1. The federal regulation pertinent to this case is 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A. This PHS rule defines scientific misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.” 42 C.F.R.§50.102
2. See 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A—“Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science.”
3. Poehlman, E.T., Toth, M.J., and Gardner, A.W. “Changes in energy balance and body composition at menopause: a controlled longitudinal study” Annals of Internal Medicine 123: 673–675, 1995: Based on information sent to the editor by UVM, the editor retracted the paper in October 2003 (Ann Intern Med. 2003 Oct 21; 139(8): 702) Dr. Poehlman responded by requesting that the retraction be withdrawn and by threatening to sue for libel but, as part of the settlement with the government, submitted a letter in 2005 that acknowledged the appropriateness of the original retraction (Ann Intern Med. 2005 May 3; 142(9): 798).
4. Letter from Thomas Mercurio, Senior Associate Counsel, UVM, to Andrew D. Manitsky, Esquire, counsel to Dr. Poehlman (April 10, 2001) (on file with ORI). See 42 C.F.R. § 103(d)(4) (mandating that institutions notify HHS of their decision to commence a scientific misconduct investigation).
5. Dr. Eric T. Poehlman v. University of Vermont and Joseph Warshaw, No. 2:01-CV-120 (D. Vt. filed April 16, 2001). On December 12, 2005, the court entered an order granting the USAO’s unopposed motion to lift seal.