An Ohio State University official said they have taken no action with the CONCEPT grant controversy despite employing one of the math professors cited in several investigative reports.

Earle Holland, assistant vice president of Research Communications at OSU, said the university will not consider the case resolved until the National Science Foundation issues its final report.

In August 2008, an investigative committee formed by Central Michigan University concluded plagiarism occurred in an NSF grant proposal, as well as course materials produced from the research. CMU math professor Douglas Lapp was named in the report regarding the grant proposal, as was Azita Manouchehri, a former CMU professor who now teaches at OSU.

The CMU Board of Trustees approved returning $619,489 of the $770,119 in grant money to the NSF because of the committee’s findings.

Manouchehri could not be reached for comment.

The committee’s findings does not mean OSU considers the investigation to be over with, Holland said.

“The only connection that we might have is that this individual is on our campus,” he said. “The end of the process would be an NSF report.”

Maria Zacharias, a public affairs specialist for the NSF, said she is unaware of such a process for this case.

“There are no plans to issue a final report,” she said.

Careless, not reckless

OSU was notified by Interim Provost Gary Shapiro of the allegations against Manouchehri in December 2007. The math professor accepted a position at OSU earlier that summer. Holland confirmed the university received the letter and was made aware of the situation.

It was determined in the final report by the CMU investigative committee that Manouchehri had an established pattern of “careless” work.

Holland cited carelessness, also termed by the NSF as negligence, is not as severe of a violation as recklessness, which the NSF considers to be research misconduct.

“It is not scientific misconduct if the person is merely careless,” he said.

The committee found Manouchehri had shown negligence when it came to the course materials she plagiarized, according to the documents.

However, the documents also stated recklessness was displayed on the part of the individual who inserted plagiarized material into the grant proposal.

Involvement

The exact level of each professor’s involvement in the writing of the grant proposal is unclear, according to the committee’s findings.

Two people testified to the committee that the grant proposal was written by Manouchehri, but based off of Lapp’s ideas. Another individual was told by Manouchehri that Manouchehri wrote the proposal, and another was told she wrote the majority of it. One member of the research team said the proposal was written through the combined efforts of Lapp and Manouchehri.

Lapp told Central Michigan Life Thursday he had little to do with the actual writing of the proposal, but instead reviewed it and provided his comments to Manouchehri.

OSU’s Office of Research Compliance considers plagiarism to be research misconduct and could result in appropriate sanctions based on the case’s severity, according to the university’s research misconduct policy.

Holland said he cannot comment on what action — if any — the university will eventually take regarding the case.

“We’re not going to have any comment whatsoever until there is a final report from the NSF,” he said.

E-mail the author: Jake Bolitho