Chapter 420: Allegations of Research Dishonesty

420.010 Research Misconduct

kuscheld — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:49:53 +0000

420.010 Research Misconduct kuscheld Thu, 05/27/2010 - 16:49

Bd. Min. 3-24-06; Amended 11-29-07.

Statement of Purpose; Definition of Policy
1. One of the most important academic responsibilities of the ��ϲʹ�� is the generation of knowledge through research and creative activity. The necessity for the maintenance of ethical standards in research is self-evident.
2. This rule applies to all research and is also intended to comply with the Federal Research Misconduct Policy stated in 65 FR 76260 (Dec. 6, 2000), as applicable to institutions receiving research funding from federal agencies or departments, and the implementing policies and regulations of those federal agencies or departments, such as 42 CFR 93.
3. Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
  (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
  (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
  (d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
4. A finding of research misconduct made under this section requires that:
  (a) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
  (b) The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
  (c) The allegation be proven by preponderance of the evidence.
Campus Faculty Committee to Hear Cases of Research Misconduct
1. There shall be a Standing Committee on each campus of the University which shall have jurisdiction to hear any case involving a charge of research misconduct brought against a member of the academic faculty or staff under these regulations.
2. Each campus faculty or other body delegated this authority by the Board of Curators shall, by written rule, establish the number of members of this Committee, the apportionment among divisions within the campus, and the method of selection of the members and alternates.
3. Members of this Committee shall be elected from the eligible professors on continuous appointment. If there are no eligible professors within the electoral unit, then the members shall be elected from the eligible associate professors on continuous appointment.
4. Persons who devote more than fifty percent of their time to administrative duties shall not be eligible for membership on this Committee.
5. The Chancellor of the campus shall appoint from among the members of the Committee a chairperson pro tempore, who, if a meeting is necessary, shall call the first meeting of the Committee, at which time the Committee shall elect from among its members a chairperson and a secretary to serve at the pleasure of the Committee. At least two-thirds of the members, or their alternates, must be present to constitute a quorum for the conduct of any business of the Committee including the conduct of the hearings referred to in these regulations.
Initiation and Transmission of Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct
1. Any person who receives allegations of research misconduct must promptly forward them, in writing, to the dean or director of the academic unit in which the accused individual is located, or on campuses with no schools or colleges to the Vice Provost for Research.
2. The dean or director or Vice Provost for Research to whom a written allegation(s) of research misconduct is submitted shall promptly provide the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost, the accused individual (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) and the chairperson of the department in which the Respondent is located with a copy of the written allegation(s).
General Procedural Rules for Addressing Allegation(s) of Research Misconduct
1. These procedures have three principal phases: an inquiry assessing whether the allegation has substance and an investigation is warranted; an investigation which formally develops the factual record, leading to findings of fact, recommending conclusions as to whether research misconduct occurred and proposing remedies; and a determination by the Chancellor as to whether research misconduct occurred and directing what action, if any, shall be taken..
2. Federal funding agency review. If the allegation involves federally funded research or the application for federally funded research, notice must also be provided to the appropriate federal funding agency or agencies. The University will fully and continually cooperate with the federal funding agency during its oversight review or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals. This includes providing all research records and evidence under the institution’s control, custody, or possession and access to all persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence.
3. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost may elect at any point to dismiss the allegation(s) of research misconduct and to terminate the inquiry/investigation. If this is done, notice of such termination must be provided to the parties named in C.2. within 30 days, and if the allegation involves federally funded research or the application for federally funded research notice must also be provided to the appropriate federal funding agency or agencies, including a report of such planned termination, with a description of the reasons therefore, and the appropriate federal funding agency will then decide whether further investigation should be undertaken.
  
