3-12-04 Draft (Incorporates all of Academic Personnel’s comments)
UCD POLICY & PROCEDURE MANUAL
Section 210-25 - Integrity in Research
Implemented 11/12/03; revised __/__/04
I. Introduction
A. The purpose of these procedures is to provide advice and guidance to UC Davis officials on the methods and principles for assessing allegations of Research Misconduct, conducting inquiries and investigations related to possible Research Misconduct and reporting the results to Cognizant Federal Sponsors.
B. This policy applies to all individuals at UC Davis engaged in research, including any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with UC Davis, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators at UC Davis.
C. The policy and associated procedures will normally be followed when a UC Davis official receives an allegation of possible Research Misconduct. Particular circumstances in an individual case may dictate variation from the normal procedure. Any significant variation should be approved by the Vice Chancellor — Research.
II. Definitions
A. Allegation--means any written or oral statement or other indication of possible Research Misconduct made to a UC Davis official.
B. CHANCELLOR—means the Chancellor of UC Davis who is responsible for disciplinary actions involving faculty Senate members.
B. Cognizant Federal Sponsor--means the federal sponsoring agency of the research project, for example, PHS, NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA, DOD and FDA. Also referred to in this policy as the Federal Sponsor.
C. Conflict of Interest--means the real or apparent interference of one person’s interests with the interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal, professional or economic relationships.
D. Deciding Official--means the Vice Chancellor – Research at UC Davis, who makes the final determinations regarding a finding on Allegations of Research Misconduct. and any responsive UC Davis actions. The Deciding Official will not be the same individual as the Research Integrity Officer and should have no direct prior involvement in the Allegation assessment, Inquiry, or Investigation.
E. E. Employee--means any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with the institution, including but not limited to scientists, physicians, trainees, students, fellows, technicians, nurses, support staff, and guest researchers.
F. Good Faith Allegation--means an Allegation made with the honest belief that Research Misconduct may have occurred.
G. IMMEDIATE HEALTH HAZARD-- means
GH. Inquiry--means information-gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an Allegation or apparent instance of Research Misconduct warrants an Investigation.
HI. Institutional Counsel--means one or more UC legal counsel who is responsible for advising the Research Integrity Officer, the Inquiry and Investigation committees, and the Deciding Official on relevant legal issues. The Institutional Counsel does not represent the Respondent, the Reporter, or any other person participating during the Inquiry, Investigation, or any follow-up action, except the UC Davis officials responsible for managing or conducting the UC Davis Research Misconduct process as part of their official duties.
J. Investigation--means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if Research Misconduct has occurred and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the misconduct.
JK. NSF—means the National Science Foundation.
JL. ORI--means the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the Research Misconduct and research integrity activities of the U.S. Public Health Service.
KM. PHS--means the U.S Public Health Service, an operating component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
N. PHS Regulation--means the Public Health Service regulation establishing
standards for UC Davis Inquiries and Investigations into Allegations of Research Misconduct which is set forth at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A, entitled “Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing with and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science.”
O. PHS Support--means Public Health Service grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, or applications therefore.
P. PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY—means (see p.9)
Q. Reporter--is anyone of the following:
1. Complainant--is a person who makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct and who is not normally charged with oversight of an aspect of research integrity.
2. Whistleblower--means a person who makes an Allegation of Research Misconduct and who is not normally charged with oversight of an aspect of research integrity. Whistleblowers may be University employees (academic or staff), applicants for employment, students, patients, vendors, contractors or the general public. The Whistleblower’s role is as a reporting party. They are not investigators or finders of fact, nor do they determine the appropriate corrective or remedial action that may be warranted.
3. Other UC Davis employee who is charged with oversight of an aspect of research integrity.
R. Research--means all basic, applied and demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics. This includes, but is not limited to, research in economics, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, social sciences, statistics, and research involving human subjects or animals.
S. Research Integrity Officer--means the Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Administration or the person delegated this responsibility, Executive Director of the Office of Human Research Protection and Research Compliance at UC Davis, who is responsible for assessing Allegations of Research Misconduct and determining when such Allegations warrant Inquiries and for overseeing any Inquiries and Investigations. The Research Integrity Officer shall be appointed by the Vice Chancellor – Research at UC Davis.
QT. Research Misconduct--means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research or in reporting research results. It does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Research Misconduct includes other improper research activities such as inappropriate treatment of living subjects, non-compliance with Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies or directives, intentional failure to comply with university review and approval processes for proposing or performing research, and fiscal malfeasance regarding research.
2. Fabrication--is making up data or results and recording or reporting
them.
3. 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.
4. Plagiarism--is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
U. Research Record--means any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported Research that constitutes the subject of an Allegation of Research Misconduct. A Research Record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications, whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks; notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols; consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.
V. Respondent--means the person against whom an Allegation of Research
Misconduct is directed or the person who is the subject of the Inquiry or Investigation. There can be more than one Respondent in any Inquiry or Investigation.
W. Retaliation--means any action taken by the University or an individual that
adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of an individual, who, acting in good faith, has made an Allegation of Research Misconduct or who has cooperated in good faith with an Investigation of alleged Research Misconduct or of inadequate institutional response.
