_______________________________________________
Table of Contents
III. Rights and
Responsibilities
IV. General Policies
and Principles
A. Responsibility
to Report Misconduct
B. Protecting
the Whistleblower
D. Cooperation
with Inquiries and Investigations
E. Preliminary
Assessment of Allegations
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
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
VIII. The
Investigation Report
A. Elements
of the Investigation
B. Comments
on the Draft Report
C. Institutional
Review and Decision
D. Transmittal
of the Final Investigation Report
E. Time
Limit for Completing the Investigation Report
IX. Requirements
for Reporting to ORI
X. Institutional
Administrative Actions
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. The following represents the
Northeastern State University (NSU) Research
Misconduct Policy. This policy refers to all research and scientific inquiry
conducted by employees, students, and affiliates of NSU, or conducted in
conjunction or collaboration with NSU. Sections that are based, in part, on
requirements of the Public Health Service (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). ' 50.103(d)(1).
This policy and the associated procedures apply to all
individuals at
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
NSU. 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 Vice President of Academic Affairs of
Northeastern State University.
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.[1]
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.[2]
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.[3]
P. Whistleblower means a person who
makes an allegation of scientific misconduct.
The Deciding Official, in this case the NSU Vice
President for Academic Affairs, 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 Deciding Official 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.[4]
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.
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.[5]
The Deciding Official, who is the NSU Vice President
for Academic Affairs, 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].
All employees or individuals associated with
At any time, an employee may have confidential
discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the
Research Integrity Officer or the Chair of the Institutional Review Board and
will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.
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[6] 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 fait