OIST Graduate University
Policies, Rules and Procedures
Authority:
Approved by the President/CEO
Whistleblower Protection Act

Chapter 23: Investigation and Determination of Misconduct &Whistleblower Protection
23.1 Policy
Misconduct subject to this Chapter includes any activity undertaken by anyone affiliatedwith OIST Graduate University (University), including, without limitation, officers,
employees, students, vendors, and contractors that violates applicable Japanese legal or
regulatory provisions, or violates Bylaws, University Rules, Policies, Rules, andProcedures (PRPs) (collectively, “non- compliance”) and misconduct in research
activities by these people. The scope of non-compliance includes public research fundmisuse. Besides this Chapter, the University’s Code of Conduct and Research Ethics,
Compliance and Prevention of Conflict of Interest, Operation and Management of
Public Research, Avoiding Conflicts of Interest and Commitment, and Resolving
Complaints & Disputes should be reviewed for additional guidance.
All officers, employees and students, who are the members of the University, areresponsible for maintaining the highest ethical standards. To protect the integrity of the
University community, and to ensure the highest standards of conduct by and among
members of the University community, the University will investigate, in accordancewith the rules set forth in this chapter, any alleged misconduct by faculty, employees,
students, vendors, contractors and others having dealings with the University.
Any University officers, employees, students, vendors, and contractors found to haveengaged in misconduct will be subject to disciplinary action by the University, up to andincluding termination of position or employment (officers and employee), expulsion(students), cancellation of contractual relationship (vendors and contractors), and civil
or criminal prosecution if warranted.
23.1.1 Whistleblower Protection Policy
The University will not tolerate retaliatory action against any employee or student formaking a good faith report of potential or suspected misconduct. Similarly, the1
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clUniversity will not tolerate any direct or indirect use (or attempted use) of official
authority or official influence for the purpose of interfering with the rights of an
employee or a student to make a Protected Disclosure.
23.2 Rules
23.2.1 Reporting Misconduct
2.3.2.1.1 All members of the University are strongly encouraged to report any
perceived misconduct if they believe or suspect that the misconduct has taken place.
Reports may be made to a senior member (or the supervising faculty member or
the Dean of the Graduate School for students) of the person who is suspected to havecommitted the misconduct, or via the contact points listed in Table 1. Any person
other than the University member may make a report via the external contact point
shown in Table 1. Procedures for making a report are set forth in 23.4.1.1 below.
23.2.1.2 A report of a suspected misconduct made by anyone shall be in good faith,
based on objective and rational grounds. A groundless report for defaming the
respondent or that is driven by bad faith (which means a will solely directed tocausing a damage on the respondent, such as for causing harm to the respondent orfor obstructing the research carried out by the respondent, or for creating
disadvantage for the entity or organization that the respondent belongs to) or areport based on an identical or a similar content (ex: any report with an identical orsimilar factual background claimed in the previous report, or any report on theinvestigation regarding the previous report) shall not be made.
23.2.1.3 All officers and employees who are involved with the process of handling
reports, from the receipt of a report to the completion of investigation, shall strictly
maintain confidentiality of information pertaining to concerned parties including
the whistleblower. This also applies to after their employment contract comes to an
end.
The officers and employees above have an obligation to thoroughly uphold
confidentiality about the complainant, the respondent, an allegation, andinvestigation and its progress to prevent information being leaked to persons
outside the investigation against the will of the complainant and respondent until
the investigation results are made publicly available.
23.2.2 Investigation
23.2.2.1 When a report of suspected misconduct is received, it will be taken up asa case of one of the misconduct categories and verification of facts andcircumstances will commence in accordance with the procedures for the applicable
category:2
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clProcedures for investigation of non-compliance are set forth in 23.4.2, proceduresfor investigation of public research fund misuse are set forth in 23.4.3, andprocedures for investigation of Specified Research Misconduct are set forth in
23.4.4. For investigation of misconduct in research activities other than Specified
Research Misconduct [Link: 23.7.6.2.1] such as duplicate submissions andinappropriate authorship, 23.4.4 will apply mutatis mutandis to the procedures asnecessary.
In addition, when the countermeasures to the relevant report are clearly provided
in the PRP and other regulations, the said report may be assigned to thedivision/section in charge. In this case, the original contact point shall notify thereporter regarding the assignment to the relevant division/section.
23.2.2.2 Any person subject to the concerned whistleblowing or has an interest in
the investigated case shall not be involved in the investigation.
23.2.2.3 Results of investigation shall be reported to the President/CEO (and to theBoard of Governors and Auditors, if there is any potentially serious non-compliancewith legal or regulatory provisions). This report shall be made directly to the Boardof Governors and Auditors, if the President/CEO has an interest in the concerned
whistleblowing.
23.2.2.4 Also, a case brought to the University's attention by means other than areport, such as by a consultation without a clear indication or a willingness ofmaking a report, or by media coverage or findings from external agency such as theBoard of Audit, or by an indication of suspected specified research misconduct
made by the scientific community such as an academic society or by information ofsuspected specified research misconduct posted on a website, may also be handled
by the same procedures that handle cases initiated by a report.
23.2.3 Retaliation Complaint
23.2.3.1 Any whistleblower who experiences retaliatory action for making a goodfaith report of potential or suspected misconduct, or who has been the subject of
direct or indirect use or attempted use of official authority or official influence forthe purpose of interfering with his or her right to make a Protected Disclosure, may
file a Retaliation Complaint to the Secretary General.
23.2.3.2 The Whistleblower Protection Policy shall apply to any retaliation
complaint filed by whistleblowers, attempted whistleblowers or employees ormembers who have refused to obey an Illegal Order.

