NIH Grant Fraud: Effort Reporting, Cost Transfers and False Certification
NIH grant fraud occurs when an institution obtains or retains research funding through false statements, charges unallowable costs, misreports effort, or certifies compliance with grant regulations it has not met. Grant applications and progress reports are claims for federal money, so the False Claims Act applies.
Whistleblower suit against Harvard University over NIH grant administration
Research funding runs on certifications
An NIH award is not a gift. It carries terms in the Grants Policy Statement, the Uniform Guidance at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, and the specific notice of award. The institution certifies that costs are allowable, that effort reporting is accurate, and that internal controls operate.
Each of those certifications is a place where a false statement creates liability, and each drawdown of funds is a claim.
The recurring failure modes
Grant fraud rarely looks like theft. It looks like accounting that serves the institution rather than the award.
- Effort reporting that does not match the time investigators actually devoted to the award
- Cost transfers moving expenses between awards near period end to avoid unspent balances
- Charging administrative or clerical salaries directly where the Uniform Guidance requires them in indirect costs
- Equipment or supplies purchased on one grant and used on unrelated work
- Progress reports overstating results or concealing failures to keep a renewal on track
- Undisclosed foreign support and overlapping commitments
- Subrecipient monitoring certified as performed but not performed
The Harvard matter
Our attorneys represent Dr. David Searles Zielinski, former executive director of Harvard Catalyst and associate dean for clinical and translational research at Harvard Medical School, in a False Claims Act case against Harvard University and Dr. Lee Nadler.
The complaint, unsealed in November 2025 in the District of Massachusetts, alleges fraudulent grant applications and failures to comply with federal grant regulations and internal controls across NIH awards totaling 275 million dollars. Dr. Zielinski spent eight years at the NIH before joining Harvard.
The case is pending. These are allegations that have not been resolved by any court.
The people who see it
Grant fraud is visible from the administrative layer rather than the laboratory bench. Research administrators, grants and contracts officers, departmental finance managers, compliance officers, and principal investigators who refused to certify something are the relators in these cases.
They also face a particular difficulty. Academic fields are small and the professional consequences feel personal, which makes the confidentiality of the seal period more important here than almost anywhere else.
Federal research funding in the Philadelphia region
Philadelphia is among the largest recipients of NIH funding in the country. The University of Pennsylvania, Children Hospital of Philadelphia, Thomas Jefferson University, Temple University, Drexel University, and the Wistar Institute together administer very substantial federal research portfolios, with further capacity at Penn State and across southern New Jersey.
That concentration means the administrative infrastructure around federal grants, including sponsored projects offices, effort reporting systems, and cost transfer approvals, is a significant regional employer in its own right. The people who staff it are the people who see grant fraud.
Research grant matters are filed in federal court and are not limited to the institution home district. Our own pending case against Harvard University is in the District of Massachusetts, brought by attorneys practicing from Philadelphia.
What the Uniform Guidance actually requires
Federal grant obligations are specific rather than general, which is what makes them enforceable.
The Uniform Guidance at 2 C.F.R. Part 200 governs allowable costs, cost principles, and internal controls. Costs must be reasonable, allocable to the award, and consistently treated. Administrative and clerical salaries generally belong in indirect costs rather than charged directly. Cost transfers must be timely, documented, and explained. Effort must be certified by someone with suitable means of verification.
Each of those creates a specific certification. When an institution charges an unallowable cost, transfers expenses between awards to spend down a balance, or certifies effort nobody verified, the resulting drawdown is a claim supported by a false statement. That is the mechanism, and it does not require anyone to have stolen anything.
Frequently asked questions
Is a progress report a claim under the False Claims Act?
Courts have treated grant applications, progress reports, and drawdown requests as claims for federal money. A false statement in any of them that is material to continued funding can support liability.
What about research misconduct like falsified data?
Falsified data is usually handled by the Office of Research Integrity. It becomes a False Claims Act matter when the falsified work supported an application or report used to obtain or retain federal funding.
Our institution has an internal compliance office. Should I use it first?
Internal reporting does not displace the statute, and a documented internal report that was ignored often strengthens a case. It also alerts the institution. Speak with counsel before deciding the order.
Can I bring a case about my own department?
Yes. Direct knowledge of your own unit is exactly the specific, non-public information the statute rewards.
The attorneys who handle these cases
Related reading
Talk to a whistleblower attorney before you report
A conversation costs nothing and is confidential. We will tell you honestly whether what you have describes a case, and what the first-to-file rule means for your timing.