Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

5 HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE - INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES AND EXPERIENCE
Pages 98-127

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 98...
... But reports of formal investigations were rarely communicated to research sponsors, editors, or other research scientists; more commonly, misconduct-in-science cases were handled privately if they were handled at all. Many universities adopted procedural reforms for addressing misconduct in science after a series of highly publicized cases in the early 1980s revealed the shortcomings of institutional processes for dealing with cases involving federal research funds (U.S.
From page 99...
... In fulfilling its obligation under the legislation, the PHS issued interim guidelines in 1986 on policies and procedures for handling alleged misconduct. Educational and scientific societies such as the Association of American Universities, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science provided forums to review progress by the research institutions in complying with the new regulatory requirements.
From page 100...
... Because research institutions are able to design their own misconduct policies and procedures, institutional responses to federal regulatory requirements are very diverse. At present consensus is lacking about which procedural approaches are adequate responses to federal regulatory requirements, and institutional and governmental officials frequently disagree over fundamental matters of openness, completeness, or timeliness.4 Institutions that receive PHS research awards are required to submit to the DHHS's Office of Scientific Integrity Review (OSIR)
From page 101...
... Since that time, many academic institutions have adopted policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science, but substantial variation remains in definitions and methods for conducting inquiries and investigations. Although the DHHS's OSIR and the NSF's OIG have evaluated reports of some misconduct investigations,9 the experience of research
From page 102...
... Stage One: Misconduct Inquiry Research institutions have different methods for structuring an inquiry to determine whether an allegation of misconduct in science has substance.~° Some institutions (such as Harvard Medical School) rely on existing faculty conduct committees to handle misconduct inquiries and investigations, if necessary.
From page 103...
... In misconduct cases reviewed by PHS and NSF, research institutions have sometimes imposed sanctions as a direct result of their investigations, in some cases prior to or in addition to governmental actions. Private settlements between a research institution and an individual accused of misconduct have also been reported, in which an individual accused of misconduct agrees to resign in lieu of the institution initiating a formal investigation, although such settlements may not be consistent with government regulations.
From page 104...
... The types of institutional actions taken in response to misconduct investigations reviewed by the DHHS's OSIR are given in Table 5.1. Findings, Discussion, and Conclusions Government agencies, congressional oversight committees, and academic institutions generally agree that the primary responsibility for handling complaints of misconduct in science rests with the research organization However, the development and implementation of policies and procedures for handling misconduct in science have been problematic.
From page 105...
... Informing individuals about appropriate methods for raising concerns about misconduct in the research environment requires sustained collaboration among research administrators, faculty, and laboratory directors. Many universities have now established policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in science, and some research institutions have acquired valuable experience in implementing these procedures to deal with cases of misconduct.
From page 106...
... Disputes or accusations involving questions of scientific judgment or questionable research practices are generally settled, whenever possible, by the research process itself. However, when disputes involve specific charges of misconduct in science or other misconduct, they cannot be resolved by scientists alone.
From page 107...
... Research institutions are required by NSF and PHS regulations to inform the research sponsor when investigations have been initiated, and some observers have suggested that moving from an inquiry to an investigation is thus comparable to an indictment by the courts. Many individuals in the scientific community have complained that the reputation of a subject of a misconduct investigation is damaged simply by He announcement that an investigation has been initiated before the completion of the investigation and before the subject of the investigation has had an opportunity to confront witnesses or~respond to evidence.
From page 108...
... The panel was not able to review fully each of these proposals, since some were published late in the deliberative stages of the study.~5 Recognizing the evolving character of the organizational programs designed to address misconduct in science, especially in the PHS, the panel did not attempt to define specific procedures for federal agencies or the relationship of individual offices but focused instead on issues pertinent to the roles and responsibilities of government in handling allegations of misconduct in science. The Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (P.L.
From page 109...
... Office of Scientific Integrity Review The Office of Scientific Integrity Review is a component of the office of the assistant secretary for health, who also serves as the head of the PHS. OSIR establishes overall PHS policies and procedures for addressing misconduct in science and reviews final reports of misconduct investigations (both governmental and institutional)
From page 110...
... The notification provided by the PHS ALERT system can jeopardize the award of PHS research funds and government advisory appointments. Reputations can be- damaged by use of the PHS ALERT system prior to a determination of misconduct, and some misconduct investigations can take several years to complete.
From page 111...
... The use of the PHS ALERT system in disclosing the identities of individuals who are under investigation for possible misconduct in science is a serious flaw in the fairness of current governmental policies and procedures. It is possible that incomplete information and unsubstantiated allegations may jeopardize research awards or governmental appointments and that individual scientists may be victimized by premature release of draft investigative reports.
From page 112...