3
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl23.2.3.3 The University will take whatever action is necessary to prevent andcorrect violations of this Whistleblower Protection Policy, in accordance withapplicable laws and regulations and University PRPs.
23.2.3.4 The Secretary General conducts an investigation to verify the facts andcircumstances which constitute the cause of a specific Retaliation Complaint.
23.2.4 Any individual who files a Groundless Report or Complaint is not subject toprotection under the University’s Whistleblower Protection Policy.
23.3 Responsibilities
23.3.1 All Employees and Students
All employees and students are required to report any non-compliance with the
University policies as well as Japanese laws, regulations, rules or regulatory controls
which apply to activities of the University, based on a rational ground and in goodfaith. Also, employees and students are expected to be truthful and cooperative in an
investigation regarding suspected misconduct.
All employees and students are required to complete the orientation programs before
they start working at the University, and also attend periodical training sessions toensure compliance with the rules concerning appropriate use of research funds
including operating expense subsidy and competitive research funding. In the courseof these compliance training sessions, employees are asked to confirm theirunderstanding and agreement to observe the rules that apply to the University.
23.3.2 President/CEO
The President/CEO is the Chief Administrative Officer for all aspects of theprevention and investigation of misconduct. The President/CEO will fully inform
employees and students that they have responsibility to report misconduct and where
the contact points for reporting. Also, the President/CEO shall promptly review
reported cases and draw a conclusion.
23.3.3 Provost and Dean of Faculty Affairs
The Provost is a contact point for reporting the public research fund misuse. The Deanof Faculty Affairs is the General Administrative Officer over the response andinvestigation of the misconduct in research activities, and is a contact point forreporting the misconduct in research activities. Also, under the instruction of the
President/CEO, the Provost and the Dean of Faculty Affairs provide instructions torelevant departments and offices and makes inquiry to verify details of a reported case.

