Quote:
Originally Posted by divine1966
What kind of fraud is she committing? Is this the same boss that wouldn’t let you take time off?
|
Yes. The one that wouldn't let me take breaks in violation of the policy manual. She roped the chief and executive director into going along with that. I knew the policy since I was a supervisor for 8 years and I told them that but they didn't listen. I finally told HR by rebutting my performance evaluation where she wrote that I took unauthorized breaks. That was a lie and I was furious. She got demoted after that but she should have been far earlier for lab fraud.
In a chemistry lab t is fraud not to conduct analysis according to proper methods and procedures and she likes to make up her own methods. She bullied me and my coworker and ordered us to run an instrument in a way that would lead to inaccurate results. It's chromatography and she made us use a setting that allowed nitrite to co-elute with carbonate - that means they weren't separated. Then method clearly says you must separate the analyses. It's basic to chromatography. She then threatened to get me fired when I had her order countermanded. But that order was not countermanded by the chief for an entire week. That's really bad for the chief. She should have jumped in right away when I e-mailed her and said it was unethical. So she's guilty too. Then when I told the QA manager and they did an investigation they whitewashed it. The QA manager and director had a meeting with me and said they wanted to 'move forward.' Instead of dealing with a week of compromised data. I told them in the meeting that moving forward isn't so easy because that data is on the instrument and in our files and any auditor who looks at it would see what happened. It would e very difficult to answer for what happened. There is no way that it could be justified in my opinion as a scientist who has 10 years experience in chromatography. The cover-up is often worse that the crime in many cases. They never told customers that the results were in question and should be rerun. They are guilty of a cover-up.
But they moved forward and stupidly let my ex-boss run chromatography after she had been demoted. That was also against my advise. It didn't take long for her to commit the classic example of chromatography lab fraud - peak shaving and peak juicing. The reporting limit standard failed in an analysis so she shaved a peak. When I said you couldn't do that she juiced a peak in the calibration.
Quote:
• Laboratory Fraud is the deliberate falsification of analytical and/or
quality assurance results so as to make failed results appear as
acceptable when reported to the data user. It requires intent.
Laboratory Fraud May Include:
• Improper manual integration (peak shaving, peak juicing) to intentionally
make calibration and QC data appear better than it really is.
|
http://www.shl.uiowa.edu/labcert/idn..._Practices.pdf
When you do that all data is compromised and reporting it is considered wire fraud or mail fraud depending on how the results were reported. A couple of years ago it happened here:
Quote:
Andrew K. Ecklund, 58, a chemist previously employed at an environmental testing company in Northeast Ohio, pleaded guilty in November in U.S. District Court in Cleveland to nine counts of wire fraud.
Judge Pamela Barker sentenced Ecklund on Monday to two years of probation, as well as fining him $2,500.
Ecklund was a laboratory analyst who was responsible for testing environmental samples for the presence of hazardous substances.
On numerous occasions between Dec. 15, 2014, and Feb. 25, 2015, Ecklund took steps to make it appear that deficient samples met quality control standards when they did not, federal prosecutors said.
The investigation was conducted by the Ohio EPA, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Army Criminal Investigation Division, Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General and U.S. EPA Criminal Investigation Division, all of which are members of the Northeast Ohio Environmental Crimes Task Force.
|
Tallmadge chemist sentenced to probation for falsifying test results