What is Recklessness in Scientific Research? The Frank Sauer Case
Open accessAbstract
On May 22, 2017, administrative law Judge Leslie Rogall of the Department of Health and Human Services' Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, ruled in favor of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) concerning its decision to charge former University of California at Riverside biochemistry professor Frank Sauer with research misconduct for fabricating or falsifying digital image data included in three papers and seven grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health. More specifically, Sauer was deemed responsible for manipulating, reusing, and falsely labeling images of autoradiograms and gels in his research in epigenetics. One month after this decision, ORI announced its final ruling concerning Sauer, which barred him from serving in any advisory capacity to the Public Health Services and required him to retract affected papers. The case raises some interesting and important questions concerning research integrity because it focused on the legal issue of what constitutes recklessness in scientific research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The use of computer software to analyze large sets of complex data has challenged traditional views about norms related to hypothesis testing.
“The use of computer software to analyze large sets of complex data has challenged traditional views about norms related to hypothesis testing [193, 194].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [194]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
1 retracted
Noncoding RNAs of Trithorax Response Elements Recruit Drosophila Ash1 to Ultrabithorax
Sánchez-Elsner, T., Gou, D., Kremmer, E., & Sauer, F. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1117705 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
RetractedResponsible Conduct of Research
Michalos, A. C. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_103560 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on Two Decades of Debate about Scientific Misconduct
Resnik, D. B. (2003) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620300508 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Self-citationConfronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished?
Steneck, N. H. (1999) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-999-0005-x · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Data audit: Its place in auditing
Loeb, S. E., & Shamoo, A. E. (1989) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989628908573771 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud
Bonetta, L. P. (2006) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.032 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Collins' student sanctioned over ‘most severe’ case of fraud
Dalton, R. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/40933 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register 65(235): 76260– 76264.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Resnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
“The use of computer software to analyze large sets of complex data has challenged traditional views about norms related to hypothesis testing [193, 194].”
Self-citationResnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2026) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2026.2645390 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“A federal judge reviewing Sauer’s appeal of the case said that publishing fabricated and falsified images in this fashion amounted to reckless behavior because it showed indifference to the truth (Resnik et al. 2017).”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Resnik, D. B., Smith, E. M., Chen, S. H., & Goller, C.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Resnik, David B.
- Venue
- Accountability in Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-11-06
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 497-502
- ISSN
- 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-5815
- PMC
- PMC6141194
- OpenAlex
- W2767873320
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ZIAES102646-08)
- Fonds de Recherche du Québec en Santé (00000)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- research misconduct, research integrity, recklessness, Office of Research Integrity, image editing, data fabrication, falsification, epigenetics, NIH grant applications, retraction
- MeSH terms
- Research Support as Topic, United States, Scientific Misconduct, United States Office of Research Integrity, Ethics, Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
