Research fraud case costs ISU millions in grants from NIH

Greg Zwiers

The National Institutes of Health have rescinded $1.38 million from an ISU research team after one member was accused of falsifying research.

Dong-Pyou Han resigned from the university after a report from Health and Human Services that found that he “falsified results in research to develop a vaccine against human immunodeficiency virus-1 [HIV-1] by intentionally spiking samples of rabbit sera with antibodies to provide the desired results.”

Han said he was “very ashamed” of his conduct and “foolish” in a letter sent to Charlotte Bronson, vice president for research, in a letter written in late September.

Han resigned in October 2013 and was indicted in June by a federal grand jury on charges relating to the research fraud.

University spokesman John McCarroll said the university expected that the last of the grant money would be rescinded and that it was not a surprise to the university.

Iowa State has agreed to pay back the $496,832.17 to the NIH. That sum includes the direct expenses of Han’s salary and benefits as well as indirect expenses that the grant covered related to his research, McCarroll said. 

McCarroll said the direct cost is roughly $335,000 and the indirect cost is about $161,000.

“We have repaid most of the direct cost through money provided at the ISU research foundation,” McCarroll said.

The ISU research foundation collects royalty money from patents that the university owns. The indirect costs are coming out of the accounts of university units who were reimbursed by the grant money given for Han’s research, McCarroll said.

McCarroll said the NIH requested the $496,832.17 a few months ago. 

The university research team was initially awarded millions of dollars in grant money, largely related to the promising results of Han’s research before he was accused of fraud.

The NIH was asked for confirmation of the initial award, the amount of rescinded grant money and the money that Iowa State University is paying back to the NIH. As of publication, the NIH had not responded.