  (a) The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost shall notify the federal granting agency, if any, if he/she ascertains at any stage of the inquiry or investigation that any of the following conditions are met:
  (1) Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects;
  (2) Resources or interests of the federal granting agency are threatened;
  (3) Research activities should be suspended;
  (4) There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal law;
  (5) Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the research misconduct proceeding;
  (6) The University believes the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely so that the federal granting agency may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved; or
  (7) The research community or public should be informed.
4. Confidentiality. Disclosure of the identity of respondents and complainants in research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Provided, however, that:
  (a) If the allegation of research misconduct involves federally funded research or the application for federally funded research, the University must disclose the identity of respondents and complainants to the appropriate federal funding agency.
5. Except as may otherwise be prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who have a need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.
6. Reputation, respondent. The University shall undertake to the fullest extent reasonable all practical efforts, if requested and as appropriate, to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made.
7. Reputation, others. The University shall undertake to the fullest extent reasonable all practical efforts to protect or restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness, or committee member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against these complainants, witness, and committee members.
8. Notice. Any notice required under these Procedures may be given:
  (a) By delivering such notice in person.
  (b) By mail addressed to the last home address currently on record with the administrative unit within which the respondent is employed or associated, or by email to the respondent’s University email address. Failure of any person to have a current correct home address on record with the administrative unit within which he/she is employed shall not be construed to invalidate such notice. If served by mail and the party is thereafter required to act or initiate some proceedings within a prescribed period after service, three consecutive calendar days shall be added to the prescribed period.
Inquiry into allegation(s) of research misconduct (“inquiry” means information gathering and fact-finding to determine whether an allegation of an apparent instance of research misconduct warrants an investigation).
1. Criteria warranting an inquiry. An inquiry is warranted if the allegation:
  (a) Falls within the definition of research misconduct under this section; and
  (b) Is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
2. Notice to respondent and custody of research records. At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, the University must make a good faith effort to notify in writing the presumed respondent, if any. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, the University must make a good faith effort to notify them in writing. To the extent it has not already done so at the allegation stage, the University must, on or before the date on which the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompasses scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody will be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
3. Review of evidence. The purpose of an inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. Therefore, an inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.
4. Inquiry, how conducted. The dean or director or Vice Provost for Research shall, within five consecutive working days following her or his receipt of the written submission of an allegation(s) of research misconduct, appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of three faculty members, none of whom shall be members of the Standing Committee referred to in Section B hereof, to inquire into whether or not the allegations warrant an investigation. No person with a real or apparent conflict of interest in the matter of the inquiry shall participate in the inquiry. Members of the ad hoc committee shall be professors on continuous appointment, or, if there are no eligible professors, associate professors on continuous appointment. In naming the members of the committee, the dean or director or Vice Provost for Research should take into consideration their knowledge of the academic area under inquiry. The dean or director or Vice Provost for Research shall turn over to the committee all information in her/his possession related to the allegation(s). The ad hoc committee shall inquire into allegation(s) of research misconduct and prepare a written report, conforming to federal funding agency requirements, if applicable, setting forth its findings and conclusions regarding each allegation. The report shall include a description of evidence reviewed and a summary of relevant interviews conducted. The ad hoc committee shall submit its written report along with all documents considered by the Committee to the dean or director or Vice Provost for Research and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost within forty-five (45) consecutive calendar days of its appointment unless for good cause additional time is allowed by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost to complete the inquiry and report. If the inquiry takes longer than sixty (60) days to complete, the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the sixty (60) day period. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost shall provide the respondent with a copy of the ad hoc committee's report.
5. Opportunity to comment. The University must provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report and attach any comments received to the report. Upon receiving the report of the committee, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost shall notify the respondent that he/she may request an informal conference with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost to discuss the allegation(s) and the committee's report. Said informal conference should occur within seven consecutive working days after receipt of the committee's report by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost.
6. Notice of the results of the inquiry.
  (a) Notice to respondent. The University must notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. The notice must include a copy of the inquiry report and include a copy of or refer to this section.
  (b) Notice to complainants. The University may notify the complainant who made the allegation whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. The University may provide the full report or any relevant portions of the report to the complainant for comment.
  (c) Notice to others. The University may notify other individuals and organizations as mutually agreed upon by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost and the accused academic faculty or staff member.
7. Reporting to federal funding agency on the decision to initiate an investigation.
  (a) If the allegation involves federally funded research or the application for federally funded research, the University must, within thirty (30) days of finding that an investigation is warranted, provide the funding agency with the written finding by the responsible institutional official and a copy of the inquiry report which includes the following information:
  (1) The name and position of the respondent;
  (2) A description of the allegations of research misconduct;
  (3) The funding agency support, including, for example, grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the funding agency’s support;
  (4) The basis for recommending that the alleged actions warrant an investigation; and
  (5) Any comments on the report by the respondent or the complainant.
  
