6.4 PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT

This policy was developed in the Provost's Office of Calvin College. One purpose, among others, is to bring the college into compliance with Public Health Service (PHS) regulations (42 CFR Part 50, Subpart A) concerning institutional response to allegations of scientific misconduct. A copy of this policy is to be given to all those scholars covered by it. Additionally, all scholars with PHS funded research will be given a copy of the PHS regulation referred to above.

6.4.1 Policy

The college expects that all scholars associated with the college conduct their scholarly activities with honesty and integrity. Calvin College accepts responsibility for promoting practices that discourage scientific misconduct and for developing policies to address allegations of scientific misconduct.

This policy applies to alleged misconduct by any person paid by, under the control of, or affiliated with Calvin College such as faculty members, students, technicians, guest researchers, or others collaborating with such persons at Calvin College.

6.4.2 Definitions

6.4.2.1 Scientific Misconduct

Scientific Misconduct means falsification of data, plagiarism, fabrication, misappropriation of the ideas of others, or other practices that deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scholarly community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretation or judgments.

6.4.2.2 Research Integrity Officer (RIO)

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) is the college official with primary responsibility for the implementation of the procedures set forth in this document. The RIO is appointed by the president and is normally the Dean for the Natural Sciences and Mathematics. In cases involving funding from federal, state, or private sources, the RIO will be responsible for all reporting requirements as specified by the funding agency.

6.4.2.3 Whistleblower

A Whistleblower is a person who has alleged scientific misconduct on the part of a covered individual.

6.4.2.4 Respondent

The Respondent is the person against whom an allegation of scientific misconduct has been directed.

6.4.3 Procedures For Handling Allegations Of Misconduct

6.4.3.1 Initiation of an Allegation of Misconduct

Any person associated with the college should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct to the RIO. Should the individual be unsure whether an incident falls within the definition of misconduct, he or she may discuss the incident informally and confidentially with the RIO. This person is referred to below as the whistleblower.

6.4.3.2 Whistleblower Protection

The RIO has responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers are not retaliated against and will review any instance of alleged retaliation. The RIO and the institution will also protect the privacy of whistleblowers to the maximum extent consistent with the procedures described herein for investigating the instance of misconduct.

6.4.3.3 Respondent Protection

The RIO and the institution will conduct the investigation in a manner that will ensure fair treatment of the respondent. The RIO and the institution will also protect the privacy of respondents to the maximum extent consistent with the procedures below and without compromising public health and safety.

6.4.3.4 Conflict of Interest

If the RIO has a conflict of interest in the case, he or she shall ask the president to assign another college official to carry out the responsibilities of the RIO described below.

6.4.3.5 Preliminary Assessment

The RIO will immediately assess the allegation and, possibly in consultation with the president and legal counsel, determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry. The RIO might also determine that the charges are appropriate for adjudication according to the procedures outlined in Chapter 6, Section 6.1. Should the RIO determine that there is not sufficient evidence to go forward, he or she shall report that to the president. Should the president believe that an inquiry is warranted, the inquiry process will be initiated.

6.4.3.6 Inquiry

Should the RIO or the president determine that the allegations warrant further investigation, the RIO will immediately initiate an inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final determination about whether misconduct occurred. The purpose of the inquiry is to make preliminary evaluation of the evidence and the testimony of key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation.

1. The RIO will appoint an inquiry committee of three persons and designate one of the three as chairperson within 15 days of receiving the allegation. The committee shall consist of individuals from the college community with no conflict of interest in the case. Normally, the committee shall consist of three members of the Science Division Research and Grants Committee but the RIO will appoint other persons from either inside or outside the institution if necessary to ensure that the committee has persons with appropriate scientific expertise. The RIO will inform the respondent of the committee membership and the specific allegations within 15 days of receiving the allegations. The respondent may submit written objections to any member of the committee on the basis of conflict of interest within 5 days. The RIO will determine whether to replace the challenged member.
2. In the case of externally funded research, the RIO will take appropriate administrative actions to protect federal or other funds appropriated for the project and will ensure that the purposes of the financial award are being carried out.
3. The RIO will prepare a statement describing the allegations for the committee. This statement shall be given to the committee members, the respondent, and the whistleblower before the first meeting of the committee.
4. The committee shall meet within 15 days after it is appointed. The committee may determine its own procedures as are appropriate for the specific situation. This will normally include interviews with the whistleblower, the respondent, and other key witnesses as are necessary. All college personnel shall cooperate fully with the committee during the course of the inquiry by supplying any requested documents and information.
5. Anonymity of the whistleblower shall be preserved at this stage of the inquiry if possible.
6. All individuals appearing before the committee are entitled to be accompanied at the meeting by an advisor from within the college community. No person from outside the community (e.g., legal counsel) may participate in the hearings.
7. The hearing committee shall arrive at a judgment as expeditiously as possible. Normally, the committee shall file its written report within 30 days of the initial meeting of the committee and will carefully document reasons for extending the inquiry beyond that time period as appropriate.
8. The written report of the committee must include the name and title of committee members, a summary of the allegations, a description of the process used including a list of evidence gathered, and summaries of any interviews conducted. The report will indicate whether the committee recommends that an investigation take place and whether any other actions should be taken if an investigation is not recommended.
9. The RIO shall provide the respondent with a copy of the report and the respondent shall have 10 days to submit written comments.
10. The RIO will transmit the report and any response to the president, who shall make the determination of whether findings from the inquiry warrant an investigation. This determination shall be made and the respondent and whistleblower notified in writing within 10 days of the receipt by the president of the report.
11. Whether or not an investigation is judged to be warranted, the inquiry report will be kept by the president for a period of three years and should be shared with officials of relevant granting agencies as required.

