Emporia State University
Policy for Responding to Allegations
of Scientific Misconduct
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. General Policy
B. Scope
III. Rights and Responsibilities
A.
Research Integrity Officer
B. Whistleblower
C. Respondent
D.
Deciding Official
IV. General
Policies and Principles
A.
Responsibility to Report Misconduct
B.
Protecting the Whistleblower
C.
Protecting the Respondent
D.
Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations
E.
Preliminary Assessment of Allegations
V. Conducting the
Inquiry
A.
Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry
B.
Sequestration of the Research Records
C.
Appointment of the Inquiry Committee
D.
Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
E.
Inquiry Process
VI. The Inquiry Report
A.
Elements of the Inquiry Report
B. Comments
on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Whistleblower
C.
Inquiry Decision and Notification
D. Time Limit
for Completing the Inquiry Report
VII. Conducting the Investigation
A. Purpose of
the Investigation
B.
Sequestration of the Research Records
C.
Appointment of the Investigation Committee
D.
Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
E.
Investigation Process
VIII. The Investigation
Report
A. Elements
of the Investigation Report
B. Comments
on the Draft Report
C. Institutional
Review and Decision
D. Transmittal
of the Final Investigation Report to ORI
E. Time Limit
for Completing the Investigation Report
IX. Requirements for Reporting to ORI
X. Institutional Administrative Actions
XI. Other Considerations
A. Termination
of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry
or Investigation
B. Restoration
of the Respondent's Reputation
C.
Protection of the Whistleblower and Others
D. Allegations
Not Made in Good Faith
E. Interim Administrative
Actions
I. Introduction*
A. General Policy
All faculty, staff, and administrators at Emporia State University
are expected to contribute to the maintenance of an atmosphere of honesty
and integrity in the conduct of research and scholarly activity.
Individual researchers, whether faculty, staff, or students are expected to maintain high standards of integrity in their work. This includes concern for quality of published work, bestowing appropriate credit upon cooperators and colleagues for their contributions, and a willingness to defend published work. It also entails restricting coauthorship to individuals who have made a significant contribution of the investigation and have a thorough knowledge of it.
It is the responsibility of all divisions and administrative units to develop and disseminate to employees information regarding professional integrity appropriate to the discipline. Faculty members are responsible for teaching proper scientific and academic conduct to their students, and for leading by example.
The administration is responsible for articulating to all university
employees a clear statement that the university will not tolerate fraudulent
or dishonest conduct, and the consequences of such misconduct.
B. Scope
This policy and the associated procedures apply to all individuals
at Emporia State University engaged in research that is supported by or
for which support is requested from PHS. The PHS regulation at 42
C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A applies to any research, research-training or
research-related grant 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 Emporia
State University.
The policy and associated procedures will normally be followed when
an allegation of possible misconduct in science is received by an institutional
official. Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate
variation from the normal procedure deemed in the best interests of Emporia
State University and PHS. Any change from 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 President
or designee.
II. Definitions
A. Allegation means any written
or oral statement or other indication of possible scientific misconduct
made to an institutional official.
B. Conflict of interest means the real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or professional relationships.
C. Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of scientific 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.
D. Good faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that scientific misconduct may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.
E. Inquiry means gathering information and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of scientific misconduct warrants an investigation.
F. Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.
G. 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.
H. PHS means the U.S. Public Health Service, an operating component of the DHHS.
I. PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional inquiries and investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A, entitled "Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science."
J. PHS support means PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications therefor.
K. Research Integrity Officer means the institutional official responsible for assessing allegations of scientific misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing inquiries and investigations.
L. Research record means any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of scientific misconduct. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.
M. Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of scientific 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.
N. Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual that is taken by an institution or an employee 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.
O. Scientific misconduct or misconduct in science means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.
P. Whistleblower means a person
who makes an allegation of scientific misconduct.
III. Rights and Responsibilities
A. Research Integrity Officer
The President of Emporia State University will appoint 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 Research Integrity Officer will appoint the inquiry and investigation committees and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in an inquiry or investigation. The Research Integrity Officer will attempt to ensure that confidentiality is maintained.
The Research Integrity Officer will assist inquiry and investigation committees and all institutional personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The Research Integrity Officer is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of the files.
