Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Agrees to Pay $15M to Settle Fraud Allegations Related to Scientific Research Grants

The False Claims Act (FCA) is a U.S. law that lets the government recover money when someone knowingly submits false claims or false statements to get federal funds (31 U.S.C. § 3729). It covers not only bills for goods and services but also grant funding. For NIH research grants, it means: if a university or institute lies in a grant application or progress report (for example, by using fabricated or misrepresented data or images), falsely certifies compliance with grant rules, or spends grant money on unallowable costs, every payment NIH makes on that grant can be treated as a “false claim.” In the Dana‑Farber case, DOJ alleged that misrepresented/duplicated images in NIH‑funded research, insufficient oversight, and spending on unallowable expenses rendered Dana‑Farber’s certifications to NIH false under the FCA, allowing DOJ to seek civil penalties and restitution.

A qui tam action is a type of lawsuit under the False Claims Act where a private person (the “relator” or whistleblower) sues on behalf of the United States, alleging fraud against the government. If the case recovers money, the whistleblower is awarded a share (typically 15–30%). In this case, Sholto David is a UK‑based molecular biologist and independent “science sleuth” who scrutinizes published papers for image and data problems. He filed the sealed qui tam complaint U.S. ex rel. Sholto David v. Dana‑Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. in April 2024, alleging NIH grant fraud tied to manipulated images. The DOJ settlement resolves his case, and he is set to receive $2,625,000 (about 17.5% of the $15 million) as his whistleblower share.

Public documents do not list the exact NIH grant numbers, but they give some detail about which grants and studies were involved:

• The DOJ settlement and press release say Dana‑Farber used funds from six NIH grants (“Subject Grants”) to conduct research that produced 14 journal publications with misrepresented and/or duplicated images and data.
• The settlement groups these into “Group 1 Subject Grants” and **“Group 2 Subject Grants.” Names of the principal investigators are anonymized as “Researcher 1” and “Researcher 2.”
• Independent reporting, based on the settlement language and cross‑checks with the literature, indicates:
  • Group 1 involved NIH‑funded multiple myeloma research. Twelve of the 14 “subject publications” were myeloma papers on which Kenneth C. Anderson, director of Dana‑Farber’s LeBow Institute for Myeloma Therapeutics, was the senior author.
  • Group 2 involved a separate set of NIH grants whose applications relied on work described in a 2015 Nature Medicine paper on multiple myeloma biology, senior‑authored by Ruben Carrasco. The settlement states that some images/data in that paper were misrepresented or duplicated; the journal issued two image‑related corrections in 2024.
• The full settlement agreement and media coverage describe the grants only by these generic group labels; the specific NIH grant numbers and a complete list of all 14 article titles are not clearly disclosed in the publicly accessible DOJ press release or news coverage.

So, we know there were six NIH grants primarily funding multiple myeloma research, and 14 resulting papers (largely in the myeloma field, many led by Anderson and one key Nature Medicine paper led by Carrasco), but the precise grant IDs and full paper list have not been fully published in open sources.

The False Claims Act case and DOJ settlement were brought only against Dana‑Farber as an institution, not against individual scientists, and there is no public record of any individual researcher being criminally charged in connection with this investigation.

The written settlement deliberately refers to the two principal investigators only as “Researcher 1” and “Researcher 2” and does not impose personal penalties on them. The DOJ press release likewise does not mention any individual civil or criminal actions. News coverage notes that Dana‑Farber acknowledged a principal investigator failed to adequately supervise lab members, but any internal discipline (e.g., loss of leadership roles, lab sanctions, personnel actions) has not been detailed publicly. As of the reporting around the settlement, there is no publicly disclosed suspension, debarment, or criminal charge against specific Dana‑Farber researchers arising from this case.

The DOJ press release and settlement explain that Dana‑Farber received “cooperation and remediation” credit because it voluntarily disclosed additional information, cooperated with the investigation, accepted responsibility, and implemented remedial measures. Public descriptions of those measures are general rather than highly detailed, but they include:

• Strengthening oversight and supervision of principal investigators and lab members involved in NIH‑funded work and publications.
• Reviewing and addressing problematic papers: asking journals to retract some articles and correct others after internal review of image and data issues first raised by the whistleblower and others.
• Improving compliance systems around federal grants: DOJ states that Dana‑Farber took steps to enhance its processes to ensure NIH funds are used only for allowable expenses and that grant‑related certifications are accurate.

The exact internal policies, training modules, and organizational changes are not fully spelled out in public documents, but DOJ’s explicit acknowledgment that these remedial steps were taken is why the institute received credit that helped limit the financial penalties.

What will happen to the 14 implicated publications is being handled through the normal scientific‑journal process, not by DOJ directly:

• Before the settlement, in early 2024, Dana‑Farber told journals it would retract six papers and correct dozens more that whistleblower Sholto David had flagged; several of these are among the myeloma papers later singled out in the settlement.
• By late 2025, the Retraction Watch Database showed at least 10 retractions of papers coauthored by Kenneth C. Anderson, and a 2015 Nature Medicine paper central to the case had already received two image‑related corrections.
• The DOJ settlement and press release do not order specific retractions. Under standard practice in science publishing, journal editors and publishers, usually in consultation with the authors and the institution’s research‑integrity office, decide whether to correct, retract, or leave papers as‑is based on the evidence and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

So: many affected papers have already been retracted or corrected, and further action on the 14 “subject publications” will be decided by the journals, informed by Dana‑Farber’s findings and recommendations, not by DOJ.

The public documents state the overall structure of the $15 million payment and where the money goes, but not a detailed installment schedule:

• The DOJ settlement requires Dana‑Farber to pay $15,000,000 to the United States to resolve the False Claims Act allegations. The agreement, as summarized by DOJ, does not describe a multi‑year payment plan; it is presented as a single civil payment obligation.
• According to the settlement language quoted by Retraction Watch, more than $8.5 million of the $15 million is designated as “restitution to the United States.” Because the allegedly false claims related to NIH grants, that restitution is expected to go principally back to NIH/HHS, the agency that funded the research.
• Under the qui tam provisions, whistleblower Sholto David receives $2,625,000 from the settlement. The remainder represents civil penalties and other amounts retained by the U.S. government beyond restitution.

No public filing states that Dana‑Farber is barred from seeking new NIH funds as part of this payment; the financial terms are limited to the civil recovery just described.

Based on what is publicly known, the settlement does not bar Dana‑Farber from receiving future NIH funding, but it is likely to increase scrutiny of its grant applications and research oversight:

• The DOJ press release and settlement agreement do not include any suspension or debarment language—no prohibition on Dana‑Farber participating in federal health‑care programs or receiving NIH grants.
• Coverage by C&EN and Retraction Watch describes this as a civil False Claims Act settlement with institutional remediation and restitution to NIH, not as a case that stripped the institute of federal funding. Dana‑Farber remains one of NIH’s major cancer‑research grantees.
• In comparable NIH‑grant FCA cases (e.g., Duke University and Brigham & Women’s Hospital), institutions paid substantial settlements, strengthened oversight, and continued to receive NIH awards, albeit under closer compliance monitoring.

So, unless HHS‑OIG later decides to impose an exclusion (which has not been announced), Dana‑Farber remains eligible for future NIH grants, but its proposals and research‑integrity systems can reasonably be expected to face tougher internal and external review.