper in this title name earlier) then it is somewhere middle in the month July as a result of my continued study, inquiry, investigation on this matter I learned that the “SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT” or the Research Misconduct is the appropriate term to use in this contest so that it may get the proper attention of the people and the authorities concerned.
Finally, I would like to conclude this SM Allegation Report (Part I) with an IMPPORTANT clarification. My allegation of scientific misconduct involves not only the “alcohol dependence” Textbook Science literatures, it also quite naturally involve all its related secondary, primary research literatures dealing with the alcohol use disorders, abuse, dependence, disease or the alcoholism problems. Most importantly it involves all those Universities/Colleges, who use these alcoholism prevention research literatures in their education, especially the Health/Medical institutions who employ them in their research, study prevention, treatment programs. Of course the matter of its research omission becomes more pronounced in the alcohol “DEPENDENCE” research literature and that’s why I mainly name it. Nevertheless almost all the “alcohol use disorders” research literatures more or less inherit this research omission or the “falsification”. All of it requires a more thorough exposition, which I would explain in the second part of this report coming next.
SMAR Part II
In the first part I promised to present a thorough exposition to show how this Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation “going to apply” more or less to all those Institutions, Journals, University/Colleges involved in the education research, prevention and treatments of the “alcohol” use disorders, abuse, dependence, diseases, or the alcoholism problems. Here under the Principles of Ethics in Science, I delve into the part II of this : “A Major Scientific Misconduct allegation Report”.
First of all let me begin it with an analogy, which may help us to understand this issue better from a different perspective. Take for instance the substance TOBACCO; its “Use” causes major health problems among the world population. People are constantly warned that all Tobacco smoking i.e. Cigarettes, Cigars, Beedies (a small amount of tobacco wrapped in a dry leaf for smoking) etc., causes many health problems, chronic diseases including the lung cancer. All the Textbook Science and its related Research Literatures dealing on this matter gives basic testimony to this. Even the passive smoking proclaimed as dangerous to health.
Now just imagine a person researching on the matters of tobacco smoking and the lung cancer for some years finally finds out that all the lung cancer research reports, which had been attributed to the tobacco smoking seems to happens only to those who smoking cigarettes and the cigars. On the other hand he (or she) finds absolutely NO research reports that confirms people getting the lung cancer as a result of their Beedy (B) smoking! This coupled with some other facts gives raise to the deep suspicion that there has been a major breach or falsification in this Tobacco smoking research. Therefore in a good faith he writes and sends this SM allegation report to many of those authorities concerned in this matter, requesting them to initiate, undertake an enquiry and investigation into it.
Now what would happen if there appears such a SM allegation, questioning the fundamental link between the Beedi smoking and the lung cancer! Hundreds of those people would had immediately responded to the accuser strongly refuting his SM allegation by sending as many research references clearly showing the evidence of the Beedi smoking causing the lung cancer and so many other diseases. Some may have even invited him to the hospital to meet those thousands of patient suffering with the chronic illnesses undoubtedly caused by their B. smoking! However instead if they tell him; nobody in their institution engages in such Beedy smoking research to see whether it causes the lung cancer, therefore they are not liable to enquire or investigate into this SM allegation, then it give raise to a strong suspicion or indication that basically they do not have any research evidences to refute the SM allegation!
Now from the Tobacco analogy let me come back to my real Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR). Despite their differences Alcohol and the Tobacco share many common traits, properties and global characteristics. Moreover if their “use problems” (disorders, abuse, dependence, diseases) research gets involved in the research falsification (omission, absence, negligence) or the scientific misconduct allegation then their comparison becomes strikingly similar. Here let me compare those major points. It is very well known that the “use” of the substance Alcohol like the Tobacco causes many major health problems in the world population. People are severely warned that alcohol drinks; liquor (spirit), wine, beer or any alcoholic beverages can cause many health problems, disorders particularly the dependence and other alcoholism problems including the chronic diseases, irrespective of the alcohol content in it high or low. All the textbook science literatures dealing on this matter gives basic testimony to this. Even those low-alcoholic beverages containing around 0.5% alcohol (v/v) clearly comes under the alcoholic beverages licensing legislations considered as potentially dangerous especially for people with alcohol dependence.
In this prevailing situation after researching for some eight years on the alcohol or alcoholism problems I finally found out that all the alcohol dependence cases happens to those who have been drinking those high alcohol content beverages sprits, wines, or beers, designated as the Standard Alcohol Drinks. The most popular among them are the ‘standard drink beer’ containing around 4.5% alcohol (v/v), which is considered to be equally (if not more) dangerous especially for those vulnerable or susceptible to alcohol use disorders or the dependence. However on the other hand there I find NO fundamental clinical, empirical research, study, survey reports of people who prefer, choose or opt to consume the low-alcohol drinks, say containing 2% or less alcohol (v/v) in it, becoming alcohol dependents. This finding coupled with some other facts gave raise in me a deep suspicion that there seems to be a major textbook science breach or falsification going-on in this field. Therefore in a good faith I wrote its allegation report and sent it to many of those first mentioned Universities, Institutions, Journals requesting them to initiate and enquiry and investigation into this SMAR.
Among those few who cared enough to respond to my first SMAR seems to say in essence that they are not liable or responsible for it in any way because it does not mentions the names of any members of their institution engage in such low-alcohol drinking research in regard to the Alcohol Use Disorders or the alcohol Dependence. Thereby, they seem to tell me that the right way for me is to find out the university or the research institution where the researcher who first conducted the empirical research establishing the clear evidence of the low-alcohol drinks causing the alcohol dependence. Now apart from it being a basic misunderstanding or misconception (knowingly or unknowingly) of this SM Allegation on their part, it is also quite impossible or a hopeless suggestion to me. Because there seems no record of the research institution, neither the researcher who first established the clear link between the low-alcohol drinking and the dependence. It may have happened long years ago, perhaps a century old. But in the given state of affairs I strongly suspects that such a concrete research clinical or epidemiological NEVER had been undertaken at all! It is possible that it may be mostly due to some preposterous prejudiced thinking or a pigment of some old generation researchers imagination or a MYTH, which some how got into the textbook science literature and now firmly established in there, thereby has corrupted, defected or breached the entire research literatures connected with alcohol or alcoholism problems! However no one now wants to take the responsibility to undertake inquiry or investigation into this matter saying: it is not their responsibility or it does not come under their jurisdiction or whatever reasons. The greatest irony of this entire matter is under the principles of “Ethics in Science” the authorities seem to learn or know only the common “research misconduct” but NOT the monstrous “scientific misconduct” that could happen in the “Textbook Science and its related Secondary, Primary research Literatures”.
Meanwhile looking deep into all these research once again it became very clear to me that this research falsification or the misconduct allegation “quite naturally” applies more or less to all those research reports literatures, documentations dealing with alcohol or alcoholism problems. Because fundamentally all those alcohol use disorders, abuse, dependence even the chronic diseases research reports, epidemiological surveys based almost exclusively on those who have been drinking the standard alcohol drinks, on the other hand there exists NO fundamental or concrete clinical, experimental, controlled study, surveys, research, reports, which suggests that people who prefer, choose or opt to drink the low-alcoholic beverages, (say containing 2% or less alcohol) becoming victims of any of the alcohol use disorders, abuse, dependence or its associated chronic diseases.
