Policy identification number: To come...
File: Other Operational Policies / Sponsored Research & Federal Relations
Responding to Allegations of Scientific Research Misconduct (approved -- pending finalization of technical issues)
Allegations of research misconduct by institutional members engaged in research supported by any Public Health Service (PHS) funding will normally be addressed following this policy and its associated procedures.
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
December 17, 2014
December 17, 2014
pvpaa, r, allegations, scientific, research, misconduct
Scheduled for Review
A. General Policy
No set of rules or professional code can either guarantee or take the place of a scholar’s personal integrity. The College accepts the following specific excerpt from the “Statement on Professional Ethics” of the American Association of University Professors, as defining what is meant by professional ethics:
“Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment to using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.”
Fort Lewis College (FLC) seeks to foster a research environment promoting the responsible conduct of research, research training, and activities related to that research or research training (hereafter referred to as research), and discourages research misconduct. The College deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct (93.300 (c)).
All members of the FLC community participating in research or applying for support from any Public Health Service (PHS) funding component are informed about the College’s policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct, and about the College’s commitment to compliance with these policies and procedures (93.302 (a)(2)(i)).
This policy and the associated procedures apply to all individuals at Fort Lewis College engaged in biomedical or behavioral extramural or intramural research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training that is supported by or for which support is requested from the Public Health Service (PHS). This includes allegations of plagiarism of research records produced in the course of PHS supported research, research training or activities relating to that research or research training. The PHS regulation at 42 (Code of Federal Regulations) CFR Part 93 applies to any biomedical or behavioral extramural or intramural research, research-training or research-related grant, contract or cooperative agreement with PHS. This policy applies to any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the institution, such as scientists, trainees, technicians, and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators at Fort Lewis College (93.102).
The policy and associated procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of possible research misconduct is received by an institutional official. Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure deemed in the best interest of FLC and PHS. Any change from the normal procedures also must ensure fair treatment to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. Any significant variation should be approved in advance by the Director of Sponsored Research and Federal Relations.
The policy applies only to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date HHS or FLC receives an allegation of research misconduct, except in the following instances:
1) Subsequent use: The respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication or other use for the potential benefit of the respondent of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized;
2) Health or safety of the public: If ORI or FLC, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public; and,
3) Grandfather: If HHS or FLC received the allegation of research misconduct before the effective date of this policy (93.105).
a Sections that are based on requirements of the PHS regulations codified at 42 CFR Part 93 have endnotes that indicate the applicable section number, e.g. (93.300(b)).
II. Definitions (42 CFR 93.103, 93.200-93.227)
A. Allegation means a disclosure of possible research misconduct through any means of communication. The disclosure may be by written or oral statement or other communication to a Fort Lewis College institutional or HHS official (93.201).
B. Complainant means a person who in good faith makes an allegation of research misconduct (93.203).
C. Conflict of interest means the real or apparent interference of one person’s interests with the interest of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.
D. Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of research misconduct and any responsive institutional actions. The Deciding Official will not be the same individual as the Research Integrity Officer and should have no direct prior involvement in the institution’s inquiry, investigation, or allegation assessment. The Deciding Official will be appointed by the Provost upon request by the Research Integrity Officer.
E. Evidence means any document, tangible item, or testimony offered or obtained during a research misconduct proceeding that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact (93.208).
F. Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them (93.103).
G. Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record (93.103).
H. Good-faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that research misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of the facts that would disprove the allegation (93.210).
I. Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of research misconduct warrants an investigation (93.212).1
J. Institutional member or members means a person who is employed by, is an agent of, or is affiliated by contract or agreement with Fort Lewis College. Institutional members may include, but are not limited to, officials, tenured and untenured faculty, teaching and support staff, researchers, research coordinators, clinical technicians, postdoctoral and other fellows, students, volunteers, agents, and contractors, subcontractors, and subawardees, and their employees (93.214).
K. Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to a decision not to make a finding of research misconduct or to a recommendation for a finding of research misconduct which may include a recommendation for other appropriate actions, including administrative actions (93.215).2
L. ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the scientific misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service (93.217).
M. PHS means the U.S. Public Health Service, an operating component of the DHHS (93.220).
N. PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for an institution’s inquiries and investigations into allegations of research misconduct, which is set forth at 42 CFR 93, entitled “Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.”
O. PHS support means PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications therefore (93.221).
P. Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit (93.103).