  (b) The University must provide the following information to the federal funding agency on request:
  
  (1) The institutional policies and procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;
  (2) The research records and evidence reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and
  (3) The charges for the investigation to consider.
8. Documentation of decision not to investigate. The University will keep sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries to permit a later assessment by the appropriate federal granting agency, if any, of the reasons why the institution decided not to conduct an investigation. If the allegation involves federally funded research or the application for federally funded research, the University will keep these records or copies of these records in a secure manner for at least seven (7) years after the termination of the inquiry, and upon request, provide them to the appropriate federal granting agency.
9. During the course of the inquiry, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and ensure that the purposes of any federal financial assistance are being carried out.
Investigation of Research Misconduct
1. Criteria warranting an investigation. An inquiry's purpose is to decide if an allegation warrants an investigation. An investigation is warranted if there is:
  (a) A reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under this section; and
  (b) Preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding from the inquiry indicate that the allegation may have substance.
  
  (1) Time. The investigation will begin within thirty (30) days after the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost determines that an investigation is warranted.
  (2) Notice to federal funding agency. If notice to a federal funding agency is required by the agency, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will notify the agency of the decision to begin an investigation on or before the date the investigation begins and provide an inquiry report that meets the requirements of section E.7.a. herein.
  
  (c) The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will appoint a Relator to gather evidence of the alleged research misconduct and to present the evidence to the Hearing Committee.
  
  (1) Custody of the records. To the extent it has not already been done at the allegation or inquiry stages, the Relator will take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Whenever possible, the Relator must take custody of the records:
  
  (a) Before or at the time the institution notifies the respondent; and
  (b) Whenever additional items become known or relevant to the investigation.
  