Here I anticipate that some people may try to counter my SMAR arguing; all the alcohol use disorder alcoholism problems research literatures in their essence indeed always indicates that low-alcohol drinks do not cause any such alcohol problems! In this connection they may point to the fact of “Controlled” or “Moderate” Drinking (CMD), equals to consuming the Low-Alcohol Drinks (LAD)! Now let me answer; the alcohol beverages in general have their own different properties, characteristics, identities or entities. The alcohol in the drink is perhaps a very important but not the only one important component of the beverage. In fact only a very small portion of the drink contains alcohol and the rest of it contains great many properties in qualities and quantities according to the drinkers appetite, taste and preferences. Most of the times it comes as a fully packaged finished product. It does not come in a pure form like the sugar or the salt, meant to finally mixed in those different kinds of beverages. There are many fundamental differences between consuming “less alcohol”(CMD) and consuming the Low-Alcohol Drinks. The LAD is the integral/internal part, content or the “being” of that drink. While the CMD is mainly about any alcohol-drinking environment, irrespective of the alcohol content in the drink; high or low! However the most fundamental difference between them become obvious when it comes to the diagnosis of the alcohol dependence in which the alcohol research literatures claims that the alcohol dependents (alcoholics) in general are incapable of the “Controlled or the Moderate Drinking”. However there are no such research reports, which claims that the alcohol dependents (alcoholics) incapable of the Low-Alcohol Beverage Drinking. Therefore it becomes very clear that the CMD and the LAD are fundamentally different. This is why in this Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report, I ultimately point to the alcohol dependence to show the clear distinction at the end.
This Copy last Revised and Updated. (Revised and updated 16nd June 2007)
© Copyright 2006. Valerian Texeira. All rights of this publication reserved by the author.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<, <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<, Date: - 21st December 2006. To; Ting-Kai Li, M.D
Dear Sir,
Sub:- Sending “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report ”, to which you have not sent any response so far. Hereby once again sending its combined copy now in this correspondence providing more details including some of the names of NIAAA’s research publications and the researchers coming under its purview, with a hope that you may see the importance and seriousness of this matter under the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct. 42 C.F.R. Part 93 and its related federal regulations. Intimation of A major “Conflict of Interest” present in this issue.
Along with this email attachment # 1, also sending its connected document attachment # 2., “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (Part I & II Combined). The main purpose of this (# 1) correspondence is to provide more details and to point out some of the names of those NIAAA’s research publications and the researchers to show how they come under the purview of this Major Scientific or Research Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR). However first of all let me explain the central theme this SMAR briefly in essence in the following Simple terms: -
‘The alcohol research reports, literatures in general basically asserts that “alcohol” drinking causes many health problems, disorders, diseases specially the “dependence” particularly in those people who are prone to alcoholism problems, irrespective of the alcohol content in the drink that they consume, high or low. In fact the low-alcohol drinks that come under the purview of the alcoholic beverage licensing legislation considered as equally dangerous. Even the alcoholic beverages containing around 0.5% alcohol (v/v) declared as potentially dangerous particularly for the people having the alcohol dependence. However in my research study on this matter I just found out that almost all of the above mentioned alcohol research reports, clinical, empirical, epidemiological studies, surveys etc., fundamentally seems to have conducted or based on the people consuming those high-alcohol content beverages designated as the “Standard Alcohol Drinks”. The most popular among them is the “standard beer” drink, which contains around 4.5% alcohol (v/v). Meanwhile, all these “alcohol research” seems to have totally ignore to verify or to check it out whether all these Alcohol Use Disorders(AUD), dependence, diseases, alcoholism problems, really occurs in the people who prefer, choose or opt to drink the low-alcohol drinks (say containing around 2% or less alcohol v/v). This principle “omission”, negligence or failure to conduct research on this most critical of the Alcohol (low) drinks, in my opinion brings in a basic default or “falsification” into this entire alcohol research, which under the Principles of “Ethics in Science” is defined as a Scientific or the Research Misconduct.’
I had sent this SMAR and its preceding information to you (NIAAA Director) long before in many of my correspondence including a Registered post (dated 15th July 2006) and more recently in a email attachment in two parts on 18th and 19th of October. However you have not responded to it at all, not even sent a acknowledgement receipt to it. Now I believe this amount to a possible misconduct or a blatant disregard to the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct. 42 C.F.R. Parts 93, including the “A Whistleblower's Bill of Rights, c, d, e., and other federal regulations. In this regard I am considering taking this issue to the Director of the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI). However before that this my try once again to approach you with more details hoping it may persuade you to freshly look into this matter.
Now first of all the most important thing to know about this Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report” is that, it is mainly about the Research Misconduct or Falsification in a Textbook Science and its related (Secondary and primary) Research Literatures (TBSRL). When it is uncovered it had already spreads over or infected all those Institutions/Universities who use or employ them in their education especially the researchers conducting the research connected with its subject matter. If the research misconduct in TBSRL happened recently then the number of Universities/Institutions its members, researchers and the literatures that it involves probably less. However if it had occurred long years back then it will probably implicate, involve or infects all those who are using or employing it, hundreds of Universities/Institutions, thousands of those researchers and hundreds of thousands of their research reports. As the years pass on, it becomes more and more obscure difficult to trace-back and identify the original primary, empirical research literature (root-report), which (or who) is the progenitor that had spawned all these research falsification that we see today in those TBSRL. Perhaps its original primary research is many decades even a century old therefore all its research records were lost! However the most terrifying scenario could be that such a primary research had NEVER been undertaken or conducted at all! It is possible that it may be mostly due to some preposterous prejudiced thinking or a pigment of some old generation researchers imagination or a MYTH, which some how got into the textbook science literature and now firmly established in there, thereby has corrupted, defected or breached the entire research literatures connected with alcohol or alcoholism problems! Due to all these historical probabilities associated with the TBSRL, it is not possible for me to provide the name of its original research report and the researcher(s) who first responsible for this Scientific Misconduct. It is only possible for me now to point out all those research literatures in general, which more or less INHERITED this research falsification that I see today in the institutions publications. In my SMAR (Part II) I have briefly attempted to explain it and now these extra details to draw your further attention into this matter.
