 |
|
|
Research
Ethical Standards in the Conduct of Research
Approved by Faculty Senate March 2, 1998
Board of Trustees April 9, 1998
- Preamble
The freedom traditionally accorded members of the university
community carries with it the obligation of self-discipline.
Indeed, maintenance of the highest ethical standards in the
conduct of research and all other scholarly activity is a
necessary condition for the proper functioning of the university.
Dishonesty tarnishes the cause of truth, damages or destroys
collegial relationships, and may cause irreparable harm to
the relationship between the university and the public.
The increased competitiveness of modern university life may
place additional stress on the scholar. Work carried out
in collaboration, in particular, imposes a special responsibility
upon the investigators. Here reseach misconduct directly
affects the reputation of co-workers, as well as that of
the perpetrator. For this reason, each investigator must
share in the assurance that data have been honestly gathered
and reported and that appropriate credit is given for each
individual's contributions. While overall responsibility
for the integrity of collaborative work always rests with
a principal investigator, this statement of ethical standards
in the conduct of research applies to all members of the
university community who may be involved with a research
project, whether or not supported by internal or external
funds.
All scholars share the obligation to maintain the highest
standard of conduct in their profession and to disclose what
they perceive in good faith to be misconduct in research,
secure in the knowledge that the university respects the
honest exercise of their judgment. Such allegations must
be made with caution, however, and the rights of the individual
to a fair and careful hearing strenuously protected.
The scope of this policy does not cover sexual harassment,
misappropriation of funds, failure to comply with university
policies governing the protection of human subjects and the
welfare of laboratory animals or failure to comply with other
conditions or guidelines established by an external sponsor
or by the university. These problems should be referred to
appropriate administrators or compliance committee chairs.
- Definitions
"
Investigator" is defined as any member of the university
community who participates in a research or other scholarly
endeavor intended to create, apply, or disseminate new knowledge.
These members include faculty, staff, and students.
"
Principal investigator" is defined as an investigator
who has overall responsibility for the conduct of a research
or other scholarly endeavor including but not limited to
supervision and training of other participating investigators.
"
Research misconduct" or "misconduct" is defined
as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices
that seriously deviate from those commonly accepted within
the scientific community or other communities of scholars
for proposing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research
or other scholarly activity. Research misconduct does not
include honest error or honest differences in interpretations
or judgments. For the purpose of this policy, misconduct
also includes retaliation of any kind against a person who
reported or provided information about suspected or alleged
misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith.
- Goals
It is the policy of Wright State University that the highest
ethical standards in the conduct of research be maintained.
Misconduct in research as defined in this policy shall be
considered a major breach of the contract between the faculty,
staff member, or student and the university. The goals of
this statement relating to ethics in the conduct of research
are to maintain the highest standards and to establish institutional
policies that provide a conspicuous and understandable mechanism
for dealing with instances of alleged misconduct.
- Responsibilities
- Each investigator is responsible for the
highest standards of ethical conduct in the pursuit of
all research and other
scholarly activities.
- Each principal investigator is responsible for the overall
conduct of research projects under the PI's supervision.
Supervision includes assuring the highest ethical standards
in the conduct of the research and dissemination of research
results, as well as detecting irregular practices in research
procedures, introducing remedial measures in the case of
innocent mistakes, and investigating and eliminating willful
misconduct.
- Research investigators are responsible to a principal
investigator if involved in a multi-investigator project.
Principal investigators are responsible to department chairs
and/or program directors who in turn are responsible to the
appropriate dean(s). The chain of responsibility continues
through the chief research officer, the chief academic officer,
and the president of the university.
- Each principal investigator is responsible for the procedures
used to gather, record, and retain research data and similar
products of other scholarly activities according to scientific
and/or professional standards of discipline.
- Each principal investigator is responsible for the dissemination
and reporting of research results including ethical attribution
of authorship. Thus, the contributions of all investigators
should be appropriately recognized, and all co-authors must
accept responsibility for their personal contributions to
the work being reported.
- Procedure for Reporting and Investigating Alleged
Research Misconduct
Any allegation of misconduct in carrying out research procedures
or handling research results is a serious matter requiring
extreme care. The guiding principle in processing an initial
allegation is to protect the rights and reputation of all
parties involved, including the accused and the individual
or individuals who in good faith report perceived misconduct.
All aspects of the investigation shall be kept in strict
confidence. The following steps shall be taken:
Inquiry into an Allegation of Misconduct:
- A written allegation of misconduct should be given
to the chief research officer. The chief research officer
will
notify appropriate individuals in the research chain of responsibility
and conduct a confidential inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry
shall be to determine whether the allegation of misconduct
is frivolous or if it deserves a broader investigation. The
inquiry shall be completed and a written report forwarded
to the chief academic officer within 30 days of receipt of
the allegation.
If the allegation is extremely serious (for example, involving
immediate health hazards; an immediate need to protect federal
or university funds or equipment; an immediate need to protect
those making the allegation; or, a reasonable indication
of possible criminal activity) or there is the likelihood
that an alleged incident is going to be reported publicly,
the chief research officer shall take any necessary interim
action. If federal funds are involved, the chief research
officer shall, when required by federal regulations, notify
the federal funding agency(ies) within 24 hours concerning
the serious allegation and the interim action that has been
taken.
When an inquiry is completed, all affected individuals shall
be given the opportunity to comment on the allegation and
the findings of the inquiry. The chief research officer will
inform all recipients of the confidentiality under which
the findings are made available and may request recipients
to sign a confidentiality statement or to come to his/her
office to review the findings. All proceedings of the inquiry,
including any comments by affected individuals, shall be
documented and the records retained for three years. If the
inquiry takes longer than 30 days to complete, the record
of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons
for exceeding the 30 day period. If Public Health Service
funds are involved, and if the chief research officer plans
to terminate the inquiry without completing all steps as
outlined above, then the chief research officer shall promptly
notify the Public Health Service Office of Research Integrity
of the planned termination pursuant to 42 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 50.104(a)(3).
