experts that had a chance to consider this claim nobody found a violation of anything i said that you could continue while i'm saying  nine and two thousand and one in analyzing whether scientific misconduct occurs the definition of scientific misconduct requires an intentional act as opposed to a violation of the false claims which as we know the definition of knowingly becomes a brought more importantly what they did not have available and what makes this case so work is that there was deliberate concealment on d show that doctor of the shi'i is conducting an experiment which is completely contrary to the results that she had obtained in those experiments and which favored a result showing that there was in this case no hypoxia and supported the whole essence of the grant then i believe dr howell had an obligation of the basis of the scientific method alone let alone the policy as of the university to resolve those was he required by statute or by regulation to reveal it any point and this would have had to have been after the original application right out of the nineteen ninety nine application that was it would have had to have been in one of as an already going to reject that's an inference you're drawing but my question is again was he required by law to have revealed this difference of opinion in any of the later submission his status reports would react in the progress reports and health in each of those which are part of the record demonstrate that there is a section there is a summary of progress and which the regulations i think it's p h s to five i know obligate the primary investigator to set for technical difficulties negative results in fact that creates the duty or in fact those subsequent submissions also require that all of the participants be listed and dr hill continued to be listed each time in those days didn't she on she was listed in those i just correct and of but the obligation of those filings went to the primary investigator in that case powell and then the on that we know that by the time he was unable to replicate these results after twenty two trials and he files in two thousand and five for a continuation rant knowing that these can't be replicated he puts in the same data again now again in that instance you look to the and she would also consider she never said and i anything that says take my name off i don't i don't support this and you know that's what she was seeking to obtain not only through un d and j but through our  except given that the differences the parole we know he accepts the results reported by his associate are sorry and my question is she's the one who's bringing these complaints she says this information is either on either unsupported or on untrue and what did she do to this is associate from those publications what she did was pursue what she understood to be the policies of the university in filing a complaint of scientific misconduct seeking those very  to the editors of the barrel and say i can't support this take my name off her understanding was that this was what the policies of you wendy and jay dictated and that you following that i that that would be i thought that she testified dr hill that she was not absolutely certain that she was correct because she was unfamiliar with and had difficulty using a particular microscope  the answer to that question is he most certainly could have we're not dealing with individuals who are so starting out with their first gilbert science that he was very intelligent people but the expert testimony of what he should have known given his d he deliberately ignore all of those things by choosing a result that would favor is heating for limited research to do is do we discount the o r i report you don't totally discount it because they only focused on the two of vailable experiments they're not having any knowledge because how will concealed his inability to replicate he's never told or i never told either of the committees you know of of that different and that's the purpose of what we're saying the problem that i see and from a policy perspective is that i do not think that nor do i see anywhere in all claims of any language that excepts scientific research or hands you know from the act if that is the case that's a very dangerous you know president given that especially of this grant issues of public health are implicated you've worked with dr be shy for a couple of years dr bashar he and these culture count results have been found by every scientific committee that has looked at this not to be results at all but the be able heart of the methodology dr hill approached dr how back in ninety nine she had what she described to committee as a hunch she wasn't sure maybe dr be shy it was sloppy and she may be wrong dr how replied i don't think the information is far fetched and when i had submitted the grant as we stand here today twelve years later this isn't a george cavanagh got this right failure to replicate is just that failure to replicate these are researchers and you're going back to nine hundred ninety nine and there are as everyone has discussed the committees and the experts in this case below there are a numer absolutely unequivocally no and more importantly your honor now or twelve years in the future there have been hundreds of papers published on this issue the bystander effect as well embrace that this point and quite frankly this is more of an academic dialogue now than that it is a real dialogue but i think with judge cabin was set at the time and i think he's right dr house admitting the grounds and later in two thousand and one dr hill saying well if there's an inability to replicate or have issues with this she did the right thing she filed she went to the committee did you and in day initially put a committee together and they and interviewed everybody dr how dr be shy dr hill looked at all the research material and they found no basis to find scientific misconduct i'm happy with that result she went to or i invest and i i did determine that the initial committee at the university was not composed of people really with sufficient background in the area  or i pointed that out as well as other problems it had generally with the way you and the n j conducted investigatory research that all said or i came to the same exact conclusion and in o'reilly's report it specifically does mention the failure rubble it's in over his report and that was also mentioned in the second you on the injured report so failure to replicate to all due respect leave people like two she made him unhappy with that true in fact you do you and jay you know three another investigation sequestering the documents they come out and also say no scientific misconduct and your i report agent sent to the two heads of an i h they're responsible for oversight they take no action and two years later we knew that grants i think it's a death now i think it puts  you dispute that and i h renew the grant no course not ok and then what should we conclude from the fact that and i h with all of this information renewed the grant they don't do i mean you know all about that warrant to see the expertise of someone in self theory in order to provide some basis so that's that's the issue when and then based on on that