Another equally important thing to know about this TBSRL as I understand is that due to the vast number (hundreds and thousands) of Institutions/Universities, researchers, and the literatures that it involved or connected with this Scientific Misconduct Allegation in some way or the other, it is almost impossible task to catch up and write down all those names in such a short SMAR. It is also infeasible because the Textbook Science and its “Secondary” Literatures mainly comes as the summary or collection of several research reports fragments put together into this central pool of the general scientific knowledge literature. In which one finds reference after reference of the research reports and its researcher names but no one of them can clearly claim its credit or responsibility as a whole. Take for example the USDHHS publication: ‘10th Special Report to the US. Congress on alcohol and Health’- Highlights from Current Research June 2000 publication. Or the NIAAA’s publications; Alcohol Alert, Pamphlets, FAQ
It is based on these TBSRL studies, the oncoming researchers submit their research grant applications to venture further into its next empirical or primary research. So if there is already a basic Research falsification in these TBSRL then it will be carried forward (inherited) into all its further research reports if they are not careful. It will go round and round into this “vicious circle” as I have mentioned it in the beginning of my SMAR (Part I) so does all those researchers come under its purview more or less. Given all these intricacies present in the TBSRL of this SMAR, I can point out (in this correspondence) only some of the names of the NIAAA’s alcohol research and the researchers conducting its primary, empirical research on the basis of this TBSRL at this latest stage.
As we all know NIAAA is the leading, perhaps the ‘Number One’ Institution in the world overseeing the alcohol or the alcoholism problems handling and conducting most of its research , study, publications, trainings, grants, funding, prevention, treatment and other programs. A most proficient way to know, study and to participate in it is through its website < http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/ >. As you enter into its home page first comes its “Publication” <http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/> section. In some of these alcohol research publications, the research falsification (omission, negligence, absence) appears more pronounced or conspicuous but in most it remains very much illusive, obscure or inconspicuous. That is why I often use the word “More or Less” when I point it out.
Now let me point out the first two of the NIAAA’s Publications; : 1). Alcohol Alert
There are a total of 8 research reports in this entire issue with the following titles and its researchers All of them more or less come under the purview of my SMAR, their names I mentions in the following:
74 Introduction to the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol Related Conditions.. Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D. and Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D.
79 The 12-Month Prevalence and Trends in DSM-IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependence: United States, 1991-1992 and 2001-2002.
Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D., Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D., Frederick S. Stinson, Ph.D., S. Patricia Chou, Ph.D., Mary C. Dufour, M.D., M.P.H., and Roger P. Pickering, M.S.
94 Comorbidity Between DSM-IV Alcohol and Specific Drug Use Disorders in the United States: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Condition. Frederick S. Stinson, Ph.D., Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D., Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D., W. June Ruan, M.A., Boji Huang, and Tulshi Saha
107. Prevalence and Co-Occurrence of Substance Use Disorders and Independent Mood and Anxiety Disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D., Frederick S. Stinson, Ph.D., Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D., S. Patricia Chou, Ph.D., Mary C. Dufour, M.D., M.P.H., Wilson Compton, M.D., Roger P. Pickering, M.S., Kenneth Kaplan
121. Co-Occurrence of 12-Month Alcohol and Drug Use Disorders and Personality Disorders in the United States: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D., Frederick S. Stinson, Ph.D., Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D., S. Patricia Chou, Ph.D., W. June Ruan, M.A., and Roger P. Pickering, M.S.
131. Recovery From DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence: United States, 2001-2002. Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D., Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D., Frederick S. Stinson, Ph.D., Patricia S. Chou, Ph.D., Boji Huang, and W. June Ruan, M.A.
143. Twelve-Month Prevalence and Changes in Driving After Drinking: United States, 1999-1992 and 2001-2002 S. Patricia Chou, Ph.D., Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D., Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D., Frederick S. Stinson, Ph.D., Tulshi Saha, and Roger P. Pickering, M.S.
152 NESARC Findings on Alcohol Abuse and Dependence. Raul Caetano, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D.
This above ‘National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions: (NESARC) Selected Findings’ is a collection of an extensive alcohol epidemiological research survey, which covers an estimated (unprecedented) 43,093 people belonging to almost every important category, criterion, variables: Age, Sex, Race, Education, Occupation, Employment, Martial status, Medical History, Nutrition etc. It goes into every main aspect of alcohol and its related conditions, AUD, abuse, dependence, drink driving, it surveys the alcohol problems form many angles; Co-morbidity, Co-occurrence Personality-Disorders and many more. Conducted between 1991-1992 and 2001-2002. In its final analysis it estimates 17.6 million Americans afflicted with the AUD’s, which includes mainly the abuse and dependence. This survey seems to takes into account every important aspect of the ‘ALCOHOL-USE’, however when it come to the fundamental topics of these afflicted peoples choice, preference or actual consumption of ‘high’ or ‘low’ alcohol drinks, the omission or absence of this category becomes very evident! It simply does not have the fundamental alcohol research survey to show how many number or percentage of people in this 17.6 million population really come under category of drinking or consuming the low-alcohol drinks (LAD). When it comes close to the matters of the “alcohol use” particularly the “alcohol drink” all these researchers immediately jump on to the question of counting on how many standard alcohol drinks (spirit, wine, beer etc.) these people were consuming per day, week month even in a year, without caring to see how many of each of these standard alcohol drinks contains the low-alcohol content AT ITS CONSUMPTION LEVELS. It is mainly because of their preposterous, prejudiced belief that; ‘all alcohol drinks in general cause the AUD, dependence or the alcoholism problems irrespective of the alcohol content in then high or low’! Therefore, they are not at all bothered to look into that subject. All their research mostly preoccupied with the various aspects different manifestations of AUD, dependence, alcoholism problems caused by the alcohol drinking so its prevention and treatment but at the same time they all simply neglect or fail to see, whether these AUD etc., alcoholism problems genuinely caused by all the alcohol drinks or it is only specific to those (standard) alcohol drinks having the alcohol content over and above a given margin or limit. Now in this connection let me ask one of its basic question to every one of the alcohol researchers in the NIAAA that I asked many of the Institutions/Universities alcohol researchers, authorities, members before: When the NIAAA’s documents, literatures, publications research reports and those researchers notify or promulgate about such "alcohol" use disorders, abuse, dependence diseases and the related problem; especially now in this “Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol Related Conditions” which 'alcohol' do they really referring to? Is it the drink or the beverages containing the high-alcohol content or the low-alcohol content? Or is it irrespective of the alcohol content in the drink high or low? Did your “Alcohol Research and Health” < http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh/ > ever bother or care to carry out these research on the Low-alcohol content beverages (which I have extensively described in my SM Report Part I & II) to find out whether any or how many of their alcohol afflicted people come under the category of drinking the low-alcohol drinks. In other words whether those alcohol drinkers who prefer, choose or opt for these 'low-alcohol drinks" equally or evidently (as well) fall into the alcohol use disorders, abuse, dependence etc., problems promulgated in your main NIAAA < http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/> Web site?
Now I am not alleging only the above mentioned research reports and its researchers as coming under the purview of my SMAR, neither do they stand at the front row of being accused of committing this research falsification. Here I can say only one thing for certain that they are Only the Tip of The Iceberg! The major portion of it remains hidden below the surface. Its big segments are the DSM-IV, AUDIT, Standard Alcohol Drink, etc., (US alcohol research is my main focal point in here), of-course the NIAAA research programs stands at its forefront.