The Research Integrity Officer will report to ORI as required by regulation
and keep ORI apprised of any developments during the course of the inquiry
or investigation that may affect current or potential DHHS funding for
the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to know to ensure
appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
B. Whistleblower
The whistleblower will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation committees, to review portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his/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 whistleblower may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions will be given to the whistleblower for comment.
The whistleblower is responsible for making allegations in good faith,
maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.
C. Respondent
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. If the respondent
is not found guilty of scientific misconduct, he or she has the right to
receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her reputation.
D. Deciding Official
The Deciding Official will receive the inquiry and/or investigation
report and any written comments made by the respondent or the whistleblower
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 Emporia State University
should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in science to
the Research Integrity Officer. If an individual is unsure whether
a suspected incident falls within the definition of scientific misconduct,
he or she may call the Research Integrity Officer at 316-341-5403 to discuss
the suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described
by the individual do not meet the definition of scientific misconduct,
the Research Integrity Officer will refer the individual or allegation
to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem.
At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultations
about concerns of possible misconduct with the Research Integrity Officer
and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.
B. Protecting the Whistleblower
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 in the terms and conditions of their employment or
other status at the institution and will review instances of alleged retaliation
for appropriate action.
Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the Research Integrity Officer.
Also the institution will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct
in good faith to the maximum extent possible. For example,
if the whistleblower requests anonymity, the institution 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 whistleblower will be advised that if the matter is referred to an
investigation committee and the whistleblower's testimony is required,
anonymity may no longer be guaranteed. Institutions are required
to undertake diligent efforts to protect the positions and reputations
of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.
C. 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.
Institutional employees accused of scientific misconduct may consult
with legal counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal
or witness in the case) to seek advice and may, with prior notification,
bring the counsel or personal adviser to interviews or meetings on the
case.
D. 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.
E. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations
Upon receiving an allegation of scientific 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 scientific misconduct.
V. Conducting the Inquiry
A. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry
Following the preliminary assessment, if the Research Integrity
Officer determines that the allegation provides sufficient information
to allow specific follow-up, involves PHS support, and falls under the
PHS definition of scientific misconduct, he or she will immediately initiate
the inquiry process. In initiating the inquiry, the Research Integrity
Officer should identify clearly the original allegation and any related
issues that should be evaluated. The purpose of the inquiry is to
make a preliminary evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of
the respondent, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether there
is sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to warrant an
investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final
conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible.
The findings of the inquiry must be set forth in an inquiry report.
B. Sequestration of the Research Records
After determining that an allegation falls within the definition
of misconduct in science and involves PHS funding, the Research Integrity
Officer must ensure that all original research records and materials relevant
to the allegation are immediately secured. The Research Integrity
Officer may consult with ORI for advice and assistance in this regard.
C. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee
The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other institutional
officials as appropriate, will appoint an inquiry committee and committee
chair within 10 days of the initiation of the inquiry. The inquiry
committee should consist of individuals who do not have real or apparent
conflicts of interest in the case, are unbiased, and have the necessary
expertise to evaluate the evidence and issues related to the allegation,
interview the principals and key witnesses, and conduct the inquiry.
These individuals may be scientists, subject matter experts, administrators,
lawyers, or other qualified persons, and they may be from inside or outside
the institution.
The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed
committee membership in 10 days. If the respondent submits a written
objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee or expert based
on bias or conflict of interest within 5 days, the Research Integrity Officer
will determine whether to replace the challenged member or expert with
a qualified substitute.
D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
The Research Integrity Officer will prepare a charge for the inquiry
committee that describes the allegations and any related issues identified
during the allegation assessment, and states that the purpose of the inquiry
is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence and testimony of the
respondent, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether there
is sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to warrant an
investigation as required by the PHS regulation. The purpose is not
to determine whether scientific misconduct definitely occurred or who was
responsible.
At the committee's first meeting, the Research Integrity Officer will
review the charge with the committee, discuss the allegations, any related
issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting the inquiry, assist
the committee with organizing plans for the inquiry, and answer any questions
raised by the committee. The Research Integrity Officer and institutional
counsel will be present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the
committee as needed.
E. Inquiry Process
The inquiry committee will normally interview the whistleblower,
the respondent, and key witnesses as well as examining relevant research
records and materials. Then the inquiry committee will evaluate the
evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation
with the Research Integrity Officer and institutional counsel, the committee
members will decide whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific
misconduct to recommend further investigation. The scope of the inquiry
does not include deciding whether misconduct occurred or conducting exhaustive
interviews and analyses.