  (i) Documentation. The Relator will use diligent efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations.
  (ii) Interviews. The Relator will interview each respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation.
  (iii) Pursue leads. The Relator will pursue diligently all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.
2. Notice to the respondent. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will notify the respondent in writing of the allegations within a reasonable amount of time after determining that an investigation is warranted, but before the investigation begins. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will give the respondent written notice of any new allegations of research misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue allegations not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of investigation.
3. Other notifications.
  (a) If the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost decides on the basis of the inquiry to proceed with an investigation, the Chancellor will forward to the funding agencies with which the respondent has active awards formal notification that an investigation will be undertaken at the same time that the respondent and other University parties are informed.
  (b) During the course of the investigation, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect federal funds and insure that the purposes of any federal financial assistance are carried out.
  (c) During the course of the investigation, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will promptly apprise the appropriate federal funding agency, if any, of any developments which disclose facts that may affect current or potential agency funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the agency needs to know to ensure appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.
  (d) During the course of the investigation, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost will take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation.
4. Investigation time limits.
  (a) Time limit for completing an investigation. The University will endeavor to complete all aspects of an investigation within one-hundred-twenty (120) days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment in accordance with section F.5. herein and sending the final report to any appropriate federal agency.
  (b) Extension of time limit. If unable to complete the investigation in one-hundred-twenty (120) days and if the federal granting agency so requires, the University will ask the granting agency for an extension in writing. If the granting agency permits an extension, it may direct the institution to file periodic progress reports. If the granting agency does not require its permission for an extension, the decision whether to grant an extension will be made by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost.
5. Opportunity to comment on the investigation report.
  (a) The University will give the respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based. The comments of the respondent on the draft report, if any, must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the date on which the respondent received the draft investigation report. The investigation committee will consider and address the comments before issuing a final report.
  (b) The University may provide the complainant a copy of the full draft investigation report or any relevant portions of that report. The comments of the complainant, if any, must be submitted within thirty (30) days of the date on which the complainant received the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it.
6. Procedure: Statement of Charges; Request for Hearing; Answer.
  (a) If the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost decides on the basis of the inquiry to proceed with an investigation and formal Charge, the Respondent shall be notified in writing by the Relator (that official selected by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost to represent the University in the misconduct proceeding) of the allegation(s) of research misconduct and the basis therefore, stated with reasonable particularity and called the Charge, and of the right to a hearing by the appropriate Faculty Committee together with a membership roster of the Committee. This notification initiates formal charges and must be given by the Relator to the Respondent within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days after the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost receives the report of the ad hoc committee. If the respondent desires a hearing, the Respondent shall give written notice of this request to the Relator within fourteen consecutive calendar days from the receipt of formal notice of the Charge. The respondent shall also send copies of this request for hearing to the Chairperson of the Committee. The Relator shall thereupon file a copy of the Charge with the Chairperson of the Committee. Failure by the respondent to make a timely written request for a hearing shall constitute a waiver of the respondent's right to a hearing before the Committee, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs/Provost shall proceed to make his/her report and recommendation to the Chancellor regarding disposition of the matter.
  (b) The respondent shall file a written Answer to the Charge with the Chairperson of the Committee within seven consecutive calendar days after respondent makes her/his written request for a hearing. Respondent shall also send a copy of her/his Answer to the Relator. Such Answer shall specifically admit or deny the allegations contained in the Charge. A failure to answer or to deny an allegation of fact in the Charge may be considered by the Committee as an admission of such fact.
  (c) No person with a real or apparent conflict of interest in the matter of the investigation shall participate in the investigation.
7. Hearing by Committee.
  (a) If the respondent makes a timely written request for a hearing by the Committee, the Chairperson shall notify in writing the respondent and the Relator of the date, time, and place of hearing before the Committee, which shall be within a reasonable time but not more than thirty consecutive calendar days after the date of the receipt of the request for hearing.
  (b) Any request for continuance shall be made by the respondent or Relator in writing to the Chairperson, who shall have discretionary authority to continue the hearing upon determining that the request is timely and made for good cause.
  (c) In accordance with standing University policy in personnel matters, such hearings shall not be open to the public. Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by the Relator, the respondent, or the Committee, will be avoided until the proceedings have been completed, including final appeal.
8. Conduct of Hearing. The Chairperson shall preside at the hearing, call the hearing to order, call the roll of the Committee in attendance, ascertain the presence or absence of the respondent and the Relator, read the notice of hearing, read the Charge and Answer, verify the notice of the Charge to the respondent, report any continuances requested or granted, establish the presence of any advisor or counselor of either party, call to the attention of the respondent and respondent's advisor any special or extraordinary procedures to be employed during the hearing, and permit the respondent to suggest or object to procedures. Formal rules of evidence shall not be required. The burden of demonstrating an adequate case in support of the allegations contained in the Charge shall be with the Relator.
  (a) Opening Statements.
  (1) The Relator shall make opening remarks outlining the general nature of the case. Such remarks shall not be considered as evidence.
  (2) The respondent may also make an opening statement to the Committee about the Charge, either at this time or at the conclusion of the Relator's presentation, at the Respondent's election. Such remarks shall not be considered as evidence.
  
  (b) Relator's Evidence.
  
  (1) Relator's witnesses are to be called and identified and evidence or written statements or reports introduced as appropriate.
  (2) The Committee may question witnesses or examine evidence at the conclusion of Relator's presentation. Respondent may question the Relator or witnesses.
  
  (c) Respondent's Evidence.
  
  (1) Respondent's witnesses are to be called and identified and evidence or written statements or reports introduced as appropriate.
  (2) The Committee may question witnesses or examine evidence at the conclusion of respondent's presentation. Relator may question the respondent or witnesses.
  