Lastly, let me come to the “Conflict of Interest”, present in this issue. Here I am afraid to say that I suspect that this is the main reason that you (NIAAA’s Director) not responding to this SMAR. As I mentioned before, the entire alcohol research field comes under the purview of this SMAR, therefore many of these leading alcoholism authorities and its researchers obviously see it as their fundamental adversary as it basically questions their research integrity fundamental beliefs, convictions, ideas about the AUD, dependence or the alcoholism problems. Most importantly it will pose a major threat to their jobs, positions, research grants, funds and to their entire future professional career in this field. Therefore it is quite natural that majority of them do not take any interest in pursuing this SMAR. They mostly ignore, neglect and dismiss it. Probably many of them try to subversively manipulate, sabotage, suppress it. Some even go to the extent of blatantly threatening the whistleblower! (I say this based on some of my experience so far.) In this situation I strongly
suspect and afraid that it is due to the “Conflict of Interest” present in these matters that made you to totally ignore or neglect my SMAR to the extent not even sending a acknowledgement receipt.
Now finally, I would like to give the most important clarification of this entire SMAR. Even-though it basically contends that most of the alcohol/alcoholism researchers research coming under its purview, however it does not mean in any way that all those researchers are against or opposed to it. In fact I believe there are a numbers of researchers who see some very important or valid points (some have expressed it in their response) in the SMAR and they like to see a discerning, diligent fair assessment, enquiry, investigation, conducted into this entire matter. However for various reasons, as I understand, they don’t like to come forward themselves in pursuit of this matter. I also believe that there are people irrespective of their research or professional field ready to pursue this matter to find out the truth. However I assume they are very few and far in between. Here I can only try as much as I can to reach them. I am sending the copies of this correspondence to many members connected with “Research Programs” with a hope that some one there may guide me towards finding a satisfactory conclusion on this matter or at least help me in finding out the answer to my basic question on this whole issue; after-all Who are Responsible to Undertake, the Assessment, Enquiry Investigation into A Textbook Science and its Related Literatures (TBSRL) Research Falsification Scientific or Research Misconduct Allegation?
Sincerely
Valerian TexeiraAlcoholics CurewellSt. Joseph NagarMangalore - 575002 INDIA.
SMAR Whistleblower Complaint to ORI
Please Note:- Here below is the Copy of my main or primary SMAR Whistleblowers Complaint correspondence letter document to ORI Director.
-------------------------
Date : - January 2, 2007.
To,
Chris B. Pascal J.D. from the University of Maryland
Director, Office of Research Integrity
ORI Division of Policy Education
5515 Security Lane, Suite 700
Rockville, MD 20852.
cpascal@osophs.dhhs.gov
Dear Sir,
Sub:- This is a ‘Whistleblowers Complaint’, about a “blatant disregard,” or misconduct towards my good faith report of “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation ”. The responsible Universities/Institutions members to whom I send it, not even returning an initial acknowledgement response to it, most importantly the NIAAA Director T.K.Li. All of them coming under the PHS Policies on Research Misconduct. 42 C.F.R. Part 93. Requesting your ORI to undertake a discerning investigation into this Whistleblowers Complaint.
Before getting into this “Whistleblower Complaint”, let me first briefly explain its preceding “A Major Scientific or Research Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR)”, briefly in essence in the following simple terms: -
‘The alcohol research reports, literatures in general basically asserts that “alcohol” drinking causes many health problems, disorders, diseases and specially the “dependence” particularly in those people who are prone to alcoholism problems, irrespective of the alcohol content in the drink that they consume, high or low. In fact the low-alcohol drinks that come under the purview of the alcoholic beverage licensing legislation considered as equally dangerous. Even the alcoholic beverages containing around 0.5% alcohol (v/v) declared as potentially dangerous particularly for the people having the alcohol dependence. However in my research study on this matter I just found out that almost all of the above mentioned alcohol research reports, clinical, empirical studies, surveys etc., fundamentally seems to have conducted or based on the people consuming those alcoholic beverages designated as the “Standard Alcohol Drinks”. The most popular among them is the “standard beer” drink, which contains around 4.5% alcohol (v/v). Meanwhile, all these “alcohol research” seems to have totally ignore to verify or to check it out whether all these alcohol use disorders, dependence, diseases, alcoholism problems, really occurs in the people who prefer, choose or opt to drink the low-alcohol drinks (say containing around 2% or less alcohol v/v). This principle “omission”, negligence or failure to conduct research on this most critical of the Alcohol (low) drinks, in my opinion brings in a basic default or “falsification” into this entire alcohol research, which under the Principles of “Ethics in Science” is defined as a Scientific or the Research Misconduct.’
Hereby, in this email attachment (# 1) sending the copy of its full report.
Uncovering of this Major Scientific Misconduct comes as a final result of my fast 8 years of research study as a whole. Thereupon in a good faith I wrote an extensive complaint called “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report ” and send it (first in two parts) to those University/Colleges, “Institutions” (administrators, faculties or staff “members” addresses which I could reach, to bring it to the immediate notice of their institution assigned authorities in this matter.) who employ the above mentioned Textbook Science and its related secondary, primary alcohol Research Literatures substantially in their education, promulgation most importantly in their research, training etc. programs, requesting them to undertake the enquiry, investigation into this SMAR.
Now, the most important grievance that I would primarily like to bring to your notice particularly in this “Whistleblowers Complaint is that; the majority of those university/institutions members to whom I send this report simply ignore it to the extent that they don’t simply bother to send me even an initial acknowledgement response to it! This as I understand; basically violates the PHS 42 C.F.R. Part 93 policy of “responding to allegations of research misconduct” and its related regulations, guidelines laid down by national and international agencies including your Office of Research Integrity (ORI) monitoring the institutions handling or responding to the Research Misconduct Allegation. In my humble opinion, if the Institutions/University authorities don’t even “respond” first of all to a scientific/research misconduct allegation report/complaint, then the term “responding” to allegations of research misconduct” becomes absolutely meaningless if not ridicules!
In fact the National Institute of Health (NIH)
< http://catalyst.cit.nih.gov/> ‘Intramural Research Program Plicies & Proceedures for Investigating Scientific Misconduct (Finalized 5/2/01)’ section: V-C. Assessment of Allegations and/or Information; in this regard explicitly states; “4) If no Inquiry is initiated, the complainant, if known, and anyone else who became aware of the allegations, will be notified in writing.”.
Although I could not find the exact clause in the PHS CFR Part 93; that particularly directs the Institutions members to send an acknowledgement to a SMAR. However, I strongly believe it is basically “implied” in the overall PHS Policy of Responding to the Research Misconduct
Allegation. In addition I would also like to mention the 42 C.F.R Part 50. 103 (d) (13), and its conforming to the PHS Act Part 493(e) in the protection of whistleblower for (1) ‘good faith allegations of an inadequate institutional response to scientific misconduct allegation’. Further on in “A Whistleblower’s Bill of Rights” Information clause (e) it states; “Institutions have a duty to elicit and evaluate fully and objectively information about concerns raised by whistleblowers”. This probably applies more to this unique and rare cases of the research misconduct in a Textbook Science and its related secondary, primary Research Literatures (TBSRL). Most importantly when such research misconduct uncovered by a concerned lay person living in far distance. Especially in this ‘Age of Internet’ in which many research reports made available and can be accessed, thereby any “misconduct” in it can be detected, observed, studied and can be reported from a long distance even from the other part of the world, through the “world-wide-web”. In which case the most proficient way to report it or to send its complaint is through the email. In such situations in my humble opinion the Institutions members have the prime duty to send the acknowledgement receipt or the response, in return to a Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report or the Complaint.
