san diego

A federal hearing whose outcome could have broad implications for US academic institutions began this week in Houston, Texas, about charges that a neuroscientist committed scientific misconduct.

The case has been watched closely by academic institutions, because it involves one of the most aggressive defences in the nascent history of formal misconduct inquiries: a legal attack on the accusers.

Kimon J. Angelides, who is 46, formerly of Baylor College of Medicine and now at the University of Durham in the United Kingdom, is appealing against a proposed five-year debarment by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for falsifying and fabricating research data in grant proposals and five published articles (see Nature 383, 107; 1996).

His appeal is being heard by a three-person panel during two-week proceedings, with lawyers for the government and Angelides taking testimony from and cross-examining about 25 witnesses, including Angelides himself.

The panel is to decide in June whether Angelides committed scientific misconduct — which both Baylor and the NIH's Office of Research Integrity (ORI) have previously ruled he did. Angelides was fired by Baylor in 1995 after the university concluded a lengthy investigation of the alleged misconduct between 1988 and 1992.

Angelides is suing Baylor and its officials in state court for wrongful termination, defamation and other offences. Angelides denies any misconduct, blaming any irregularities on other scientists who had worked in his laboratory studying the sodium channels of nerve cells. Angelides' civil lawsuit and misconduct allegations have been the subject of varied litigation.

Baylor unsuccessfully attempted to remove the lawsuit to federal court last year, pleading immunity from a lawsuit because it was following NIH guidelines on grant-monitoring. The US Attorney's Office in Houston conducted an inquiry into Angelides, but closed it last summer without filing any criminal charges. Now the state trial on Angelides' lawsuit is set for October.

The outcome of the federal appeal hearing is likely to have a major impact. If the government's and Baylor's findings of misconduct are upheld, Angelides may have a difficult time winning his lawsuit. If the findings of misconduct are overturned, Baylor could find huge costs awarded against it by a jury hearing the lawsuit.

A government loss in the case and damage award against Baylor could embolden other accused scientists to follow a similar litigation course, thereby undermining government fraud-prevention efforts and sending a chilling message to academic institutions.

Angelides' co-authors for the five articles in question — most of whom are from Yale University — have sought to retract all five, but only two retractions have been published so far.