Q. Research Integrity Officer means the institutional official responsible for assessing allegations of research misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing inquiries and investigations.
R. Research misconduct proceeding means any actions related to alleged research misconduct taken under 92 CFR 93 “Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct,” including but not limited to, allegation assessments, inquiries, investigations, ORI oversight reviews, hearing, and administrative appeals (93.223).
S. Research record means the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, including but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports, journal articles, and any documents and materials provided to HHS or an institutional official by a respondent in the course of the research misconduct proceeding (93.224).
T. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data (93.103).3
U. Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of research misconduct is directed or the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one respondent in any inquiry or investigation (93.225).
V. Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken by an institution or one of its members because the individual has in good faith, made an allegation of scientific misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation (93.226).
III. Rights & Responsibilities
A. Research Integrity Officer
The Director of Sponsored Research will serve as the Research Integrity Officer who will have primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document. The Research Integrity Officer will be an institutional official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.
The complainant will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his or her allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if the Research Integrity Officer has determined that the complainant may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report; these portions will be given to the complainant for comment.
The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the inquiry and investigation committees, to review the draft inquiry and investigation reports, and to have the advice of counsel. The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an inquiry or investigation.
D. Deciding Official
The Deciding Official will receive the inquiry and/or investigation report and any written comments made by the respondent or the complainant on the draft report. The Deciding Official will consult with the Research Integrity Officer or other appropriate officials and will determine whether to conduct an investigation, whether misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, or whether to take other appropriate administrative actions (see section X).
IV. General Policies and Principles
A. Responsibility to Report Misconduct
All employees or individuals associated with Fort Lewis College should report observed, suspected, or apparent research misconduct to the Research Integrity Officer and/or Provost. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she may call the Research Integrity Officer at (970) 247-7695 to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual fall under the definition of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem.
B. Competence and Fairness of Proceedings
Fort Lewis College will respond to each allegation of research misconduct for which the institution is responsible in a thorough, competent, objective and fair manner, including taking precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent or witnesses (93.300 (b) and 93.304 (b)).
C. Protecting the Complainant
The Research Integrity Officer will monitor the treatment of individuals who bring allegations of misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto and those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations. The Research Integrity Officer will ensure that these persons will not be retaliated against at the institution and will review instances of alleged retaliation for appropriate action (93.300 (d)).
Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the Research Integrity Officer.
Fort Lewis College will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith6 to the maximum extent possible. For example, if the complainant requests anonymity, the College will make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or inquiry within applicable policies and regulations and state and local laws, if any. The complainant will be advised that if the matter is referred to an investigation committee and the complainant’s testimony is required, anonymity may no longer be guaranteed. Fort Lewis College is required to undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations (93.108, 93.300 (d)).
D. Protecting the Respondent
Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without compromising public health and safety or thoroughly carrying out the inquiry or investigation.
E. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations
Institutional employees will cooperate with the Research Integrity Officer and other institutional officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Employees have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the Research Integrity Officer or other institutional officials on misconduct allegations.
F. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations
Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry, whether PHS support or PHS applications for funding are involved, and whether the allegation falls under the PHS definition of research misconduct.
V. Conducting the Inquiry
VI. The Inquiry Report
VII. Conducting the Investigation
VIII. The Investigation Report
A. Elements of the Investigation Report
At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigative committee will prepare a report which will be submitted to ORI which will include all attachments and any appeals; state whether Fort Lewis College found research misconduct, and if so, who committed the misconduct; state whether the institution accepts the investigation’s findings, and describe any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent (93.315 (a-d)).
B. Comments on the Draft Report
The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed five working days to review and comment on the draft report. The respondent’s comments will be attached to the final report. The findings of the final report should take into account the respondent’s comments in addition to all the other evidence.
The Research Integrity Officer will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation. The report should be modified, as appropriate, based on the complainant’s comments.
3. Institutional Counsel
The draft investigation report will be transmitted to the institutional counsel for a review of its legal sufficiency. Comments should be incorporated into the report as appropriate.
In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and complainant, the Research Integrity Officer will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. For example, the Research Integrity Officer may request the recipient to sign a confidentiality statement or to come to his or her office to review the report.