Now let me provide some of the names of those Institutions University members who have totally ignored my SMAR as not even returning an acknowledgement response to it; against whom I would like to file this Whistleblower Complaint with you. The most prominent among them is the Director of the National Institute on Alcohol and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Dr. Ting Kai Li., to whom I sent this SMAR, time and again but I see totally no response from him. The latest email correspondence I sent to him is dated 21st December 2006., which provides the extensive details of this entire matter. I am enclosing a copy of it in this email attachment # 2., I request you to consider it connected or integral part of this document so I need not repeat it all over once again.
The other institutions members that I would like to mention in here are the medical universities, colleges specially those who are involved in the alcohol research training programs but have totally ignored even to send an acknowledgement response to my SMAR, against whom I would like to file this Whistleblower Complaint with you. Only six of their names and addresses I give in the following:
Peter Monti, Ph.D., Fellowship: Research Training Program in Alcohol Treatment and , Early Intervention ResearchProfessor of Medical Science, Center for Alcohol & Addiction Studies, c/o Brown University Clinical Psychology Training ProgramBox G-BH, Providence, RI 02912., Postdoc_training@brown.edu .
Andrew J. Saxon, M.D., Fellowship: University of Washington, Addiction Psychiatry Residence Program University of Washington,
VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Addictions Treatment Center (S116ATC), 1660 South Columbian Way Seattle, WA 98,108, andrew.saxon@med.va.gov .
Peter R. Martin, M.D., Fellowship: Alcohol Substance Abuse Research , Division of Addiction Medicine, Department of PsychiatryVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, peter.martin@vanderbilt.edu .
Marie D. Cornelius, Ph.D., Fellowship: Alcohol Research Training Program Alcohol Research Training Program
Program in Epidemiology Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic 3811 O'Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, mdc1@pitt.edu .
Laura F. McNicholas, M.D., Ph.D., Fellowship: Clinical Research fellowship in Substance AbuseVA Medical Center, University of Pennsylvania, 3900 Chestnut, St. Philadelphia, PA 19104
obrien@mail.trc.upenn.edu
Jack H. Mendelson, M.D., Fellowship: Drug Abuse Research Training Program, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research CenterMcLean Hospital, 115 Mill Street., Belmont, MA 02178, jmendel@mclean.org .
On the other hand, I should also inform you that quite a few number of these institutions authorities members indeed replied in response to my SMAR with some kind words. However to my dismay so far to my knowledge I see any one of them care much to follow any of the ‘fair or adequate procedure’ promised under the general principle policy while Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation laid down in the PHS CFR Part 93. However for the time being I do not want to connect that issue with this Whistleblowers Complaint. Here I only charge against those who have not even send an acknowledgement receipt in response to my SMAR. Nevertheless in the future I may be sending a separate Whistleblowers Complaint about the institutions unfair procedure towards this Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation. However quite the other way round, I would like to also inform you that a very prestigious health magazine named ‘Health Action’ considered my SMAR very important that it had already published its two parts in its November and December Issues. If you like to know any more details on this regard, please let me know.
Finally in this “Whistleblowers Complaint”; hereby I request you to undertake a fair, diligent or discerning inquiry on those above mentioned institutions authorities who have not even sent an acknowledgement response to my “A Major Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation Report”, under the PHS 42 C.F.R. Part 93 policy of Responding to allegations of research misconduct” and its other connected federal regulations mainly the “Whistleblower’s Bill of Rights”.
Sincerely
Valerian TexeiraAlcoholics CurewellSt. Joseph NagarMangalore - 575002 INDIA.http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Please Note:- Here below is the Copy of my another email letter sent at the same time as the above letter to the ORI Director, at his AskORI@hhs.gov email address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:26 PM
To,
Chris B. Pascal J.D. from the University of Maryland
Director, Office of Research Integrity
1101Wootton Parkway, Suit 750
Rockville, Maryland 20852
AskORI@hhs.gov
Sub:- Re Scientific misconduct allegation 3606.
This is the first time I am writing to the name and address of "AskORI" and to the Director of Office of Research Integrity. regarding a whistleblowers complaint connected with a Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation report.
However on the 29th of December 2006 I received a email from m/s Tracy Morgan telling me it was in response to my AskORI email of December 21. It was attached with a letter from: Director Division of Investigative Oversight, Office of Research Integrity. I was quite shocked to see a letter from the office of which main Director I am intending (yet) to write a serious complaint but suddenly I receive a preemptive and forestalling letter telling me it is in response to my earlier letter to a particular name or address to which I never wrote at all. The letter contained many other discrepancies that makes me not to except it if possible . In this email attachment I am sending my reply to it with its copy so that you will know my objection in accepting it.
Since the beginning of the month December 2006 (and earlier) I had written to many "Ethics in Science" Concerns, sending them my "A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report" requesting their opinion mainly about a "Textbook Science and its related secondary and primary research literatures". I had also sent one such email correspondence to The Editor of ORI newsletter, which is quite different from the matter that I wanted to write to the Director on the main issue. Once again I am really shocked and anguished about the uninvited, adverse email letter on some ill-conceived pretext from a Director in your office, telling me it is in response to my correspondence to such and such name, which was not true.
I am afraid that it may be an attempt, trying to crush my earnest struggle to know the truth and justice on a serious public health matters of a grave scientific/research misconduct. In this regard I strongly believe hundreds of millions of people immensely suffer, thousands among them die, billions of dollars of public money lost as the consequence of this major alcohol or the alcoholism textbook science and its related literatures research "omission" or the falsification if it is true, (visit
Finally, the first and the foremost thing that I wanted to write to the Director ORI, is about my 'Whistleblower Complaint', I am sending it in another separate email correspondence to your other email address
Sincerely,
Valerian TexeiraAlcoholics Curewell
St. Joseph NagarMangalore - 575002 INDIA.http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell
To Whomever it may Concern: This correspondence involves a serious subject matters of "A Major Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation Report". Any of its reasonable, lawful disclosure, reporting requirements or any intimidation or adverse response to it overrides any of its senders Confidentiality Statement.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is document in a Microsoft Word format.
Tracy Morgan
From: Morgan, Tracy S (HHS/OPHS) Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:07 PMTo: 'vtexeira@sancharnet.in'Subject: Scientific misconduct allegations 3606
Dear Mr. Texeria,
The attached document is in response to your AskORI email of December 21.