  (d) Rebuttal Evidence. The Committee shall permit the Relator or the respondent to offer any matter in rebuttal of the other's presentation.
9. Rights of Committee. The Faculty Committee shall have the right:
  (a) To determine the relevancy and admissibility of any evidence offered at the hearing.
  (b) To permit a stipulation of agreed facts by the Relator and the respondent.
  (c) To permit the incorporation in the record by reference of any document, affidavit or other exhibit produced and desired to be incorporated in the record by the Relator or the respondent.
  (d) To question witnesses or evidence introduced by either the Relator or the respondent at any time.
  (e) To call additional witnesses.
  (f) To dismiss any action or permit informal disposition at any stage of the proceeding if agreed to by Relator and respondent.
  (g) To permit at any time amendment of the Charge or Answer so as to include matters which may come to the attention of the Committee before final determination of the case, provided, however, that in such event the Committee shall grant to the respondent or the Relator such time as the Committee may determine reasonable under the circumstances to answer or explain such additional matters.
  (h) To dismiss any person from the hearing who interferes with or obstructs the hearing or fails to abide by the rulings of the Chairperson of the Committee.
  (i) To have present a legal advisor to the Committee, who shall be designated by the General Counsel of the Board of Curators.
10. Parties' Rights Upon Hearing.
  (a) A Relator appearing before the Faculty Committee for a hearing pursuant to formal notice of a Charge shall have the right:
  (1) To be present at the hearing, which right may be waived by failure to appear.
  (2) To have present any legal or other advisor or counselor and to consult with such advisor or counselor during the hearing.
  (3) To present evidence by witnesses and by properly identified written statements or reports in support of the Charge.
  (4) To hear or examine evidence presented by the respondent.
  (5) To question witnesses present and testifying for respondent.
  (6) To make any statement to the Committee in support of the Charge.
  (7) To be informed in writing of the findings and conclusions of the Committee on the Charge.
  
  (b) A respondent appearing before the Faculty Committee for a hearing pursuant to formal notice of a Charge shall have the right:
  
  (1) To be present at the hearing, which right may be waived by failure to appear.
  (2) To have present any legal or other advisor or counselor and to consult with such advisor or counselor during the hearing.
  (3) To present evidence by witnesses and by properly identified written statements or reports for any defense the respondent desires.
  (4) To hear or examine evidence presented to the Committee.
  (5) To question witnesses present and testifying at the hearing.
  (6) To make any statement to the Committee in mitigation or explanation of the conduct in question.
  (7) To be informed in writing of the findings and conclusions of the Committee on the Charge.
11. Other Procedural Questions.
  (a) Procedural questions which arise during the hearing and which are not covered by these general rules, by 65 FR 76260 or by 42 CFR 93 shall be determined by the Chairperson, whose ruling shall be final unless the Chairperson shall present the question to the Committee at the request of a member of the Committee, in which event the ruling of the Committee by majority vote shall be final.
  (b) General Rules of Decorum. The following general rules of decorum shall be adhered to:
  (1) All requests to address the Committee shall be made to the Chairperson.
  (2) The Chairperson shall rule on all requests and points of order and may consult with the Committee's legal advisor prior to any ruling. The Chairperson's ruling shall be final and all participants shall abide thereby unless the Chairperson shall present the question to the Committee at the request of a member of the Committee, in which event the ruling of the Committee by majority vote shall be final.
  (3) An advisor or counselor shall be permitted to address the Committee and to question witnesses. An advisor or counselor may request clarification of a procedural matter or may object on the basis of procedure at any time by addressing the Chairperson after recognition.
  