VI. The Inquiry Report
A. Elements of the Inquiry Report
A written inquiry report must be prepared that states the name and
title of the committee members and experts, if any; the allegations; the
PHS support; a summary of the inquiry process used; a list of the research
records reviewed; summaries of any interviews; a description of the evidence
in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether and investigation is warranted
or not; and the committee's determination as to whether an investigation
is recommended and whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation
is not recommended. Institutional counsel will review the report
for legal sufficiency.
B. Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Whistleblower
The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with
a copy of the draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal and will provide
the whistleblower, if he or she is identifiable, with portions of the draft
inquiry report that address the whistleblower's role and opinions in the
investigation.
1. Confidentiality
The Research Integrity Officer may establish reasonable conditions
for review to protect the confidentiality of the draft report.
2. Receipt of Comments
Within 14 calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the
whistleblower and respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the
inquiry committee. Any comments that the whistleblower or respondent
submits on the draft report will become part of the final inquiry report
and record. Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may
revise the report as appropriate.
C. Inquiry Decision and Notification
1. Decision by Deciding Official
The Research Integrity Officer will transmit the final report and
any comments to the Deciding Official, who will make the determination
of whether findings from the inquiry provide sufficient evidence of possible
scientific misconduct to justify conducting an investigation. The
inquiry is completed when the Deciding Official makes this determination,
which will be made within 60 days of the first meeting of the inquiry committee.
Any extension of this period will be based on good cause and recorded in
the inquiry file.
2. Notification
The Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and
the whistleblower in writing of the Deciding Official's decision of whether
to proceed to an investigation and will remind them of their obligation
to cooperate in the event an investigation is opened. The Research
Integrity Officer will also notify all appropriate institutional officials
of the Deciding Official's decision.
D. Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry Report
The inquiry committee will normally complete the inquiry and submit
its report in writing to the Research Integrity Officer no more than 60
calendar days following its first meeting, unless the Research Integrity
Officer approves an extension for good cause. If the Research Integrity
Officer approves an extension, the reason for the extension will be entered
into the records of the case and the report. The respondent
also will be notified of the extension.
VII. Conducting the Investigation
A. Purpose of the Investigation
The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations,
to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether
misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent. The investigation
will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible
misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations.
This is particularly important where the alleged misconduct involves clinical
trials or potential harm to human subjects or the general public or if
it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice,
or public health practice. The findings of the investigation will
be set forth in an investigation report.
B. Sequestration of the Research Records
The Research Integrity Officer will immediately sequester any additional
pertinent research records that were not previously sequestered during
the inquiry. This sequestration should occur before or at the time
the respondent is notified that an investigation has begun. The need
for additional sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons,
including the institution's decision to investigate additional allegations
not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records
during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured.
The procedures to be followed for sequestration during the investigation
are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.
C. Appointment of the Investigation Committee
The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other institutional
officials as appropriate, will appoint an investigation committee and the
committee chair within 10 days of the notification to the respondent that
an investigation is planned or as soon thereafter as practicable.
The investigation committee should consist of at least three individuals
who do not have real or apparent conflicts of interest in the case, are
unbiased, and have the necessary expertise to evaluate the evidence and
issues related to the allegations, interview the principals and key witnesses,
and conduct the investigation. These individuals may be scientists,
administrators, subject matter experts, lawyers, or other qualified persons,
and they may be from inside or outside the institution. Individuals
appointed to the investigation committee may also have served on the inquiry
committee.
The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed
committee membership within 5 days. If the respondent submits a written
objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee or expert,
the Research Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the challenged
member or expert with a qualified substitute.
D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
1. Charge to the Committee
The Research Integrity Officer will define the subject matter of
the investigation in a written charge to the committee that describes the
allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry, defines scientific
misconduct, and identifies the name of the respondent. The charge
will state that the committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony
of the respondent, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether,
based on a preponderance of the evidence, scientific misconduct occurred
and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness.
During the investigation, if additional information becomes available
that substantially changes the subject matter of the investigation or would
suggest additional respondents, the committee will notify the Research
Integrity Officer, who will determine whether it is necessary to notify
the respondent of the new subject matter or to provide notice to additional
respondents.