C. Institutional Review and Decision
After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been made to the draft report, the investigation committee should transmit the final report with attachments, including the respondent’s and complainant’s comments, to the Deciding Official, through the Research Integrity Officer.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Deciding Official will make the final determination whether to accept the investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions. If this determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the Deciding Official will explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision different from that of the investigation committee in the institution’s letter transmitting the report to ORI. The Deciding Official’s explanation should be consistent with the PHS definition of research misconduct, the institution’s policies and procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation committee. The Deciding Official may also return the report to the investigation committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The Deciding Official’s determination, together with the investigation committee’s report, constitutes the final investigation report for purposes of ORI review.
When a final decision on the case has been reached, the Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and the complainant in writing. In addition, the Deciding Official will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.
D. Restoring Reputations and Protection Against Retaliation
All reasonable and practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, will be made by the institution to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against whom no funding of research misconduct is made (93.304 (k)).
All reasonable and practical efforts to protect or restore the position and reputation of any complainant(s), witness(es), or committee members will be made by the institution. The College will also counter potential or actual retaliation against these complainants, witnesses, and committee members (93.304 (l)).
E. Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report to ORI
The final institutional investigation report will be submitted to ORI by the Research Integrity Officer in writing and will include:
1) a description of the specific allegations of research misconduct investigated;
F. Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report
An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 120 days of its initiation,18 with the initiation being defined as the first meeting of the investigation committee. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the draft report available to the subject of the investigation for comment, submitting the report to the Deciding Official for approval, and submitting the report to the ORI.19
IX. Requirement for Reporting to ORI
A. An institution’s decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to the ORI Director on or before the date the investigation begins.20 At a minimum, the notification should include the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have been made, the general nature of the allegation as it relates to the PHS definition of research misconduct, and PHS applications or grant number(s) involved.21 ORI must also be notified of the final outcome of the investigation and must be provided with a copy of the investigation report.22 Any significant variations from the provisions of the institutional policies and procedures should be explained in any reports submitted to ORI.
B. If Fort Lewis College plans to terminate a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that the respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, (except for closing a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted or due to a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage which must be reported to ORI), the Research Integrity Officer will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination (93.316 (a)).23
C. If the institution determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 120 days, the Research Integrity Officer will submit to ORI a written request for an extension that explains the delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, the Research Integrity Officer will file periodic progress reports as requested by the ORI.24
D. When PHS funding or applications for funding are involved and an admission of research misconduct is made, the Research Integrity Officer will contact ORI for consultation and advice. Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the occurrence and extent of misconduct. When the case involves PHS funds, the institution cannot accept an admission of research misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI.25
E. The Research Integrity Officer will notify ORI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
1. the health and safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;26
2. HHS resources or interests are threatened;
3. research activities should be suspended;
4. there is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
5. Federal action is required to protect the interest of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his or her co-investigators and associates, if any;28
6. it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be made public prematurely;29
7. the research community or public should be informed (93.318 (a-g)).
X. Institutional Administrative Actions
Fort Lewis College will take appropriate administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated.31
If the Deciding Official determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings, he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken, after consulting with the Research Integrity Officer. The actions may include:
XI. Other Considerations
A. Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation
The termination of the respondent’s institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise, before or after an allegation of possible research misconduct has been reported, will not preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.
If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent’s failure to cooperate and its effect on the committee’s review of all the evidence.
B. Protection of the Complainant and Others 32
Regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that research misconduct occurred, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of research misconduct in good faith and others who cooperated in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation, the Deciding Official will determine, after consulting with the complainant, what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of the complainant. The Research Integrity Officer is responsible for implementing any steps the Deciding Official approves. The Research Integrity Officer will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any retaliation against the complainant.
C. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the Deciding Official will determine whether the complainant’s allegations of research misconduct were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the Deciding Official will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the complainant, such as reduction in rank or other consequences.
D. Interim Administrative Actions
Institutional officials will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out. 33
XII. Record Retention
After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the Research Integrity Officer will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the Research Integrity Officer or committees. The Research Integrity Officer will keep the file for seven (7) years after completion of the case to permit later assessment of the case. ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel will be given access to the records upon request. The information provided will not be disclosed as part of the peer review and advisory review processes, but may be used by the Secretary in making decisions about the award or continuation of funding (93.309 (c) and 93.401 (c)).
This policy revises policy 12-6: Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct approved July 2012. That policy revised policy 11-11: Research Misconduct approved June 2003.