A former University of Vermont College of Medicine professor was ordered Wednesday to serve a year and a day in federal prison for using false data to obtain federal research grants.An official with the National Institutes of Health said Poehlman's case marked the first time a researcher would serve time in prison for falsifying data to obtain federal grants.
Judge William Sessions III imposed the sentence despite Poehlman's plea in a letter to the court that he not be required to serve jail time, and his statement in court Wednesday that he was "someone who has changed. I'm not a professor. I realize that door has closed."
Poehlman, a specialist in exercise physiology, changed and made up research in applications and papers on the effect of menopause on women's metabolism, the impact of aging on older men and women, the impact of hormone replacement therapy on obesity in post-menopausal women, the study of metabolism in Alzheimer's patients and the effect of endurance training on metabolism.
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.
| Pleaded? what's wrong with 'pled' ??? |
| That is so-o-o-o-o-o true ... |
Rockey said Poehlman is only the second academic researcher charged with a federal crime for falsifying research results to get a federal grant. She said the first was a University of Pittsburgh professor who was convicted in 1988 but did not serve time in jail.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Kelley told the court, "This is part of a new era when people are taking this kind of conduct more seriously."
Sessions said before imposing the sentence: "I generally think deterrence is significant, perhaps more so in this case. The scientific community may be watching." Sessions told Poehlman he had "violated the public trust."
| Yup, and you can bet the scientific community will hear about it, especially since the NIH will make sure they hear. |
| Preliminary studies are what you present in your grant application; they demonstrate that 1) you can do the work you propose to do and 2) your ideas have a good chance of being correct. I'm an NIH grant reviewer, and the preliminary studies section of your grant is one of the most important parts of the entire application. If your preliminary data suck, your grant is DOA. |
Poehlman will be permanently barred from getting more federal research grants, and was ordered to write letters of retraction and correction to several scientific journals.
| Which is another problem, because the journals are inconsistent in how they handle these retractions. Plus, Poehlman had numerous co-authors, and the question becomes, did they know his data were falsified? Expect them to be under the microscope at their respective institutions. |