III. Policy
A. Scope
5. The procedures for handling allegations regarding fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, as defined in this policy, are mandated by federal regulations. The procedure for handling Allegations for all other areas within the definition of Research Misconduct, as defined in this policy, may or may not follow these procedures. This determination will be at the discretion of the Research Integrity Officer in coordination with in accordance with other UC Davis policies and procedures.
B. Time Limits
There are specific time limits imposed upon many of the steps described below. These include:
1. Notify the Federal Sponsor of reasonable indications of criminal violations within 24 hours of finding.
2. Produce Inquiry report within 60 days of initiation of Inquiry unless delay clearly warranted. Initiation of Inquiry refers to the first meeting of the Inquiry committee.
3. Initiate Investigation within 30 days of completion of Inquiry if Investigation
is indicated. Initiation of Investigation refers to the first meeting of the Investigation committee
3. Submit Investigation report to the Federal Sponsor within 120 days of initiation of Investigation.
C. Evidentiary Standards
The following evidentiary standards apply to findings of Research Misconduct:
1. Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for making a finding of Research Misconduct is on
UC Davis.
2. Standard of Proof
Any UC Davis or ORI finding of Research Misconduct will be established by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that the Respondent committed Research Misconduct.
3. A finding of Research Misconduct requires:
a) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
b) The misconduct is committed intentionally, or knowingly or recklessly.
D. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations
It is the responsibility of each UC Davis employee to cooperate with the Research Integrity Officer and other UC Davis officials in the review of Allegations and the conduct of Inquiries and Investigations. Employees have an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the Research Integrity Officer or other UC Davis officials responsible for reviewing an Allegation of Research Misconduct.
E. Rights and responsibilities
1. Responsibility to Report Misconduct
a) All employees or individuals associated with UC Davis should report, either in writing or orally, observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in research to the Locally Designated Official (as defined in the UC Whistleblower Policy) or the Research Integrity Officer. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, he or she may call the Research Integrity Officer at 530-752-6374 to discuss the suspected misconduct informally. The Research Integrity Officer will promptly engage in an assessment of the Allegation to determine whether it falls within the definition of Research Misconduct, involves federal support, and provides sufficient information to proceed with an Inquiry.
b) At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of possible misconduct with the Research Integrity Officer and will be counseled about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations.
c) At any time, an employee may make a confidential phone call to the Research Compliance Hotline 1-877-ETHICS2.
d) If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of Research Misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will refer the individual or Allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem.
e) The Research Integrity Officer will also notify the Locally Designated Official if the matter meets the conditions specified in section III.B.3. of the UC Whistleblower Policy.
2. Research Integrity Officer
a) The Research Integrity Officer (Executive Director of the Offices of Human Research Protection and Office of Research Integrity at UC Davis) has primary responsibility for implementation of the procedures set forth in this document.
b) The Research Integrity Officer will appoint the Inquiry and Investigation committees and ensure that necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in an Inquiry or Investigation. The Research Integrity Officer will attempt to ensure that confidentiality is maintained.
c) The Research Integrity Officer will assist Inquiry and Investigation committees and all UC Davis personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government or external funding sources. The Research Integrity Officer is also responsible for maintaining files of all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of the files.
d) The Research Integrity Officer will review the contents of the Investigation and recommend if the evidence supports a finding of Research Misconduct. The Research Integrity Officer will notify the Deciding Official of the recommendation and of how the conclusion was reached.
3. Reporter
a) If the Reporter is a person charged with oversight of an aspect of
research integrity, that person may also participate in the Investigation of the issue, though the reporter may not be the final decision-maker.
b) The Reporter is responsible for making Allegations in good faith,
maintaining confidentiality, and cooperating with an Inquiry or Investigation.
c) The Reporter will have an opportunity to testify before the Inquiry and Investigation committees, to review portions of the Inquiry and Investigation reports pertinent to his/her Allegations or testimony, to be informed of the results of the Inquiry and Investigation, and to be protected from Retaliation. Also, if the Research Integrity Officer has determined that the Reporter may be able to provide pertinent information on any portions of the draft report, these portions will be given to the Reporter for comment.
4. Respondent
a) The Respondent will be informed of the Allegations when an Inquiry is opened and notified in writing of the final determinations and resulting actions. The Respondent will also have the opportunity to be interviewed by and present evidence to the Inquiry and Investigation committees, to review the draft Inquiry and Investigation reports, and to have the advice of counsel.
b) The Respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an Inquiry or Investigation.
5. Deciding Official
a) The Deciding Official will receive the Inquiry and/or Investigation report and any written comments made by the Respondent and/or the Reporter on the draft report. The Deciding Official will consult with the Research Integrity Officer or other appropriate individuals, and will determine whether to conduct an Investigation, whether Research Misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, or whether to take other appropriate administrative actions which have been delegated accordingly. within his/her power (bad word)
b) Upon making a determination of whether or not research misconduct has occurred, the Deciding Official will inform the Chancellor of the finding(s) and how that conclusion was reached.
c) The Deciding Official will then notify the Respondent of the finding(s) of the Investigation.