Thank You,
Tracy Morgan
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Public Health and Science
Office of Research Integrity
1101 Wootton Pkwy, suite 750
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Tel: 240-453-8800
Fax: 301-594-0043
Website: http://ori.dhhs.gov
CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE
December 28, 2006
Mr. Valerian Texeira
Alcoholics Curewell
St. Joseph Nagar
Mangalore - 575002 INDIA
Email: vtexeira@sacharnet.in
Re: DIO 3606
Dear Mr. Texeira:
This is to acknowledge your email of December 21, 2006 to The Office of Research Integrity (ORI). ORI has authority only in matters of scientific misconduct as defined below.
Under the Public Health Service (PHS) regulations at 42 CFR Part 93, "research misconduct" means "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. To establish ORI jurisdiction, we must determine that: (1) an allegation of possible misconduct meets the definition of possible research misconduct above, and (2) that the allegation is related to PHS support or an application for PHS support.
I am sorry but your concerns do not fall under ORI’s jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
John E. Dahlberg
John E. Dahlberg, Ph.D.
Director
Division of Investigative Oversight
Office of Research Integrity
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>
SMAR Whistleblowers Complaint (First Part)
Total Disregard Irresponsiveness
Towards A Scientific Misconduct Allegation
Introduction:
Following “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR) here comes my “FIRST Whistleblowers complaint” (WBC) document. It is about the leading alcohol research institutions authorities total disregard or “Irresponsiveness”, most importantly by the NIAAA Director, towards my SMAR made in my good faith. I have its extended part in a “second” WBC, in the next chapter of this document. In this first part I refer to many of those PHS policy regulations which are also equally important in understanding the second WBC , although these two remain quite separate in contrast. On that account I point this as my “first” whistleblowers complaint.
Compliance to The PHS Policy:
In my humble opinion based on my study on this subject, the matter of “Scientific or Research Misconduct” has been considered as a heinous offence to the adherence of science, especially by the people, authorities who are very much concerned about the ‘ethics in science’ or the integrity of its research or its responsible conduct. Therefore the US Public Health Service (PHS) Policy of “Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation,” in general commands every institutions, which comes under its jurisdiction to publish and to comply with certain basic research misconduct policies (generally made available in their website) laid down by its designated authorities to effectively prevent, and discourage and to diligently deal with any possible research misconduct that may occur in their institution.
Assurance of A Fair & Adequate Assessment of the Allegation:
The main procedural part of the PHS research misconduct policy starts with the allegation “assessment” procedure. People usually don’t come forward to report a scientific/research misconduct generally if they first of all fear the authorizes noncompliance of this policy or if they see no hope of getting a fair response or hearing to their complaint even at its beginning stage itself. The apprehension of bias, discrimination or the adverse action (retaliation) further discourage the complainants or the whistleblowers especially in such a public interest cases where keeping silence will save them their time, money, unnecessary troubles and the suffering from its emotional distress. Therefore, to prevent this the PHS research misconduct policy, provides many assurances of institutional compliances in so many words. In essence it promises a diligent, fair and adequate response to a scientific/research misconduct allegation made in a good faith. The PHS General Responsibilities for Compliance Sec. 93.300 (b) and the Institutional policy procedure ‘Sec. 93.304 ’ clearly states (b) A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to allegations of research misconduct consistent with and within the time limits of this part. In this regard the NIH Extramural Research <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/emprograms/overview/integsci.htm> about implementing this responsibility quotes the: ‘42 CFR Part 50, Subpart A’, which says; “institutions are to establish an administrative process to handle such allegation in an expeditious, objective, thorough and competent manner”. Now most importantly the PHS 93.223 in its definition of the “research misconduct proceeding” clearly includes the allegation “assessment” along with the enquiry and investigation. In this regard NIH Guide ( its reference given in the latter sections) clearly states that the institutions required to give (send) a prompt response or acknowledgement in return to the complaint. If they don’t, then it obviously becomes a “violation of due process in handling complaints of misconduct in science” <http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/contents/misconduct.html> that can be treated as a adverse action under the PHS Sec. 93.226. Because, such total irresponsiveness, negligence in the form of not sending a written acknowledgement (violation of due process) towards a consistent SMAR could be due to many reasons like bias, contempt and in this case I suspect it is mainly due to the “Conflict of Interest”. Whatever may be the reason nevertheless in my humble opinion they all are totally bad for the Ethics in Science, integrity of research and to its responsible conduct to say the least.
2006 Uncovering and Reporting A Major Scientific Misconduct:
Now let me start with the main facts that led to this whistleblowers complaint. Last year (2006) I uncovered what I honestly believe is, a major “scientific misconduct” (falsification) in the field of alcohol research. Due to its occurrence in the basic “Textbook science” and its related secondary and primary research literatures, it mainly involves or implicates all those (numbers of) leading alcohol research institutions universities and those researchers in quite a large numbers. Although I knew it is a mammoth task and a heavy burden for a lay-person like me to pursue it, nevertheless in a ‘good faith’ I wrote its extensive complaint titled “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report” (SMAR) containing two parts, explaining in details many of its different aspect, fundamental points, basic facts, of this huge public health research misconduct and send it to the Universities/Institutions most importantly to the NIAAA to its present Director Dr. T. K Li., and number of those other university members authorities who I sincerely believe involved in this perhaps the major scientific/research misconduct of the century.
NIAAA Directors Total Irresponsiveness to My SMAR:
However to my total dismay, majority of those university/institutions members most importantly the NIAAA Director to whom I send my SMAR and its connected documents simply ignore it to the extent that they don’t bother to send me even an initial acknowledgement response to it! This in my opinion amount to a reckless disregard, “violation of due process” or a “misconduct” on the part of these institutions authorities towards a SMAR. Because, according to my knowledge and study of the PHS scientific/research misconduct policy, including the Whistleblowers Bill or Rights, commands the institutions to send an written notice or acknowledgment in response to a scientific/research misconduct allegation report in the part of its ‘allegation assessment’ regulations. In this connection I have pointed many PHS policy regulation in the above section. Further more here let me concretely point out some of those Gov. policy regulations in the next section.
PHS & NIH Guide Handling Scientific Misconduct Allegation:
The National Institute of Health (NIH)
Although I could not find the exact clause in the PHS CFR Part 93; that particularly directs the Institutions members to send an acknowledgement to a SMAR. However, I strongly believe it is basically “implied” in the overall PHS Policy of “Responding to the Research Misconduct
Allegation”. In addition I would also like to mention the 42 C.F.R Part 50. 103 (d) (13), and its conforming to the PHS Act Part 493(e) in the protection of whistleblower for (1) ‘good faith allegations of an inadequate institutional response to scientific misconduct allegation’. Further on the “Whistleblower’s Bill of Rights” (d) Procedures free from partiality: Institutions have a duty to follow procedures that are not tainted by partiality arising from personal or institutional conflict of interest or other sources of bias. Also in the Information clause (e) it states; “Institutions have a duty to elicit and evaluate fully and objectively information about concerns raised by whistleblowers”. This probably applies more to these unique and rare cases of the research misconduct in a Textbook Science and its related secondary, primary Research Literatures.
