Possible Misconduct in Science

Misconduct in Research

PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING AND DEALING WITH POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT IN RESEARCH
Effective Date: January 1, 1997

1. Preamble and Summary

Misconduct in research is historically a rare occurrence. However, should an instance arise in which misconduct by a member of the Gustavus Adolphus College community is alleged to have occurred, the College must investigate promptly, while affording the maximum protection both to the complainant and to the accused or respondent. That is the intent of this policy.

This policy and the associated procedures apply to all individuals at Gustavus engaged in research that is supported by, or for which support is requested from, any one of the organizational units of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) (e.g., National Institutes of Health) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The PHS regulation 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93, applies to any research, research training or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with PHS. The NSF regulation at 45 CFR Part 689 applies to all activities funded by the Foundation. This College policy applies to any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the College, such as faculty, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guests researchers and faculty, or collaborators at Gustavus. (A copy of the PHS regulation is appended to this policy.)

While both PHS and NSF recognize that the primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of misconduct and for the conduct of inquiries and investigations, rests with Gustavus, they both retain the right to initiate their own investigations at any time.

Misconduct means falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research. Misconduct includes retaliation of any kind against a person who, in good faith, reported or provided information about possible misconduct. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

The Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty (hereinafter "the Dean") has responsibility for informing all those who fall under this policy of the College’s policy with regard to misconduct in research, and for interpreting this policy.

The procedure to be followed has three stages: inquiry, investigation, and resolution. Those responsible for conducting each phase should be guided by the following important principles:

  • The College must vigorously pursue and resolve any charges of misconduct in research.
  • All parties must be treated fairly, bearing in mind the vulnerabilities of an individual position and the sensitive nature of academic reputations.
  • Confidentiality must be maintained to the maximum practical extent.
  • Conflict of interest, real and potential, must be minimized.
  • All stages of the procedure must be fully documented.
  • All parties are responsible for acting in such a way as to avoid unnecessary damage to the general enterprise of academic research. Nevertheless, the College may be required to inform appropriate funding agencies of its actions when the work is supported by extramural funding. If it is found that misleading data or information have been published, Gustavus Adolphus College is responsible for setting the public record straight, for example, by informing the editors of scientific or scholarly journals.
2. Inquiry

The purpose of this stage is to determine, with minimum publicity and maximum confidentiality, whether an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants a formal investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible, but is to gather factual information. The findings of the inquiry will be set forth in an inquiry report.

a. Initiating the Inquiry

Any allegation of misconduct in research should be referred in writing to the Dean. When a complaint comes forth, the Dean will provide a confidential assessment. If, in the Dean’s judgment, there is an indication that misconduct has occurred, the Dean must pursue an inquiry.

The Dean may initiate an inquiry without a specific complaint if evidence of misconduct comes to the Dean’s attention. As with a formal allegation, the Dean must pursue an inquiry if he or she determines that there is an indication that misconduct has occurred.

b. Inquiry Procedure

The Dean is responsible for overseeing the inquiry, which will be conducted by an Inquiry/Investigative Committee consisting of the Dean, the chair of the appropriate department, and a total of two to four members who have the appropriate background to judge the issues being raised. The Dean will appoint committee members, in consultation with the chair of the relevant department and the chair of the Faculty Senate. Committee members may be from within or outside the Gustavus community and must have no real or apparent conflicts of interest bearing on the question.

The Dean will notify the subject of the inquiry (hereinafter "the respondent") of the proposed committee membership within 10 calendar days of the committee’s appointment. If the respondent submits a written objection to any appointed member of the committee based on bias or conflict of interest within five calendar days of the respondent’s receipt of the committee list, the Dean will determine whether or not to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.

An inquiry formally begins when the Dean notifies the respondent in writing of the charges and the procedures to be followed during this stage of the process. This notification and other documents throughout the process are to be retained for three years.

If an inquiry is initiated, the Dean should decide whether interim administrative action is required to protect the interests of research subjects, students, colleagues, the funding agency, or the College while the inquiry proceeds.

c. Findings of the Inquiry

A written report will be prepared describing whether a formal investigation is or is not warranted and whether any actions should be taken if an investigation is not recommended. The Dean will transmit the report to the respondent and complainant.

The Dean will provide the respondent with a copy of a draft inquiry report for comment and rebuttal, and will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with portions of the draft inquiry report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation. Within 14 calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the complainant and respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the committee. Any comments that the complainant or respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the final inquiry report and record. Based on the comments, the Inquiry/Investigation Committee may revise the report as appropriate.

The Inquiry/Investigation Committee will normally complete the inquiry and submit its report in writing to the Dean no more than 60 calendar days following its first meeting, unless the President approves an extension for good cause. If there is an extension, the reason for it will be entered into the records of the case and the report. The respondent will also be notified of the extension.