6.4.3.7 Investigation

1. Should the president determine that a formal investigation is needed, the RIO shall appoint a committee of three persons for that purpose within 15 days of this determination. The committee shall consist of three persons with expertise necessary to evaluate the scientific evidence. They may be professionals from inside or outside the college community. Normally, if the respondent is a faculty member, one member of the committee shall be a member of the Professional Status Committee. The respondent shall be informed in writing of the membership of the committee and may object in writing to any member on the basis of conflict of interest within 5 days of this notification. The RIO will decide whether to replace such a challenged member.
2. The committee shall meet within 15 days after it is appointed. The committee shall be given the report of the inquiry committee together with all evidence generated by that committee. The committee shall determine its own procedures consistent with those described below. The committee will be given the document "Model Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct" from the ORI Handbook for Research Integrity Officers to help it define its procedures.
3. In the case of externally funded research, the RIO will continue to take appropriate administrative actions to protect federal or other funds appropriated for the project and will ensure that the purposes of the financial award are being carried out.
4. The investigation will normally involve the examination of all documentation including, but not limited to, research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications, correspondence, and notes of telephone calls. The respondent shall be given copies of all documentation immediately on receipt by the committee. Whenever possible, the committee shall interview the respondent, the whistleblower, and other individuals who might have information regarding the allegations. All interviews should be tape-recorded. Summaries of the interviews shall be prepared for the record. The respondent may be present for all interviews and may cross-examine all witnesses. The respondent may have a member of the college community present for advice and support.
5. The final report must describe the procedures used to conduct the investigation, the evidence collected, the findings, and the basis for the findings. The final report and supporting documentation should be sent to the president no later than 15 days after the last hearing and no later than 120 days after the investigation begins. Any reason for extending the inquiry beyond that time should be clearly documented as appropriate.
6. The RIO shall furnish the respondent with a copy of the report for comment. The respondent will be allowed 10 days for such response. Any response shall accompany the final report.
7. If the respondent alleges that the investigation has been conducted unfairly, the respondent may appeal. In the case of a faculty member, the appeal shall be heard by the Faculty Hearing Committee using procedures as described in the Chapter 6, Section 6.1. In the case of a student, the appeal shall be heard by the Student Disciplinary Committee. An appeal may only be made on the grounds of due process. It is not the intention of this provision to require new evidence or to allow for the reversal of scientific judgments.
8. Whether or not the investigation results in a finding of misconduct, the investigation report together with the evidence collected will be kept by the president for a period of three years and will be shared with the head of the relevant granting agencies as required.

6.4.3.8 Resolution

6.4.3.8.1 Finding of Absence of Scientific Misconduct

All research sponsors and others initially informed of the investigation should be informed in writing that allegations of misconduct were not supported. If the allegations are deemed not to have been made in good faith, appropriate actions should be taken against the whistleblower in accordance with this policy. If the allegations, however incorrect, are deemed to have been made in good faith, no disciplinary measures are indicated and efforts should be made to prevent retaliatory actions and to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the positions and reputations of the persons who made the allegations as well as those against whom allegations of misconduct were not confirmed. Calvin College will publicize a finding of no misconduct only with permission of the innocently accused.

6.4.3.8.2 Presence of Scientific Misconduct

When an investigation confirms misconduct, the president shall consider the recommendations of the Committee and shall be responsible for determining an appropriate action. Calvin College must take action appropriate for the seriousness of the misconduct including but not limited to the following: removal from a particular project, special monitoring of future work, letter of reprimand, probation for a specified period with conditions, financial restitution, suspension (of a student respondent) and termination (of a faculty or staff respondent). If the respondent is a faculty member, the Professional Status Committee shall recommend a sanction, and the president shall act upon that recommendation in accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 6, Section 6.1. In all cases, the action of the president must be ratified by the Board of Trustees. Calvin College should also give formal notification of all involved parties such as sponsoring agencies, funding sources, co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators, editors of journals in which fraudulent research was published, state professional licensing boards, professional societies, and campus media personnel.

Last updated Tuesday, May 22, 2007