No Response from ORI Director to My Whistleblowers Complaint So Far:
Following the total disregard or ‘Irresponsiveness’ of the NIAAA’s Director and the other alcohol research institutions authorities toward my SMAR, I wrote a Whistleblowers Complaint furnishing the details in regard to this issue and send it to mainly to the ORI Director Chris B. Pascal J.D. I actually sent him two different complaints to his two different email address. (<AskORI@hhs.gov> & <cpascal@osophs.dhhs.gov> ) First about a preemptive forestalling letter that I earlier received from a member of his office and the second one is my whistleblower complaint about the NIAAA Directors irresponsiveness towards my SMAR. However so far I haven’t received the response letter from the ORI Director. In this email attachment I am enclosing some of my important letter correspondence documents to NIAAA Director and to the ORI Director.
I have also send my whistleblowers complaint to the the NIH Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer (AIRIO). To which I received a very kind response from Dr. Joan P. Schwartz, who finally told me to write to the ORI Director. But to say it once again so far I have received no response from the ORI Director in this regard and I don’t know whether to expect it any more or not.
Formidable Conflict of Interest:
If my SMAR ever proven to be right or true then all these leading alcohol institutions more or less stand (advertently or inadvertently) guilty of allowing to continue such a major research misconduct or at least of being negligent in this entire alcohol research matter. I believe this creates such a formidable Conflict of Interest for these institutions to overcome and to remain impartial towards this SMAR. They are very predominant in this field and the most powerful among them is the NIAAA. Ironically, however these are the same institutions to whom I am sending my SMAR requesting them to undertake enquiry investigation on this complaint that basically threatens their own existence! On top of it, they all take shelter under the US. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) form which comes the top alcohol research publication: “Alcohol and Health” report to US congress, which I am very much afraid to say; basically contains ‘more or less’ the research falsification (omission, negligence, absence), described in my SMAR. Now after all we all know that the ORI is a department that comes under the USDHHS and its Director so far do not send me any response to my whistleblowers complaint. Here I am very much afraid to comment any thing further more in this matter, that I may loose even the remotest chance of getting a fair hearing in these matters.
Concluding Comments of the First WBC
At the initial stages I was quite baffled by the leading alcohol institutions total “irresponsiveness” towards my SMAR. They would have easily avoided it and remained within the compliance of the PHS policy by simply sending a acknowledgement towards the SMAR. However it is after seeing the basic discrepancies and analyzing the major flaws in the other institutions response replies that I realized that one of its main reason is that my SMAR leaves no appropriate excuses for these leading alcohol research institutions but to conduct “; “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to allegations of research misconduct…” inquiry. In this situation perhaps they may be terrified that the things may spiral out of their control if they submit it to any such impartial, diligent inquiry and if it is proven right, then all these leading alcohol institutions more or less stand (advertently or inadvertently) guilty of allowing to continue this research misconduct or at least of being negligent in this alcohol research matter and they have to face its consequences. Therefore their best thing strategy to counter it, is to absolutely not to respond to the SMAR at all because a poor lay person from India would not have the resources to fight such formidable research misconduct or the whistleblowers complaint in the US federal courts.
SMAR Whistleblowers Complaint Second Part II
NO-Thorough, Competent, Objective and Fair
Response to A Scientific Misconduct Allegation
Introduction to the Second Whistleblowers Complaint (WBC)
This second WBC is the extended part of my first WBC. Even though they both originate from my main or the principle “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR)” nevertheless they stand quite separate in contrast. While the first one points about the leading alcohol research institutions total disregard or “irresponsive” towards my SMAR but this second one points to the discrepancies or noncompliance by the institutions authorities in responding or replies to my SMAR.
Noncompliance of the PHS Sec. 93. 300 (b) & 93. 304 (b)
There are quite a number of college/universities its designated authorities (although they are not the leading alcohol research institutions) who duly send an acknowledgement or replies to my SMAR. Most of these responses were quite amiable (except a very few adverse, threatening, preemptive, forestalling) responses. However I found none of these responses followed the PHS General Responsibilities for Compliance Sec. 93.300 (b) and the Institutional policy procedure ‘Sec. 93.304 (b)’ that in its essence states; “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to allegations of research misconduct….” In this respect, all those responses that I received to my SMAR, first of all too short (two, three, sentences) to be considered as “a thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to such a major and serious SMAR, presented in two major parts which explains in details many of its different aspect, nature and the enormous extent (Textbook Science Literature that involve hundreds of institutions) and raises many serious concerns, fundamental points, basic facts --- besides, the basic discrepancies or the irregularities contained in their abrupt reply.
Reference to my first WBC Sub Title Sections
In my first WBC under its subtitles: “Assurance of A Fair & Adequate Assessment of the Allegation:” and in “PHS & NIH Guide Handling Scientific Misconduct Allegation:”
I have pointed out some of the PHS scientific/research misconduct policy regulations, which mainly requires the institutions to comply or follow diligently a thorough, objective, competent and fair procedure in responding to a scientific misconduct allegation report. The PHS policy regulations that I mentioned in these two sections given above equally applies or supports both my WBC so I would not repeat it all over again in here. However in the following I would like to show some other main PHS regulations that further describes the “Allegation Assessment” procedure that the institutions have a duty to diligently follow while responding or handling all the scientific/research misconduct allegation reports.
Allegation Assessment Procedure:
Under the PHS policy, the scientific/research misconduct allegation report has to go-through into its primary stage described as the “Allegation Assessment” to get qualified into its “enquiry” (“investigation” comes after it). However PHS provides no elaborate procedural description of this “allegation assessment” except mentioning it in its Sec. 93.102., and indicating about it in Sec. 93.307 Institutional inquiry (its more details I give in the latter section). Perhaps it is assumed that (in my opinion) at this primary stage if the designated authority follows the principles of the PHS 93.300 (b) & 304 (b) “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to allegations of research misconduct…” and other such regulation then there will not arise much ambiguity or contention (unless he/she is some what bias against or have conflict of interest and try to suppress it) in determining whether the allegation qualify for the enquiry or not at this stage. Because the main task of any of the ‘allegation assessment’ is to see simply to determine in principle whether the given allegation If (one assumes it to be) True comes under the definition of a scientific misconduct. And it is not a difficult task for a competent person to decide on such common principle grounds. In the sense if any number of such persons given to decide impartially on this matter then at least the overwhelming majority (if not all) arrive at the same conclusion and will be able to provide its thorough, competent, objective, and fair explanations of the procedure that they followed to come to this decision.
In fact the task of this Allegation Assessment considered to be quite simple (comparatively) so only a single designated person assigned to conduct it. In principle it is mainly to see “whether the allegation IF TRUE would constitute a research misconduct” there are some other criteria based on this principle (to which I will come latter in this section). What is most important to know in here is, that the PHS forbids the designated person from conducting any evaluation of the given misconduct or its evidence facts. In other words in this “allegation assessment” it is never intended (based on my study) to decide whether any of the allegation that comes before him or her, is ‘not a ‘willful’ act but a ‘honest error’ or a or a ‘difference of opinion’ or those members or authorities pointed in this allegation really involved in this given research misconduct or not. All of its preliminary decision left to be made at its enquiry stage and to confirm it in the investigation. Overall in my opinion this allegation assessment mainly intended to discourage any frivolous or a trivial research misconduct allegations that can be mostly discarded and closed with certainty at this first stage and the complainant would not contest it any further.