... 31~. NSF regulations, which share general similarities with but differ from PHS regulations for addressing allegations of misconduct in science, establish procedural requirements but rely on research institutions to establish their own policies and procedures.
From page 113...
... There is confusion about the formal procedures that are required in the resolution of allegations of misconduct in science. Since government officials often rely on institutional investigative reports in recommending possible sanctions, there can be different expectations and standards of procedural clarity, fairness, and objectivity.
From page 114...
... In March 1991, draft reports of two misconduct-in-science cases under investigation by OSI were leaked to the press.~9 According to OSI policy at that time, confidential drafts of the reports were circulated to principals in the case, including subjects, complainants' and institutional officials. Draft reports of misconduct investigations often provide the first opportunity for subjects to review statements and other evidence used in evaluating allegations against them.
From page 115...
... The success of interactions among scientists, university representatives, and government officials in handling allegations of misconduct in science can be assured only if all groups agree about actions that constitute misconduct in science and make a commitment to addressing misconduct in science by invoking consistent, firm, and fair procedures. THE ROLE OF THE COURTS The courts have become centrally involved in disputes arising from allegations and investigations of misconduct in science.
From page 116...
... The consequences of misconduct inquiries and investigations, 3. Faculty participation in misconduct investigations, 4.
From page 117...
... However, less severe penalties, such as a letter of reprimand or a requirement of prior approval for particular activities, are probably not deprivations of constitutionally protected interests. While these sanctions might injure a scientist's reputation, such injury, absent a change in job status, is not recognized by the Supreme Court as a deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest.29 The Supreme Court has developed a balancing test to determine specific procedures that must be employed before an individual may be deprived of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.30 On the side of the accused the Court weighs the importance of the liberty or property interest at stake and the extent to which the procedure at issue may reduce the possibility of erroneous decision making.
From page 118...
... Government Sanctions The results of a misconduct investigation must be reported to the government research sponsor, and the sponsor may then determine what, if any, sanctions should be imposed. In determining the appropriate sanction for a particular act of scientific misconduct, government agencies consider (1)
From page 119...
... Faculty Participation in Misconduct Investigations A particular problem arises when a government agency undertakes a review of an investigation that has been completed by a university. The university investigation is often undertaken by members of the research community who are requested by university officials
From page 120...
... When a government agency decides to review the university investigation, the agency makes clear that a potential for a conflict of interest exists between the university that commissioned the investigation and the individuals who undertook the investigation. Faculty members who participate in misconduct investigations can find, unexpectedly, that they themselves are subjects of the government agency review.
From page 121...
... Several factors can inhibit vigorous pursuit of misconduct-in-science allegations: concerns about individual reputations and the potential loss of institutional prestige, the lack of explicit channels for raising concerns about misconduct in science, confusion about the distinction between inquiries and investigations in misconduct-in-science procedures, the legal liability of institutions or of participants in the
From page 122...
... The panel believes that it is important at this time to preserve institutional flexibility and discretion in developing and applying policies and procedures to address misconduct in science, but it is also important to clarify the basic criteria that will be used by faculty, administrative and governmental officials, and society as a whole in evaluating institutional methods for handling allegations of misconduct in science. It is necessary to include essential elements of fairness, objectivity, openness, and confidentiality in the investigations of alleged misconduct, and to reconcile competing interests, not only in principle but also in practice.
From page 123...
... Inflexible rules or requirements can increase the time and effort necessary to conduct research, can discourage creative individuals from pursuing research careers, can decrease innovation, and can in some instances make the research process impossible. Governmental or regulatory efforts to define "correct" research conduct or analytical practices can do fundamental harm to research activities if such efforts encourage orthodoxy and rigidity and inhibit novel or creative research practices.
From page 124...
... · Second, the research community has not been effective in responding to criticism about its record in handling allegations of misconduct in science. As a result, firsthand experiences in resolving problems of fairness, responsiveness, and accuracy in misconduct proceedings are often not systematically analyzed or disseminated to improve the resources and methods used by research institutions in handling allegations of misconduct in science.
From page 125...
... 4. See, for example, the report of a conference on misconduct in science sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Bar Association, the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists and the DHHS's Office of Scientific Integrity Review (AAAS, 1991b)
From page 126...
... Although a formal hearing may be appropriate when specific and serious penalties have been proposed, there is no consensus that a subject is entitled to review testimony or to cross-examine witnesses during the fact-gathering process designed to provide evidence to substantiate or dismiss charges of misconduct in science. In contrast, there is general agreement that the subject should be given access to the draft investigative report for rebuttals, modifications, or other amendments prior to the formulation of specific charges or a dismissal of the complaint.
From page 127...
... Some universities believe that attorneys should not participate in the university investigatory process because their involvement may lead to an adversarial spirit that is not consistent with the academic environment. Other universities allow those accused of misconduct to be represented by attorneys in the misconduct investigation.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.