  (c) Record of the hearing. A taped or stenographic record of the hearing shall be taken. The notice, exhibits, hearing record, and the findings and determination of the Committee shall become the "Record of the Case," shall be filed in the Office of the President of the ��ϲʹ��, and shall be available only for official purposes, and for the purpose of appeal be accessible at reasonable times and places both to the Relator and the Respondent. The "Record of the Case" shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years. In the event of an appeal, no new evidence shall be taken in the case, but the appellate authority may remand the matter for further evidence to the Committee. Either party may have any such record reduced to writing for the purposes of appeal.
Chancellor Determination. After the adjournment of the hearing, the Committee shall make its findings and determinations by majority vote in executive session out of the presence of the Relator and respondent. Separate findings and conclusions are to be made as to each count of the Charge. Promptly after the hearing and, in any event, within ten consecutive days after receipt of the record, the Committee shall make its findings and conclusions in writing and transmit them to the Chancellor, to the Relator, and to the respondent forthwith.
1. Determination by Chancellor and Right of Appeal.
  (a) The Chancellor shall make a determination in the matter within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days after giving due consideration to the findings and conclusions of the Committee. The Chancellor shall notify the Relator and respondent in writing of her/his determination and disposition. If the Chancellor determines that the termination of an academic faculty or staff member is warranted, he/she must refer the matter to the Faculty Committee on Tenure for disposition pursuant to the Academic Tenure Regulations of the University, and the proceedings hereunder shall cease, and the appeal hereunder shall not be available.
  (b) The respondent or Relator may appeal the decision of the Chancellor to the President by filing a written notice of appeal with the President within seven consecutive calendar days after receiving notice of the decision of the Chancellor. A copy of the Notice of Appeal shall simultaneously be given by the respondent, to the Relator and Chancellor or by the Relator to the respondent and Chancellor. The appealing party may file a written argument confined to the issues and evidence previously submitted and contained in the record of the case for consideration by the President. Such memorandum must be filed with the Notice of Appeal, and the President may request a reply to such memorandum by the respondent or Relator. The President shall have the discretionary right to grant extensions of time.
  (c) The President shall review the record of the case and the appeal documents and may affirm, reverse, or remand the case for further proceedings.
  (d) If it appears that the President is unable to make his or her decision within 120 days from the date the appeal was filed and the allegation involves federally funded research or the application for federally funded research, an extension of that time period will be requested of the federal granting agency in writing with an explanation for the request.
2. Notification of Federal Granting Agency, if any. Once the committee has made its recommendation to the Chancellor, the Chancellor has reached a decision and determined an appropriate action, and any appeal has been acted on by the President, the full documentation of the process, including the record of the case and the appeal documents, will be forwarded to the granting agency, if applicable, and such other federal officials as required by federal law or regulation. The granting agency will then decide whether it will proceed with its own investigation or will act on the University's findings. Notice will also be sent to appropriate other parties.
  (a) Institutional investigation report. If so required by the federal granting agency, if any, the final University investigation report submitted to the federal granting agency will be in writing and include:
  (1) Allegations. Describe the nature of the allegations of research misconduct.
  (2) Federal granting agency or other support. Describe and document any federal granting agency or other research support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant applications, contracts, and publications listing the federal granting agency or other support.
  (3) Institutional charge. Describe the specific allegations of research misconduct for consideration in the investigation.
  (4) Policies and procedures. If not already provided to the federal granting agency with the inquiry report, include the present institutional policy and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
  (5) Research records and evidence. Identify and summarize the research records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed.
  (6) Statement of findings. For each separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did not occur, and if so:
  (7) Identify whether the research misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was intentional, knowing, or in reckless disregard;
  (8) Summary of the facts and the analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent;
  (9) Identify the specific federal granting agency or other support involved;
  (10) Identify whether any publications need correction or retraction;
  (11) Identify the person(s) responsible for the misconduct; and
  (12) List any current support or known applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with other federal agencies or other sponsors.
  (13) Comments. Include and consider any comments made by the respondent and complainant on the draft investigation report.
  (14) Maintain and provide records. Maintain and provide to the federal granting agency upon request all relevant research records and records of the institution's research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of such interviews as required by section F.11.c herein.
3. Parties to be notified of investigation results. The following is an illustrative list of parties to be notified as relevant of any determination of research misconduct in writing by the Chancellor within thirty (30) days after an investigation has concluded. If the appeal process has been invoked, this notification will take place, when the original determination has been sustained, within thirty (30) days of the final decision.
  (a) Appropriate campus officials
  (b) Sponsoring agencies, funding sources
  (c) Co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators
  (d) Editors of journals in which fraudulent research was published
  (e) Professional licensing boards
  (f) Editors of journals or other publications, other institutions, sponsoring agencies, and funding sources with which the individual has been affiliated
  (g) Professional societies
  (h) Where appropriate, criminal authorities

