Misconduct Investigations: the Elements

Christine Boesz, Dr. PHInspector General

National Science Foundation

OECD Global Science ForumWorkshop on Best Practices

22-23 February 2007

2

Brief History

Series of high profile RM cases 1989: Establish Federal research misconduct

definition and process 1989-2000: Debate with stakeholders on definition,

process, key features, responsibility 2000: Federal-wide definition, process responding

to concerns, creating uniformity across agencies and awardees

Throughout: Concern for research integrity and approach to allegations

3

Concept of Referral

Government address wrongdoing related to federal programs, operations, funds

University responsible for wrongdoing related to Federal funds

Consistent University / Government RM process and terminology

Government “refers” allegations to universities University committee of peers assess allegations University takes appropriate personnel action University provides investigation report to Government

Government facilitates: Access to records Access to witnesses

4

Issues considered in developing Federal Process

Stakeholder concerns Features Consistent application Distinct phases in handling an allegation

5

Stakeholders in the process

Public Government University Subject, complaint, witnesses Research community

6

Stakeholders: Considerations

Public Funds are spent on research that is reliable

Government Trust in research being conducted Uniform approach to addressing problems

University Maintain integrity in campus research environment Concern regard reputation Address issues raised by / about employees

Subject, complaint, witnesses Confidentiality Reputation Role in process

Research community

7

Essential features of the process

Authority

Confidentiality

Accuracy / Objective

Completeness

Fairness

Timely

Access

8

Features: Considerations

Authority High level individual responsible for integrity program,

research misconduct program Confidentiality

Create environment to carefully consider issues Protect reputations of accused Prevent retaliation

Accuracy / Objective Ensure facts are presented and evaluated without bias

Completeness Ensure all relevant facts and circumstances are considered

9

Features: Considerations Fair

Ensure no favoritism / bias / retaliation factors into evaluation Address any conflicts of interest Complainant is only a witness Subject reviews and responds to reports

Timely Ensure fairness Protects vulnerable data / research subjects / public

Access Ownership of records Preservation of records Complete access to written and electronic records Ability to interview all relevant individuals OIG has subpoena authority

10

Hallmarks of consistency

Common Objectives Ensure integrity of research environment Ensure inherent fairness in system Ensure Federal funds are spent on high quality research

Common Definition FF, P are RM Honest error is NOT RM

Common Process Clear definition for each phase of an investigation Similar process at awardee and Federal Government Rely on peer community for evaluation

Common Outcomes Similar actions for similar offenses Protect reputation of innocent and witnesses

11

Key phases in the process

Receipt

Inquiry

Investigation

Adjudication

Appeal

12

Phases Defined

Receipt Anonymous, confidential Neutral, unbiased intake Written or oral

Inquiry Assess whether allegation is:

About research misconduct Substantive

University relies on committee of peers, with legal advice, for assessment

Conflict of interest review on committee Subject and representative have input

13

Phases Defined, cont’d

Investigation Fact based analysis to determine if research misconduct occurred University relies on committee of peers, with legal advice for

assessment Conflict of interest review for committee Subject or representative review report Recommend appropriate actions Assess elements of a finding

Act (F, F or P) Intent (gross negligence, knowing, or reckless) Act and intent supported by preponderance of evidence Significant departure from accepted practices

14

Phases Defined, cont’d

Adjudication Independent, objective review of investigation report Adjudication organizationally separated from Investigation Assess:

How serious was the RM How intentional was it Impact on research record Part of a pattern of such behavior

Appeal Address only NEW facts presented by subject Independent, objective review of report and decision