A recent False Claims Act (FCA) settlement between Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. (Dana-Farber) and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) further demonstrates the need for federally funded research institutions to have proper checks in place to ensure that they do not submit federal grant applications with materially false or misleading statements. As scrutiny of grant applications and grant-funded research papers increases, hospitals, universities and other research organizations should ensure that researchers and research integrity officers are aware of the FCA risks that could arise from potential misrepresentations in connection with federal grants. Such organizations should also recognize the importance of promptly investigating reported issues and taking swift action when problems are discovered, as Dana-Farber received credit from DOJ for its disclosure, cooperation and remediation efforts.
Dana-Farber is a leading cancer treatment and research center headquartered in Boston that receives grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), among other federal agencies. On December 16, 2025, DOJ announced that Dana-Farber agreed to pay $15 million to settle fraud allegations related to scientific research grants.1 In April 2024, a “research integrity sleuth”—someone who seeks to uncover flaws and fraud in research publishing—filed a qui tam action in the District of Massachusetts. After an investigation conducted by DOJ’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, DOJ intervened earlier this month for purposes of settlement.2
In the settlement agreement, DOJ contended that Dana-Farber caused the submission of false claims to NIH by falsely certifying compliance with grant terms and conditions, spending grant funds on unallowable expenses, and obtaining grants through false and misleading statements.3 As part of the settlement, Dana-Farber admitted that its researchers used funds from NIH grants to conduct research that resulted in publications in scientific journals containing misrepresented and/or duplicated images and data. Dana-Farber also admitted that a supervising researcher failed to exercise sufficient oversight over these researchers and that Dana-Farber spent funds from NIH grants that were unallowable. Dana-Farber further admitted that a researcher received NIH grants after submitting applications that discussed a journal article authored by the researcher but did not disclose that certain images and data in that article were misrepresented and/or duplicated.
The whistleblower, Sholto David, will receive over $2.6 million as part of the settlement. David is reportedly a molecular biologist working for a biotech firm in Wales who has commented on thousands of scientific papers online, seeking to identify possible errors or misconduct.4 The payment to David may encourage similar qui tam actions against other federally funded research institutions as others seek to capitalize on identified instances of research misconduct. The circumstances here are a reminder that whistleblowers do not necessarily need to come from within an organization.
In the wake of this settlement, federally funded research organizations should prepare for increased scrutiny of grant applications and research papers. While it may be difficult for organizations to vet the specifics of every single application or paper, they can make sure they are providing robust training regarding the FCA and the importance of accurate submissions to the government. Organizations should also take note of DOJ’s emphasis on the credit that Dana-Farber received under DOJ’s guidelines for voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation.5 DOJ noted that “Dana-Farber summarized voluminous materials relevant to the government’s investigation, voluntarily disclosed additional allegations of research misconduct relevant to the government’s investigation, voluntarily produced materials without a subpoena, sought to resolve this matter expeditiously, accepted responsibility for its conduct, and implemented remedial measures.” These steps likely had a meaningful impact in reducing the monetary penalty: Of the $15 million settlement, more than $8.5 million was treated as restitution, indicating that DOJ settled for less than twice the actual damages the government asserted—and well below the treble damages available under the FCA.6
As this settlement demonstrates, proactive steps and quick action when an issue is discovered can go a long way in mitigating FCA risk and the most severe FCA penalties. Our team of experienced litigators is available to provide FCA counseling and to defend against FCA investigations and litigation initiated by qui tam relators and the government.