420.020 Procedures Governing the Disposition of Charges of Research Dishonesty by Academic Faculty

kuscheld — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:50:26 +0000

420.020 Procedures Governing the Disposition of Charges of Research Dishonesty by Academic Faculty kuscheld Thu, 05/27/2010 - 16:50

Bd. Min. 5-1-87; Revised 5-4-90, Revised 10-24-96.

This regulation was rescinded on 3-23-06.

420.030 Conflict with the Interests of Federal Grant Agencies

kuscheld — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:52:48 +0000

420.030 Conflict with the Interests of Federal Grant Agencies kuscheld Thu, 05/27/2010 - 16:52

Executive Order 39, previously issued as Executive Guideline 32, 9-18-95, Amended 8-24-12.

Purpose – This Executive Order is intended to comply with the requirement of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services (PHS), that grantee institutions maintain an appropriate written and enforced policy on conflict of interest consistent with provisions in the NSF Grant Policy Manual and 42 CFR Part 50 and 45 CFR Part 94. This policy pertaining to conflicts with the interests of federal grant agencies is applicable to investigators, as defined below, involved in proposed or funded research by NSF or PHS (including NIH). All University employees are also subject to CRR 330.015, pertaining to conflicts with the interests of the University. Researchers on Human Subjects and certain University officials are also subject to CRR 410.020 pertaining to Institutional Conflicts in Human Subjects Research.
Definitions – For the purposes of this Executive Order, the following terms have the meanings stated:
1. The term “investigator” means the project director, principal investigator, co-principal investigators, collaborators or consultants and any other person who is responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of research or educational activities funded or proposed for funding by NSF or PHS.
2. The term ‘significant financial interest’ means
  1. A financial interest consisting of one or more of the following interests of the Investigator (and those of the Investigator’s spouse and dependent children) that reasonably appears to be related to the Investigator’s institutional responsibilities:
    
    (1) With regard to any publicly traded entity, a significant financial interest exists if the value of any remuneration (salary, consulting fees, honoraria, paid authorship or other payment for services) received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure and the value of any equity interests (stock, stock option, or other ownership interest and determined through reference to public prices or other reasonable measures of fair market value) in the entity as of the date of disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000 for PHS-funded purposes and $10,000 for NSF-funded purposes.
    (2) With regard to any non-publicly traded entity, a significant financial interest exists if the value of any remuneration received from the entity in the twelve months preceding the disclosure, when aggregated, exceeds $5,000, or when the Investigator (or the Investigator’s spouse or dependent children) holds any equity interest (e.g. stock, stock option, or other ownership interest); or
    (3) Intellectual property rights and interests (e.g. patents, copyrights) upon receipt of income related to such rights and interests.
  2. PHS-funded Investigators must also disclose the occurrence of any reimbursed or sponsored travel (i.e. that which is paid on behalf of the investigator and not reimbursed to the Investigator so that the exact monetary value may not be readily available), related to their institutional responsibilities; provided, however, that this disclosure requirement does not apply to travel that is reimbursed or sponsored by a Federal, state or local government agency, an institution of higher education as defined by 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an institution of higher education. The University will determine if a determination or disclosure of monetary value is required in order to determine whether the travel constitutes a conflict of interest with PHS-funded research.
  3. The term does not include:
    