3. Investigation

An investigation will be initiated within 30 calendar days after an inquiry results in a finding that an investigation is warranted. The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine the evidence in depth, to determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent, and to identify one or more sanctions. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.

If an investigation is initiated, the Dean should decide whether interim administrative action is required to protect the interests of research subjects, students, colleagues, the funding agency, or the College while the investigation proceeds.

The same panel that conducted the inquiry will be given the additional charge of examining the data and making the appropriate findings and recommendations, which it will submit to the Dean of the Faculty within the time limits established in this policy. A finding of misconduct must be by agreement of a majority of the full committee.

Once a formal investigation begins, the committee should inform the respondent in writing of all allegations so that a response may be prepared. The complainant and the respondent should be fully informed of the procedure chosen by the committee for conducting the investigation.

The investigation will ordinarily be completed within 120 days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, the imposition of any recommended sanctions, and submitting the report to any funding agency as may be required by regulation or statute. If this deadline cannot be met, the President may approve an extension for good cause. In the event of an extension, an interim report of the reasons for the delay and progress to date should be prepared and submitted to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for approval. This interim report becomes part of the record of the investigation and the final report. The respondent will be notified of the extension.

The Dean will provide the respondent with a copy of a draft investigation report for comment and rebuttal, and will provide the complainant, if he or she is identifiable, with portions of the draft investigation report that address the complainant’s role and opinions in the investigation. Within 14 calendar days of their receipt of the draft report, the complainant and respondent will provide their comments, if any, to the committee. Any comments that the complainant or respondent submits on the draft report will become part of the final investigation report and record. Based on the comments, the Inquiry/Investigation Committee may revise the report as appropriate.

4. Resolution

a. No Finding of Misconduct

Any federal agency or other entity initially informed of the investigation should be notified promptly. A full record of the investigation should be retained by the College in a secure and confidential file (but not in the personnel file of the respondent) for at least three years.

The Dean should decide what steps need to be taken to clear the record and to protect and restore the reputation of all parties involved.

If the allegations are found to have been maliciously motivated, the Dean may wish to recommend to the President appropriate disciplinary action. If the allegations are found to have been made in good faith, precautions should be taken to prevent retaliatory actions.

b. Finding of Misconduct

The Dean should forward the committee report to the President with a recommendation of sanctions and other action to be taken. The President should review the full record of the inquiry and investigation, and make a final determination as to sanctions and any other appropriate actions. Any federal agency or other entity initially informed of the investigation should be notified promptly of the outcome.

Possible sanctions for faculty and staff include removal of the responsible person from the project, special mentoring of future work, or dismissal from employment by the College. (The procedures for dismissal can be found in the FACULTY MANUAL and the Support Staff Handbook.) For students the sanctions recommended to the President might include suspension or termination of the privilege of being employed to do research, suspension or termination of the privilege of doing research as independent study for credit, failure in the research project for which the student is enrolled for credit, suspension from the College, or dismissal from the College.

In addition to regulatory authorities and sponsors who require notification, parties directly affected by the misconduct should be notified of the final disposition of the case and provided with any required documentation. The list may include the complainant; co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators; and editors of journals that have published fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized results.

5. Other Considerations

Regardless of whether Gustavus determines that misconduct has occurred, the Dean will undertake reasonable efforts to protect complainants who made allegations of misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with inquiries and investigations of such allegations.

All meetings of the Inquiry/Investigative Committee at which witnesses are interviewed will be tape recorded. The FACULTY MANUAL, Support Staff Handbook, and Gustavus Guide will govern all other procedural matters as they relate to the inquiry and/or investigation.

A faculty member, staff member or student found to have committed misconduct in research and against whom sanctions are imposed by the President may file an appeal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the FACULTY MANUAL, Support Staff Handbook, and Gustavus Guide, respectively.

Other reporting requirements: In cases involving funds provided by PHS, or any organizational unit thereof, the Dean shall notify the Office of Research Integrity at any stage of the inquiry or investigation that any of the following conditions exist:

  1. There is an immediate health hazard involved;
  2. There is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment;
  3. 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-investigator and associates, if any;
  4. It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly; and/or
  5. There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In that instance, the Dean must inform ORI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
In cases involving funds provided by the NSF, the Dean shall notify the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) during any stage of the inquiry or investigation that any of the following conditions exist:
  1. The seriousness of apparent misconduct warrants such notice;
  2. Immediate health hazards are involved;
  3. NSF’s resources, reputation, or other interests need protecting;
  4. Federal action may be needed to protect the interests of a subject of the investigation or of others potentially affected; and/or
  5. The scientific community or the public should be informed.

      6. Last updated 10/10/2006