# Presentation: 202153

## Investigations & International Cooperation

- Accountability Workshop in Science Funding
- Liverpool, United Kingdom
- June 21, 2008
- Christine C. Boesz, Dr.PH
- Inspector General
- National Science Foundation
- United States

## Context: Accountability

- Who is accountable?
- To whom are they accountable?
- For what are they accountable?
- What are the consequences of failing to meet expectations?
- Answer to each question has a legal aspect and
- frames the response to allegations

## Accountability Responsibility in Responsible Conduct of Research

- Prevention and Education
- Explain expectations
- Explain accountability process
- Explain consequences of failure
- Detection and Resolution
- Conduct fair process (fact finding)
- Respect confidentiality
- Impose balanced sanctions

## Subtitle: When Researchers Go Wrong

## Legal Aspects 

- Definitions
- Framework
- Allegation
- Inquiry
- Investigation
- Adjudication
- 	*Based on Federal Register/Vol.65, N0.235 December 6, 2000,       Research Misconduct Policy *

## Allegation Must Conform to Definitions

- Plagiarism
- Appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving credit
- Falsification of data
- Manipulating materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data or results
- Fabrication of data
- Making up data or results and recording or reporting them

## FrameworkPrinciples

- Focus on addressing misconduct related to the conduct and reporting of research
- Includes misrepresentation of credentials or research capabilities
- Excludes mishandling of funds, safety violations, discrimination, harassment, authorship disputes, etc.
- Excludes ethical treatment of human or animal subjects

## Investigative Process: Phases of Response to Allegation 

- Allegation
- Inquiry
- Investigation
- Develop factual record
- Assessment
- Significant Departure from professional norm
- State of Mind
- Burden of Proof

## Allegation

- Decide on investigating body
- Government agency or research institution
- Important: Confidentiality for all informants and subjects
- Consistent with a fair process
- Consistent with applicable laws
- Privacy acts
- Public accessibility acts

## Inquiry

- An assessment of whether an allegation has substance so that an investigation is necessary

## Investigation

- Development of a factual record
- Assessment of the record leading to:
- Finding of misconduct in research;
- Dismissal; or
- Other action (e.g., criminal prosecution)

## Assessment

- Significant Departure from Professional Norm
- Based on community standards
- State of Mind: Intent
- Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
- Burden of Proof
- Preponderance of Evidence

## U.S. Burden of Proof

- Reasonable doubt
- Clear & convincing
*Preponderance of the evidence****
*	**   **[The balance of probabilities]*
-    *The standard is satisfied if greater than 50% chance that the proposition is true

## Adjudication Criteria

- Focus on Seriousness of the Misconduct
- Degree of Intent
- 		  knowing, intentional, reckless
- Pattern of Occurrence
- 		  single event or pattern
- Impact on
-    research record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions, or the public welfare

## Range of Actions

- Correct the research record
- Letter of reprimand
- Special certifications to assure compliance
- Suspension or termination of current funding
- Debarment from all federal funding up to 5 years

##   Appeal

- Decisions separated from inquiry, investigation, and adjudication
- Based on rules
- Timeliness criteria
- To request an appeal
- To make the final decision
- Permissible reasons, e.g., factual errors

##  Separation of Phases

- Inquiry/ Investigation
- Adjudication
- Corrective actions/sanctions decided
- Appeal
- Reconsideration of adjudication
-     decision

## Case ExamplePlagiarism: Theft of Idea

- Allegation
- 	A reviewer of an NSF proposal noticed that the principal investigator (PI), an established scientist, copied ideas and text from her proposal that had previously been submitted to a funding agency in another country (UK).

## Plagiarism or Piracy

- “The Curse of Peer Review”

## Case Example

- Development of Factual Record
- Complainant contacted to firmly establish substance of the allegation
- UK funding agency then contacted and provided official information
- Subject claimed a collaborative relationship (not confirmed by complainant)

## Case Example Facts

- NSF PI was a reviewer of the UK agency proposal
- Plagiarism was extensive and confirmed on proposal comparison
- University committee established that a central unique idea was stolen

## Case Example Conclusions

- Subject knowingly committed plagiarism
- University terminated the subject's contract, among other sanctions
- NSF made a finding of research misconduct
- NSF imposed two years debarment
- Subject location unknown

## Case Example Challenges

- Investigation difficult because the source document was a confidential proposal in UK
- UK funding agency had no internal process to pursue the violation
- Initial reluctance to share source document
- Subject intercepted OIG initial inquiry letter to the Co-PI
- Interception of letter was subject's self-protection
- Investigation relied on non-secure communications

## International Challenges in Responding to Allegations

- No agreed upon legal framework to handle inquiries and investigations (e.g., common definitions, processes, standards)
- No structure for fact finding across international boundaries
- Currently dependent upon personal relationships, ad hoc knowledge, informal agreements

## International Challenges

- Plagiarism (theft of idea aka “Piracy”) by referees/peer reviewers
- Diverse community standards
- 		Across scientific/engineering disciplines
- 		Across borders
- Diverse collaborations
- 		Across scientific/engineering disciplines
- 		Across borders

## International Challenges

- Differing explanations
- Culture vs. Corruption
- Different systems of law
-  Controlling
- Different languages
- Scientific vs. local

## Facilitating International Research Misconduct Investigations

- Global Science Forum Committee (OECD) established 10/2007
- Purpose: To focus on investigating allegations of wrong-doing in international collaborations and to exchange best practices
- Co-chairs: Christine Boesz, USA
-                   Nigel Lloyd, Canada

## Next Action Items (3)

- 1. Create a network to provide policy and operational information for investigations
- Working closely with ESF and UNESCO
- Involve non-OECD nations

## Next Action Items

- Develop a set of Principles to facilitate investigations
- Clarify definitions of misconduct
- Recommend criteria for starting an inquiry or investigation
- Define outcome products

## Next Action Items

- 3. Develop generic models/templates
- A policy statement for science funding organizations
- A clause to be used in international collaboration agreements

## The Plan 

- Meet again to discuss draft documents in September, 2008
- Report to GSF in October, 2008 for adoption
- Recommend implementation plan
- To primary uses (funding institutions)
- To scientific and other research communities

## Contact Information

- E-mail: _[cboesz@nsf.gov](mailto:cboesz@nsf.gov)_
- Telephone: 001-703-292-7100
- Address:
- 	 Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General
- National Science Foundation
- Office of Inspector General, Suite 1135
- 4201 Wilson Boulevard
- Arlington, VA 22230  USA