|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Revised Rules on Research Misconduct Proposed
By Ruth L. Flower
In April, the Public Health Service (PHS), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, proposed a new rule on research misconduct, which will apply to all research conducted with the support of PHS grants. The proposal defines research misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results." To arrive at a finding of research misconduct, in-vestigators would have to establish that the conduct in question was a significant departure from accepted practices in the relevant research community, and that the action was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.
The proposal creates several stages for the examination of possible misconduct. First, an allegation of misconduct would trigger a campus inquiry; if the inquiry yielded a "reasonable basis" for believing the allegation had substance, the institution would conduct a more formal investigation, consisting of interviews and fact finding. Based on the report of that investigation, the health and human services department's Office of Research Integrity would decide either to close the case or to make recommendations for administrative action; the researcher would be permitted to appeal the findings of the research integrity office in an administrative hearing. The accused researcher would have opportunities along the way to review and comment on the report of the inquiry and the report of the investigation.
In June, the AAUP submitted comments on the proposed regulations. While commending the PHS for its continuing interest in advancing the integrity of academic research, the AAUP recommended that the accused researcher be allowed to know the identity of the complainant and to participate in the interviews of the complain-ant and other witnesses in order to question and clarify the evidence offered.
The AAUP's comments also raised a concern about the standard of proof required in investigations of these matters. AAUP standards and policies require that findings of seriousmisconduct be supported by "clear and convincing evidence," while the PHS rule would require only a "preponderance of the evidence." But the new rule would also specifically require that institutions comply with their own policies and procedures in these matters, creating a conflict for institutions that have adopted AAUP-recommended practices. In its comments, the AAUP recommended that "the PHS treat an institution's finding of misconduct based on the standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' as presumptively valid, and override institutional judgment only for compelling reasons."
The agency will release a final rule after reviewing the comments received. It will be accompanied by a related rule describing the rights of whistleblowers.
|