Now let me point out some of the institutional policy regulations that clearly mention about it.
It is in the NIH
PHS Sec. 93.307 Institutional inquiry.
However, here I should once again reiterate that the PHS policy regulations does not explicitly mention the allegation “assessment” proceedings. All it states in its Sec.93.307 Institutional inquiry is that (a) Criteria warranting an inquiry. An inquiry is warranted if the allegation--
(1) Falls within the definition of research misconduct under this part;
(2) Is within Sec. 93.102; and
(3) Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
As you see in this PHS CFR 93.307 Institutional inquiry criteria it not even mentions the name of the “assessment”. Perhaps it is not considered as a “ must”, so it is left for the individual institutions to have it or not. Therefore the most important criteria that the PHS CFR 93 emphasize only the INQUIRY. This is indeed most important in my opinion because it provides the opportunity to any of the complainant who reports a research misconduct but finds or honestly believes that the designated ‘assessment’ authority did not follow, “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response to allegations of research93.300 (b) & 304 (b) 93.300 (b) & 304 (b) misconduct…” and the Whistleblowers Bill of Rights in dealing with this allegation assessment proceedings and therefore insists that a inquiry should be conducted in this matter by the committee comprising more than three members then in my humble opinion under the circumstances the institutions have a responsibility to oblige.
Discrepancies or Violation of Due Process in the Institutions Members Replies
Now under the ‘Whistleblowers Bill of Rights’, let me reveal the actual response or the replies of the institutions designated members who had responded to my SMAR. There are around 50 of them. Most in their replies mainly saying in essence that , ‘no members of their institutions involved in the SMAR that I point out, therefore it does not come under their institutions jurisdiction’. Many of them further added that it does not appear to be a willful act therefore a ‘honest error’ or a ‘difference of opinion which does not come under the research misconduct allegation. However when I wrote them back pointing out many alcohol literatures, documents, promulgations in their website, which they employ in their alcohol education, programs, research etc., activities, which I allege containing the research falsification specially the Sec. 93.102 Applicability (b) (2) which states; “This includes any research proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, or any research record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal for PHS funds resulted in a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other form of PHS support” To which none of them replied back. All these correspondence letter documents between me and those institutions will be too long to give it in here. Therefore I am planning to provide its detailed information in my forthcoming website titled; ‘Research Misconduct’.
However a very interesting point that one observe in this reply statement is that first of all most of them does not say whether it is allegation assessment or the inquiry conclusion. Secondly their replies indicate that they are not sure whether this SMAR (If True) would falls under the definitions of the research misconduct and most importantly in this connection when they state about it is ‘not a ‘willful’ act but a ‘honest error’ or a ‘difference of opinion’ they are talking about the out-come of an inquiry or investigation which they yet to start. All these fact points to the basic discrepancies irregularities, unfair procedures or violation of due process by the institutions who had responded to my SMAR.
SMAR Gets Its Publication in Health Action
Despite the bias, negligence and the “conflict of interest” of the leading alcohol institution towards my SMAR, there are also many encouraging responses. Among them a prominent health magazine named ‘Health Action’ < http://www.chai-india.org/ > published my SMAR in two part in its November and December (2006) issue. They must have seen the importance and seriousness of this scientific misconduct allegation to place it in their health magazines “Research & Ethics” section, probably because its overflowing evidences apparently seen all over the place of alcohol research, even though it happens to be discovered by a lay person! This shows that the concerned people in the public health service who obviously not biased an do not have any of the ‘Conflict of Interest’ clearly think that my SMAR at-least come under the definition of scientific or research misconduct and at least qualifies for an inquiry. Ironically the leading alcohol research institutions authorities don’t even send a acknowledgement response to it and the other who do obviously fail to follow its due PHS research misconduct procedures in its respect.
In Concluding
In the concluding section of the first WBC I have given my short analysis of why the leading alcohol research institutions in the world remain totally silent or irresponsive towards my SMAR. To add to it here I say that I am a lay person committed to social justice most of my life, now ended up with this major scientific/research misconduct allegation report made in good faith, which at present gets added with its Whistleblowers complaint. Now from my underprivileged situation from India I simply can not legally afford to pursue this major public health research misconduct carried out by the leading alcohol research institutions and thereof its whistle blowers complaint mainly emanating from the US. In this predicament hereby I appeal to you all the people concerned, please to help me to overcome and to find truth and justice in this Public health issue.
Sincerely,
Valerian TexeiraAlcoholics CurewellSt. Joseph NagarMangalore - 575002 INDIA.http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell
Documents For A Quick Glance
The original documents of this Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR) are too long and perhaps would make a tedious blog reading for the people who are not keen in all its details. If anyone like to know the four principle or original documents of this SMAR, please visit to the website: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct. Here below are its principal Titles with its basic insight for a quick glance.
………………………………………………………………………………
Document #1
This is my reporting in good faith about a major “Scientific/Research Misconduct” carried out by the world’s leading health institutions, particularly the WHO and the USDHHS through their health promulgations, publications in regard to the matters of ‘alcohol (substance) dependence’. Its ‘legacy’ can be seen clearly in their textbook science literatures (ICD-10 and DSM-IV among others).........................................
……………………………………………………
Document #2
This is the title copy of my final correspondence(letter dated 21st December 2006)) to the NIAAA Director requesting him (time and again) to reply to my SMAR. Also most importantly pointing out the alcohol research literatures (and its researchers) in the NIAAA that I allege containing the research falsification or the misconduct.
To which the NIAAA Director (address given below) not even send and an acknowledgement, which is a blatant disregard and violation of due process in responding to a SMAR.
Ting-Kai Li, M.DDirectorNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism NIAAA5635 Fishers Lane, MSC 9304 BethesdaBethesda, MD 20892-9304. USA.
Its full Document in the Website: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct
…………………………………..
Document #3
This is the title copy of my correspondence(letter dated January 2, 2007) to the ORI Director (Address given below) to which he has not replied so far.
Chris B. Pascal J.D. from the University of Maryland
Director, Office of Research Integrity
ORI Division of Policy Education
5515 Security Lane, Suite 700
Rockville, MD 20852.
cpascal@osophs.dhhs.gov
………………………..
Document #4
Blatant Disregard Irresponsiveness Towards the SMAR
Introduction: Following “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report (SMAR) here comes my “FIRST Whistleblowers complaint” (WBC) document. It is about the leading alcohol research institutions authorities total disregard or “Irresponsiveness”, most importantly by the NIAAA Director, towards my SMAR made in my good faith. I have its extended part in a “second” WBC, in the next chapter of this document. In this first part I refer to many of those PHS policy regulations which are also equally important in understanding the second WBC , although these two remain quite separate in contrast. On that account I point this as my “first” whistleblowers complaint.
Its full Document in the Website: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct
posted by val @ 8:51 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home