Listen to the article
Northwestern University has agreed to pay $2.3 million to settle allegations that a former researcher falsified work funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The settlement comes after the university self-disclosed the misconduct to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG).
According to a November press release from HHS OIG, the researcher violated the Civil Monetary Penalties Law by falsifying research supported by NIH funding. The researcher and other investigators subsequently cited the fraudulent research in grant applications and submissions for two additional NIH awards. In total, the three grants amounted to approximately $5 million, with $3.5 million specifically connected to Northwestern.
The researcher at the center of the controversy has been identified as Jing Liu, who worked at Northwestern from at least 2008 to 2018 before moving to the University of Illinois Cancer Center. Liu, who did not respond to requests for comment, was previously highlighted in Northwestern news stories and received the Lung Cancer Research Award from the Respiratory Health Association in 2024.
The research misconduct has already led to at least one retraction. In January 2025, Nature Immunology retracted a 2013 paper authored by Liu and colleagues about the gene regulator Miz1 and its effects on inflammation and acute lung injury. The retraction notice cited a Northwestern University investigation which “concluded that falsified data was produced to support research in this publication.” Notably, seven of the 16 co-authors, including Liu, disagreed with the retraction.
Northwestern’s self-disclosure of the misconduct likely played a significant role in determining the nature and scale of the penalty. J. Michael Slocum, an attorney specializing in research ethics at Slocum & Boddie PLLC in Alexandria, Virginia, explained that the case did not escalate to a False Claims Act lawsuit, which typically carries more severe penalties and public scrutiny.
“The takeaway is, if you want to avoid the False Claims Act and all of the severe penalties that come with it, one of the best ways is to be as proactive as possible,” Slocum told Retraction Watch. “The system is set up for self-policing.”
HHS OIG emphasized the importance of self-disclosure in such cases. “We encourage all grant recipients to self-disclose any improper use of HHS funds through our Grant Self Disclosure Protocol,” spokesperson Melissa Rumley said. “Through that protocol, OIG provides incentives for recipients to come forward and make the government whole.”
Northwestern’s case stands in contrast to a recent settlement by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, which agreed to pay $15 million in December to resolve False Claims Act allegations. In that instance, researchers had used “misrepresented and/or duplicated” images and data in NIH grant applications.
Cases that remain at the administrative level, like Northwestern’s, typically receive less public attention. The OIG press release about the Northwestern settlement was just three sentences long, providing minimal details about the specific misconduct.
“This is a fraught time period for universities, and keeping it at that institutional level, for dollar reasons and for reputational reasons, it’s much better to have done it that way,” Slocum noted.
The 2013 paper that was retracted had been prominently featured by Northwestern at the time of its publication. In a university news story, Liu had highlighted the novelty of the research, stating, “Although we are the first group to demonstrate that this molecule plays a role in inflammation, we would like to see what other functions it is responsible for.”
Northwestern University did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the settlement or the underlying research misconduct. The case underscores the significant financial and reputational consequences that can result from research falsification, particularly when federal funding is involved.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
As someone involved in the mining and commodities space, I’m curious how this type of research misconduct could impact adjacent industries like battery materials, clean energy technologies, or medical device manufacturing. Falsified data could have far-reaching consequences.
That’s a really good point. Fraudulent research, even in one domain, can undermine confidence and decision-making across interconnected industries. Ensuring the integrity of scientific data is crucial not just for the immediate research, but for the broader ecosystem that relies on it.
While the $2.3M settlement is significant, the real cost here is to the credibility of Northwestern’s research program and the wasted NIH funding that could have supported legitimate, impactful work. Hopefully this serves as a wake-up call to tighten controls.
Absolutely. The reputational damage from these types of scandals can linger for years and make it harder for universities to attract top talent and research funding down the line. Rigorous auditing of grant work is essential.
While the settlement amount is substantial, I wonder if it truly reflects the full cost of this misconduct. The wasted time and resources, the setbacks to important cancer research, and the reputational harm to Northwestern – those are harder to quantify but no less significant.
Excellent point. The tangible financial penalty is just the tip of the iceberg. The opportunity costs and secondary effects on public trust are perhaps the greater toll. Enforcing integrity in research has to be an ongoing priority, not just a reactive measure.
This is a disappointing development, especially given the importance of the cancer research work that was falsified. The NIH needs to evaluate how to strengthen oversight and validation processes to catch these issues earlier. Transparency from universities is also key.
You make a good point. More transparency from universities on their internal investigation and remediation processes could help rebuild trust in the research ecosystem. Openness is critical for maintaining public confidence.
As someone who follows the commodities and energy sectors, I’m curious how this type of research misconduct might impact adjacent fields like oncology drug development or medical device innovation. Falsified data could have ripple effects across related industries.
That’s an insightful observation. Falsified research, even in a relatively narrow domain, can call into question the reliability of an entire body of work. Downstream impacts on industries relying on that research are a real concern.
Concerning to see yet another case of falsified research funded by the NIH. Integrity in scientific research is critical, especially for high-impact areas like cancer. Kudos to Northwestern for self-reporting, but this raises broader questions about oversight and accountability in the grant process.
I agree, these incidents undermine public trust in science and medical research. Stronger safeguards and transparency around NIH grants are clearly needed to prevent such misconduct from occurring in the future.
It’s good to see the university taking responsibility here, but I hope this also prompts a deeper examination of their grant management and oversight processes. Proactive steps to prevent such breaches, rather than just punishing them after the fact, should be the goal.
Agreed. Robust internal controls and regular audits are essential for any institution handling sensitive government research funding. This incident highlights the need for universities to continuously improve their compliance and risk management practices.