CRS-13 (2) material failure to comply with Federal requirements for (3) failure to meet other material legal requirements governing While the grantee institution has the primary responsibility for launching an investigation, the NSF may initiate a separate or parallel investigation. It may also refer the case to Federal law enforcement officials if the alleged misconduct involves a crime. If an individual or institution is being investigated by the NSF and another entity simultaneously, the NSF may alter its procedures with respect to the entity. Upon receipt of an allegation of misconduct, the NSF will investigate an institution or an individual receiving an award (NSF awards are usually made directly to an institution rather than to individual researchers). The NSF would respond, initially, by lodging an inquiry. This would consist primarily of information and fact-finding to determine if the allegations warrant an investigation. The investigation would be a more formalized procedure which examines relevant information and data to ascertain if misconduct had occurred. If allegations prove correct, the extent of the misconduct would be assessed and the consequences and appropriate action would be determined. Investigations are to be completed within a period of 180 days, but can be extended if an interim report is filed with an estimated schedule for completion. All investigatory files of the NSF will be kept confidential, to the extent allowed by law. During the investigation, if the whistleblower elects to remain anonymous, the NSF would assure her/his anonymity, again, to the extent allowed by law. The regulations also provide a safeguard for reprisals against whistleblowers: Inappropriate action taken by an institution against a 23 Andersen, Robert M. The Federal Government's Role in Regulating Misconduct in Scientific and Technological Research. Paper submitted for publication in the Georgetown University Law Center Journal of Law and Technology, Feb. 3, 1989. p. 40. CRS-14 Robert M. Andersen, Deputy General Counsel, the NSF, indicates that because the current law protection for whistleblowers differs significantly among States, Federal law is a necessary adjunct to protect whistleblowers from reprisals "... if they report possible scientific misconduct in good faith."24 Prior to taking any final action resulting from an investigation of scientific misconduct, the NSF would provide the individual or institution both procedural and substantive due process. Andersen states that: State research institutions conducting investigations must Because of the flexibility of due process, "... the amount of process required is pegged to the seriousness of the property or liberty deprivation that could result from an adverse final decision in the case." The final actions range from minimal, a letter of reprimand, to severe, suspension or termination of an active award and debarment from participating in NSF programs for a specified period of time. The NSF could also recoup grant money awarded to the institution or individual. The most controversial and debated feature of the regulations is that of assigning the primary responsibility for detection of misconduct to the host or grantee institution. This has been criticized because of an inherent conflict of interest, with many questioning if an institution can perform a thorough and unbiased investigation of itself or of its colleagues. The following regulations have not lessened the debate. Institutional attempts to circumvent the misconduct 24 Anderson, Robert M. Select Legal Provisions Regulating Scientific Misconduct in Federally Supported Research Programs. Unpublished report. May 1989. p. 6. 26 Ibid. CRS-15 NSF in an investigative report or other report, such action One option that has been proposed to mitigate the conflict of interest argument is to establish full-time neutral panels to investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct. Another alternative entails retaining outside counsel and experts to investigate cases and make recommendations to the institutions. According to Andersen, while the conflict of interest is a real concern, the host institution is thought to be the most cost-effective agent to conduct an investigation. Professional and Scientific Organizations During the 1980s a number of organizations have held conferences and workshops as well as issued reports with recommendations for addressing the issue of scientific misconduct. Table 3 summarizes the activities of selected organizations. (See page 16.) In 1982, The Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) each issued a document on misconduct or integrity in science. AAU's document, Report of the Association of American Universities Committee on the Integrity of Research, concluded that the "informal and quiet" methods used to prevent and detect scientific misconduct were no longer sufficiently effective. The the natural sciences) committee, therefore, recommended that academic research institutions (1) develop policies and procedures to ensure a high standard of ethical behavior for researchers and to deal with allegations of misconduct; and (2) warn of sanctions. This report was approved of not only by AAU, but also by the American Council on Education and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Currently, AAU members have policies to address misconduct allegations, and, many have procedures. AAMC's document, The Maintenance of High Ethical Standards in the Conduct of Research, affirms that public trust in the validity of new scientific information as well as in the integrity of the scientific community is important for the vigorous pursuit of research. In addition, it indicates that a few isolated cases of misconduct can lead to a loss of trust. Hence, with this document, AAMC makes recommendations regarding the prevention of misconduct and presents a model for dealing with alleged misconduct in order to assist medical schools and teaching hospitals in developing their own policies and procedures. 27 Andersen, Robert M. The Federal Government's Role in Regulating Misconduct in Scientific and Technological Research. Appendix, p. 14-15. CRS-17 In November 1988, AAU and AAMC, in conjunction with 7 other professional associations, issued a document entitled "Framework for Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal with Misconduct in Research."28 The purpose of this document is to help institutions develop or refine objective and workable procedures for investigating allegations of research fraud and misconduct. It expands upon the two 1982 publications and takes into consideration both the PHS guidelines and the NSF regulations regarding misconduct in science. Issues covered include, among other things, differentiating honest error and deliberate deception, confidentiality during investigations, avoiding conflicts of interest during the investigations, timeliness of investigations, parties to notify when the allegation of fraud is substantiated, handling appeals, and protections for the person who made an allegation in good faith. Some have called the guidelines stricter than government guidelines and regulations. For example, the Framework states that the institutions have a responsibility to continue to examine allegations of misconduct even if the person being investigated resigns. However, an institution's adherence to this document is strictly voluntary. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conducts a number of seminars and symposia on the topic of misconduct in science for scientists and other interested parties. Its principal project has been a series of three workshops conducted by the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (NCLS), a joint venture of AAAS and the American Bar Association. These workshops occurred during the years 1987 and 1988. The focus of each workshop and the (expected) publication date of the report of the workshop are noted in table 4. 28 The other professional organizations were: the Association of Academic Health Centers, the American Council on Education, the American Society for Microbiology, the Council on Graduate Schools, the Council on Government Relations, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the National Association of College and University Attorneys, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. The Association of American Universities, et al. Framework for Institutional Policies and Procedures to Deal with Fraud in Research, Nov. 4, 1988. |