DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL

RESEARCH ETHICS AND INTEGRITY: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (12/02)

1. INTRODUCTION

a) Background

Ethics and integrity in the conduct of research are critical to the scientific advancement of knowledge. As concerns about potential misconduct in the scientific community have increased, so has the need to articulate in a formal way the tenets of ethical practice. By reiterating these principles and defining scientific misconduct, ethical standards are reinforced and ambiguity is reduced. By establishing procedures for inquiry and investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct, equitable treatment is assured and self-regulation of the research community is strengthened.

This policy provides definitions, provisions, and procedures affecting the Desert Research Institute (DRI). It was developed in conformance with the DRI Bylaws, the Board of Regents Handbook, the University and Community College System of Nevada (NSHE)Code, and the Nevada Revised Statutes. Future revisions will adhere to these same requirements. This policy also reflects the model policy of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), U.S. Public Health Service and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Policy on Ethical Standards in the Conduct of Research as refined by the scientific misconduct definitions of the Commission on Research Integrity (chartered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) and the National Science Foundation. The intent is to establish DRI's policy regarding ethics in the conduct of research. DRI is further committed to adhering to the policies required by funding agencies concerning ethical research practices. Disciplinary procedures established in this policy will conform to the NSHE Code, Title 2, Chapter 6. To the extent the DRI policy is inconsistent with the NSHE Code, the Code controls any conflicts.

b) General Policy

DRI is committed to several fundamental beliefs and principles regarding ethics and integrity in the conduct of research. These include:

• Objective inquiry and ethical conduct form the foundation of scientific research.

• Acts that violate the principles of objective inquiry or exceed the boundaries of ethical conduct in science threaten the research process

• To protect the research process, scientific misconduct must be defined, a process for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct established, and appropriate action taken when scientific misconduct occurs.

• The rights of all individuals must be protected in the conduct of research and in the investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct.

Underlying these principles is a commitment to academic freedom. Adoption of this policy is neither intended to restrict the freedom of a researcher to pursue and implement research efforts nor to limit the dissemination of results and findings.

Further, maintenance of research integrity rests on trust and self-regulation. The importance of honesty, accuracy, respect for the rights of others, fairness, objectivity, skepticism, free inquiry, and open communication are accepted throughout DRI and the scientific research community. Basic to the concept of self-regulation in scientific research is that responsibility rests with the individual(s) involved. Administrative monitoring of these values is neither necessary nor appropriate. As a result, all DRI employees have the responsibility to report suspected or known instances of scientific misconduct through the procedures defined in this policy.

Certain instances of misconduct (e.g., improper use of public funds, racial discrimination, sexual harassment) are not covered by this policy but remain violations of DRI policy, the NSHE Code, state and federal laws and regulations, and/or contract provisions.

The procedure for investigating alleged scientific misconduct established by this policy reflects the following:

• Innocence is presumed until proven otherwise.

• Confidentiality will be maintained throughout the investigative process.

• An inquiry will be undertaken as a preliminary step to determine whether
  an investigation is warranted.

• The process of resolving allegations of misconduct will provide for fair and responsible action if an allegation is substantiated by the facts.

• The individual(s) against whom allegations of scientific misconduct have been made has the right to due process protection. The individual(s) will be granted the opportunity to review and comment on the allegations, evidence, and conclusions, and to cross-examine witnesses.

In addition to the provisions of this policy, it is understood that all DRI researchers will maintain adherence to professional codes, requirements of research sponsors including guidelines and contracts, laws, regulations, the DRI Bylaws, the Board of Regents Handbook, and the UCCSNCode.

Maintaining high scientific ethical standards and the integrity of the research process furthers the quality of DRI's work and its reputation with both sponsors and the scientific community.

c) Scope

This policy and the associated procedures apply to conduct of all individuals employed by DRI. The principles contained in this policy apply to all individuals involved in the conduct of research and scholarly activities as well as to reviewing the scholarly activity of others.

2. DEFINITIONS

Allegation - any written statement addressing the possibility of scientific misconduct.

Ethical conduct in science - professional conduct for all DRI employees is based on honesty, openness, respect for the rights of others, fairness, and trust.

Fabrication û making up data or results (e.g., experiments never performed).

Falsification û changing or misreporting data or results (i.e., the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results; deceptive selective reporting).

Hearing (special or general) - a function of the formal investigation conducted according to the procedures and provisions of Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code.

Inquiry - actions, including information gathering and fact-finding, to determine the potential validity of an allegation and whether an allegation warrants an investigation.

Investigation - a formal process including determination of the need for a hearing and, if required, the formation of a committee to consider the allegation(s).

Plagiarism û using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (i.e., to take the writings or ideas of another and represent them as one's own without attribution appropriate to the medium of presentation).