    (1) salary, royalties or other remuneration from the University, including intellectual property rights assigned to the institution and agreements to share in royalties related to such rights;
    (2) income from investment vehicles, such as mutual funds and retirement accounts, as long as the Investigator does not directly control the investment decisions made in these vehicles;
    (3) income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by a Federal, state or local government agency, an Institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an Institution of higher education;
    (4) income from service on advisory committees or review panels for a Federal, state or local government agency, an Institution of higher education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001(a), an academic teaching hospital, a medical center, or a research institute that is affiliated with an Institution of higher education;
    (5) public or nonprofit entities.
3. For the purpose of this Executive Order, a “Financial Conflict of Interest” means a significant financial interest that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct or reporting of NSF- or PHS-funded research.
Investigator’s Duty – Training. Each investigator involved in any PHS- or NSF- funded grant or contract shall complete training prior to engaging in research related to such grant or contract; shall complete training at least every four years; and shall complete training immediately if (a) there is a change in this policy that affects investigator requirements, (b) the investigator is new to the University, or (c) the University finds the investigator noncompliant with this policy or management plan created pursuant to this policy.
Investigator’s Duty – Disclosure. Each investigator shall disclose to the designated Institutional Official(s) all significant financial interests of the investigator (including those of the investigator’s spouse and dependent children) that reasonably appear to be related to the Investigator’s institutional responsibilities.
This information must be disclosed:
1. at the time the application is submitted;
2. on an annual basis during the period of the award; and
3. within 30 days of discovering or acquiring a new significant financial interest.
For PHS proposals and awards, subgrantees, contractors and collaborators shall have the same duty to disclose as investigators.
Institutional Duties
1. Institutional Duties – The Chancellor of each campus shall designate one or more persons (Reviewer) to
  1. provide training for investigators;
  2. solicit and review financial disclosures;
  3. determine whether a financial conflict of interest with the interests of NSF or PHS exists;
  4. determine what conditions or restrictions, if any, should be imposed by the University to manage, reduce or eliminate such conflict of interest and resolve actual or potential problems revealed;
  5. conduct a retrospective review in cases of noncompliance and make any reports required by the appropriate regulations to the granting agency or the public;
  6. incorporate in a written agreement with any subrecipient terms that establish whether the conflict of interest policy of the University or that of the subrecipient will apply to the subrecipient’s Investigators, and otherwise comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. Section 50.604; and
  7. develop and publish campus guidelines and procedures to comply with NSF and PHS requirements for the identification, management and reporting of financial conflicts of interest with respect to all research projects for which funding is sought or received from NSF or PHS, and for any reporting or records maintenance requirements of those agencies.
2. Examples of conditions or restrictions that might be imposed to manage, reduce or eliminate actual or potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
  1. public disclosure of significant financial conflicts of interest (e.g. when presenting or publishing the research);
  2. For research projects involving human subjects research, disclosure of financial conflicts of interest directly to participants;
  3. monitoring of research by independent reviewers capable of taking measures to protect the design, conduct and reporting of the research against bias resulting from the financial conflict of interest;
  4. modification of the research plan;
  5. Change of personnel or personnel responsibilities, or disqualification from participation in the portion of the NSF-funded research that would be affected by the significant financial interests;
  6. reduction or elimination of the financial interest (e.g. sale of an equity interest); or
  7. severance of relationships that create financial conflicts.
If the University is unable to satisfactorily manage an actual or potential conflict of interest, the Reviewer shall keep the NSF or PHS appropriately informed.

PHS shall be informed of all conflicts with its interests and mechanisms for managing them.
Enforcement
1. Allegations of undisclosed conflicts with the interests of NSF or PHS or of failures to comply with conditions or restrictions imposed to manage, reduce or eliminate such conflicts shall be investigated by the University, and appropriate notifications to NSF, PHS and the public shall be made.
2. Conduct by an employee that violates this policy shall constitute a breach of the employment contract and may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
3. Conduct by subgrantees, contractors or collaborators that violates this policy shall constitute a breach of contract and may lead to appropriate action, up to and including termination of the contractual agreement.
Records – The University will retain records of investigator financial disclosures and of actions taken to manage conflicts of interest for (for NSF) three years after the later of the termination or completion of the award to which they relate or the resolution of any government action involving those records; or (for PHS) for three years after final payment or, where applicable, for the other time periods specified in 45 CFR 74.53(b), 45 CFR 92.42(b), and 48 CFR Part 4, subpart 4.7.