2. The First Meeting
The Research Integrity Officer, with the assistance of institutional
counsel, will convene the first meeting of the investigation committee
to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the prescribed procedures
and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity
for confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan.
The investigation committee will be provided with a copy of these instructions
and, where PHS funding is involved, the PHS regulation.
E. Investigation Process
The investigation committee will be appointed and the process initiated
within 30 days of the completion of the inquiry, if findings from that
inquiry provide a sufficient basis for conducting an investigation.
The investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation
including, but not necessarily limited to, relevant research records, computer
files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, memoranda,
and notes of telephone calls. Whenever possible, the committee
should interview the whistleblower(s), the respondents(s), and other individuals
who might have information regarding aspects of the allegations.
Interviews of the respondent should be tape recorded or transcribed.
All other interviews should be transcribed, tape recorded, or summarized.
Summaries or transcripts of the interviews should be prepared, provided
to the interviewed party for comment or revision, and included as part
of the investigatory file.
VIII. The Investigation Report
A. Elements of the Investigation Report
The final report submitted to ORI must describe the policies and
procedures under which the investigation was conducted, describe how and
from whom information relevant to the investigation was obtained, state
the findings, and explain the basis for the findings. The report
will include the actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any
individual(s) found to have engaged in misconduct as well as a description
of any sanctions imposed and administrative actions taken by the institution.
B. Comments on the Draft Report
1. Respondent
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 14 calendar 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.
2. Whistleblower
The Research Integrity Officer will provide the whistleblower, if
he or she is identifiable, with those portions of the draft investigation
report that address the whistleblower's role and opinions in the investigation.
The report should be modified, as appropriate, based on the whistleblower'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.
4. Confidentiality
In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent
and whistleblower, 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
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 scientific 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 whistleblower 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. Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report to ORI
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 whistleblower's
comments, to the Deciding Official, through the Research Integrity Officer.
E. Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report
An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 120 days
of its initiation, 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.
IX. Requirements for Reporting to ORI
A. An institution's decision to initiate an investigation
must be reported in writing to the Director, ORI, on or before the date
the investigation begins. 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 scientific misconduct, and the PHS applications or grant number(s) involved.
ORI must also be notified of the final outcome of the investigation and
must be provided with a copy of the investigation report. Any
significant variations from the provisions of the institutional policies
and procedures should be explained in any reports submitted to ORI.
B. If an institution plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, the Research Integrity Officer will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI, including a description of the reasons for the proposed termination.
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.
D. When PHS funding or applications for funding are involved and an admission of scientific 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 scientific misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an investigation without prior approval from ORI.
E. The Research Integrity Officer
will notify ORI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:
- there is an immediate health hazard involved;
- there is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
- there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and associates, if any;
- it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly; or
- the allegation involves a public health sensitive issue, e.g., a clinical trial; or
- there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In this instance, the institution must inform ORI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
X. Institutional Administrative Actions
Emporia State University will take appropriate administrative actions
against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been substantiated.
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 consultation with the Research Integrity Officer. The
actions may include:
- withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating from the research where scientific misconduct was found.
- removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand, special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;
- restitution of funds as appropriate.
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 scientific
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. Restoration of the Respondent's Reputation
If the institution finds no misconduct and ORI concurs, after consulting
with the respondent, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable
efforts to restore the respondent's reputation. Depending on the
particular circumstances, the Research Integrity Officer should consider
notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of
the final outcome, publicizing the final outcome in forums in which the
allegation of scientific misconduct was previously publicized, or expunging
all reference to the scientific misconduct allegation from the respondent's
personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's
reputation must first be approved by the Deciding Official.
C. Protection of the Whistleblower and Others
Regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that scientific
misconduct occurred, the Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable
efforts to protect whistleblowers who made allegations of scientific misconduct
in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and
investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation,
the Deciding Official will determine, after consulting with the whistleblower,
what steps, if any, are needed to restore the position or reputation of
the whistleblower. 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 whistleblower.
D. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
If relevant, the Deciding Official will determine whether the whistleblower's
allegations of scientific 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 whistleblower.
E. 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.
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 three 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.
* Sections that are based on requirements of the PHS regulations codified at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A have endnotes that indicate the applicable section number, e.g., 42 C.F.R. ? 50.103(d)(1).
Issued March 1999
Last Updated May 1, 2007