Misconduct Investigations: the Elements

1
Misconduct Investigations the Elements
OECD Global Science Forum Workshop on Best
Practices 22-23 February 2007

• Christine Boesz, Dr. PH
• Inspector General
• National Science Foundation

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, contd

• 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, contd

• 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