Research integrity - the soundness of the research process based on ethical conduct in science and scientific principles including objectivity, accuracy, skepticism, and free inquiry.

Retaliation - any malicious, damaging action against a person who makes an allegation of scientific misconduct ("whistleblower") or reports information regarding alleged scientific misconduct.

Scholarly activity - includes development of grant and contract proposals, reports, manuscripts for publication, or any other expression of scientific inquiry.

Scientific misconduct - the definition of scientific misconduct will be consistent with the NSHE Code as refined by the supplementary definition listed below. Honest errors as well as differences in interpretation or judgment made in the course of scientific research are not considered scientific misconduct by DRI.

• NSHE Code Section 6.2.2 (q): The Code prohibits acts of academic misconduct including but not limited to cheating, plagiarism, falsifying research data or results, or assisting others to do the same.

 

• Based on nationally accepted standards, DRI's policy refines the NSHE Code definition to include significant misbehavior that improperly appropriates the intellectual property or contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that risks corrupting the scientific record or compromising the integrity of scientific practices. This includes (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from commonly accepted practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting scientific research; or (2) retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged scientific misconduct and has not acted in bad faith (Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity, 1995; NSF, 45 CFR Section 689.1).

3. POLICIES

• Researchers must avoid scientific misconduct as defined by this policy

• Researchers are responsible for the validity and quality of scientific data; fulfilling all scientific research and publication standards; and orienting students, research fellows, and colleagues to scientific standards, policies, and procedures and ensuring that they are upheld.

• All DRI employees have responsibility to report suspected or known cases of scientific misconduct and to provide information that may shed light on the validity of such allegations. The right to report alleged scientific misconduct and to provide information regarding such allegations will be protected.

• All individuals engaged in the pursuit of research at DRI will be appropriately apprised regarding this policy and the issue of ethical conduct in science.

4. PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING AND ADDESSING ALLEGATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT

a) Background

In addressing allegations of scientific misconduct, the provisions of NSHE Code, Title 2, Chapter 6 will apply to the reporting of allegations; to the fair, swift, and thorough consideration of such allegations; and to initiating actions recommended after consideration of allegations is complete. All records dealing with an allegation, its review, and disposition will be treated in accordance with Section 6.15 of the NSHE Code. For DRI, the University Administrative Officer referenced in the NSHE Code will be the Executive Vice President for Research (EVPR). DRI's Vice President for Research is responsible for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct, maintaining the confidentiality of the investigative process, ensuring equity, and providing timely and responsible action when scientific misconduct has been alleged. If the EVPR is the subject of the allegation, then these responsibilities will be transferred to the Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration.

b) Reporting Allegations

Initially, employees should report cases of suspected scientific misconduct to their immediate supervisor or directly to the Institute's EVPR. Reports of allegations must ultimately be filed with the Institute's EVPR (NSHE Code 6.7.1). Allegations must be in writing, signed by the complainant, and, to the extent reasonably possible, specify the date, time, place, person or persons involved, and the circumstances of the alleged scientific misconduct including the name or names of persons who may have witnessed the alleged scientific misconduct. Allegations of scientific misconduct will be treated as a confidential matter.

c) Inquiry

An inquiry is the initial step after an allegation is made. It is an informal process intended to assess the validity of the allegation. It is performed by the EVPR in accordance with NSHE Code 6.8.2 and will be completed within 60 calendar days from the time the allegation is made. The person charged with scientific misconduct is guaranteed the opportunity to respond to the allegations. The EVPR, with the approval of the President, may informally resolve the allegation at this stage by conciliating with the parties, by permitting the complainant to voluntarily drop the complaint, or by permitting the person charged to voluntarily accept disciplinary sanctions.

d) Investigation

If the EVPR believes that a formal investigation should be initiated based on the preliminary findings and lack of informal resolution of the allegation, the following steps will be undertaken and completed based on the timetable summarized in NSHE Code 6.12.8:

• The EVPR recommends to the President that a general or special hearing be held per NSHE Code 6.8.2 (d). The President then decides whether or not to proceed with the recommended hearing based on NSHE Code 6.8.2 (e) and (f).

• If a decision is made to hold a general or special hearing, the EVPR will convene the hearing per NSHE Code 6.9. Full compliance with any funding agency notification requirements will be made at this time.

• In the case of a general hearing, a general hearing officer will be appointed per NSHE Code 6.10. In the case of a special hearing, the hearing officers and committee will be appointed as specified in NSHE Code 6.12. Care will be taken to ensure that committee members have no real or apparent conflicts of interest and have sufficient knowledge of research and scholarship in the discipline in question to properly assess the allegation.

• When the investigation is conducted by special hearing, all procedures concerning inquiry findings, disposition, and appeal will be in strict accordance with the appropriate provisions of Chapter 6 of the NSHE Code.

e) Disposition

modified: 10-9-06 jb