If the alleged misconduct is not substantiated by the inquiry,
formal efforts shall be made to restore the reputations of
the researcher and other affected individuals.
Any person aggrieved by any action proposed as a result of
the inquiry shall have the right of appeal to the chief academic
officer, in writing, within 30 days of notification.
Inquiry Report:
- If the inquiry report concludes that the allegation is
substantive, the chief research officer shall appoint and
charge a three-member investigative committee. Two of the
investigative committee members shall be selected by the
chief research officer and the appropriate dean(s), and one
shall be selected by the accused. In the case of a fully
affiliated faculty member, the three committee members shall
be fully affiliated faculty members. In other cases, at least
two of the committee members shall be fully affiliated faculty
members. All committee members shall have broad experience
in academic research, with knowledge of the area in which
the alleged misconduct is said to have occurred. However,
those with personal involvement in or responsibility for
the research under investigation, or a real or apparent conflict
of interst in the outcome, shall be excluded from the committee.
The accused will be given the opportunity to comment on the
committee membership. When selection is complete, the chief
research officer shall provide a list of the investigative
committee membership and charge to the accused, the appropriate
dean(s), the chief academic officer, and to the president
of the university.
If federal funds are involved, and when required by agency
regulations, the chief research officer shall, before the
investigation begins, notify the federal funding agency(ies)
that a formal investigation is being initiated and shall
keep that (those) agency(ies) apprised of developments that
disclose facts that may affect agency funding decisions or
otherwise affect the public interest.
- The committee shall initiate a confidential investigation
of the alleged misconduct within 30 days after the completion
of the inquiry. The accused shall have the following rights:
- Notification in writing of all charges;
- Adequate time, normally five business days, to prepare
for any meeting;
- Opportunity to meet with the committee and present evidence;
- Opportunity to confront the person(s) alleging the misconduct;
- Right to confidentiality in the proceedings to the extent
permitted by law;
- Right to speedy determination/report of the committee;
- Right to written findings of the committee; and,
- Right to counsel at the accused's own expense.
- Report of findings
A draft report of findings shall be made available to the
accused and to those who made the allegations. Comments on
the draft report from the accused or the accusers shall be
appended to the final report. The committee shall report
findings, in writing, to the chief research officer and to
the accused within 120 days of the committee's appointment.
In the report, the committee shall indicate the basis of
its decisions and recommendations, its evaluation of the
seriousness of the offense, and its finding concerning the
level of intent of any person(s) found to have committed
misconduct. All findings shall be based on a preponderance
of relevant evidence.
If Public Health Service funds are involved, and if the committee
plans to terminate the investigation without completing all
steps as outlined above, then the chief research officer
shall be notified immediately. The chief research officer
shall promptly notify the Public Health Service Office of
Research Integrity of the planned termination pursuant to
42 CFR 50.104(a)(3).
If Public Health Service funds are involved, and if the committee
is unable to complete its investigation within the 120 day
period, then the chief research officer shall be notified
immediately. The chief research officer shall promptly request
an extension from the Public Health Service Office of Research
Integrity as described in 42 CFR 50.104(a)(5).
- If the committee finds that the alleged misconduct is
not substantiated by the investigation, formal efforts shall
be made to restore the reputation of the researcher and others
under investigation. In this context, if the committee believes
that the allegations of misconduct were malicious, reckless,
or intentionally dishonest, the allegations will be investigated
and regarded with the same seriousness as misconduct in research
itself. An ad hoc committee shall be established by the chief
research officer to investigate the charges.
Diligent efforts shall be made to protect the positions and
reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations
of research misconduct.
- If the alleged misconduct is substantiated based on a
preponderance of relevant evidence, the committee may recommend
disciplinary action. Resignation of the charged party shall
not preclude the investigative process.
- After reviewing the committee's findings and recommendations,
the chief research officer shall report these, together with
the chief research officer's own recommendations, to the
chief academic officer. If disciplinary action is warranted,
the chief research officer shall write recommendations to
the chief academic officer if the accused is an academic
employee; to the chief human resources officer if the accused
is a nonacademic employee; to the chief student affairs officer
if the accused is a student. The chief research officer also
shall notify the chief legal officer of the university. In
addition to disciplinary action, recommendations can include
the following:
- Request that the researcher withdraw from publication
all pending abstracts and papers emanating from the questionable
research; and,
- Notification of the editors of journals to which said
papers were submitted or published.
- Subject to paragraphs I and J of Section V., the chief
academic officer shall have the right to take such action
as the chief academic officer considers appropriate and notify
all interested parties of the action. The chief academic
officer also may request that the committee conduct further
investigation.
- Any person aggrieved by any action proposed by the chief
academic officer under paragraph H of Section V. shall have
the right to appeal to the president of the university, in
writing, within 30 days of notification.
- If the president of the university feels that substantial
new evidence is presented, or if the president of the university
determines that the foregoing process was fundamentally unfair,
the president may remand the case to a new committee convened
pursuant to Section V., paragraph B of this policy.
- If federal funds are involved, and when required by agency
regulations, the chief research officer shall submit a formal
report of the investigation to the federal funding agency(ies)
within 120 days of the commencement of such investigation.
The format of the report shall be as specified in agency
guidelines or, in the absence of such guidelines, as specified
in the Public Health Service misconduct regulations at 42
CFR 50.104(a)(4).
- All proceedings of the investigation and any subsequent
related actions or appeals shall be documented and the records
retained for three years.
- A copy of this policy will be forwarded by the chief research
officer to the Public Health Service Office of Research Integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