4
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl23.3.4 Secretary General
The Secretary General is in charge of responses to Retaliation Complaints. Also, theSecretary General responds to concerns about retaliation or unfair treatment against
whistleblowers who have reported misconduct, in cooperation with the people incharge of the concerned case. The Secretary General is the General Administrative
Officer over the response and investigation of the public research fund misuse, andhave substantial responsibility and authority to oversee the entire institution for the
management and management of public research funds.
23.3.5 Chief Internal Audit Officer
The Chief Internal Audit Officer is a contact point for whistleblowing concerning any
activity that violates Japanese laws or regulations, Bylaws, University Rules or PRPs
(excluding those relating to public research fund misuse, harassment and otherdisputes) and is in charge of the investigation. Also, the Chief Internal Audit Officer
is an administration of contact points for confidential or anonymous reporting(hotline). Also, the Chief Internal Audit Officer coordinates relevant departments andoffices to ensure that they handle reports in compliance with predetermined
procedures and cooperate with each other. If there is any potentially serious noncompliance with legal or regulatory provisions, the Chief Internal Audit Officer will
coordinate communication between the President/CEO, the Board of Governors andAuditors.
23.4 Procedures
23.4.1 Procedures for Reporting Misconduct
23.4.1.1 A report of misconduct may be made to a person who is a supervisor of
the suspected person or a contact point listed below. Supervisors include thefollowing people:⚫ When an employee is subject to the whistleblowing: A senior employee in theemployee's office or department;⚫ When a student is subject to the whistleblowing: The student's academic
supervisor or the Dean of the Graduate School; and⚫ When a faculty member is subject to the whistleblowing: The Dean of Faculty
Affairs.
Table 1: Contact points of report of misconduct
Contact Points
Case Category
Internal(PRP 23.4.2)
Chief Internal Audit Officer
Non-compliance Internal Audit Section Leader

External
Misconduct Report
Hotline5ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl

Provost(PRP 23.4.3)
Public researchfund misuse

Vice Provost for Research Finance andAdministration
Misuse of open-recruitment typeresearch funding may also be reported to
the Grants Section Manager or theBusiness Development Section Manager.

(PRP 23.4.4)
Misconduct in Dean of Faculty Affairs
research activities*Conflicts of interest may be reported to the Secretary General or the Rules andCompliance Section Leader, and Harassment and Personnel Dispute may bereported to the VPHR or the RWAH Hotline.
23.4.1.1.1 Whistleblowers may report suspected misconduct to the listed contact
points by email, in writing, or by phone. It is recommended to use theWhistleblower Report] as much as possible in order to promptly implement theinvestigation.
23.4.1.1.2 As a basic rule, a report shall be made by identifying the name of thewhistleblower, and only a report that describes details of the case, such as who
has committed the suspected misconduct, what kind of misconduct is committed,
and a rational ground, will be officially received.
23.4.1.1.3 Notwithstanding 23.4.1.1.2, whistleblowers may report suspected
misconduct anonymously by email, in writing or by phone through the
University's Misconduct Report Hotline above. The hotline is taken care of by an
external entity in order to maintain confidentiality. The University will handle
any anonymous report received by the Hotline in accordance with the equivalent
procedures for reports made by identified whistleblowers, taking account of thecontents of the case.
23.4.1.1.4 When a contact point has received a report concerning significant
misconduct, it shall promptly notify thereof to the Chief Internal Audit Officer,
the Provost, or the Dean of Faculty Affairs.
23.4.1.1.5 When the contact point finds that the University is not an entity to6ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clconduct investigation of the reported case, it will forward the report to an entitythat is the investigatory organization. The University will handle any report ofsuspected misconduct being forwarded from another entity deeming that thereport has been made to the University. Also, in the case of the University findsthat there is another entity that is in charge of the investigation besides the
University, it notifies said another entity of the report.
23.4.1.1.6 When a contact point has received a report and the fact as to whether
or not it has officially received the report cannot be known by the whistleblower,
it notifies the whistleblower that it has officially received the report (excluding
anonymous reports; however, if the whistleblower is identified before issuance ofan investigation report, the whistleblower is treated as an identified
whistleblower; the same applies hereinafter).
23.4.1.1.7 When a consultation contains such a description that misconduct isabout to occur or a person is asked to commit misconduct, the contact point
notifies the Chief Internal Audit Officer, the Provost or the Dean of Faculty Affairs.
23.4.1.2 When an illegal activity violating the Act on the Protection of Personal
Information has taken place or is about to take place, a report may also be submitted
in writing to the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University
Project Office, Okinawa Development and Promotion Bureau of the Cabinet Office.
23.4.2 Procedures for Investigation of Non-compliance with Legal or
Regulatory Provisions
23.4.2.1 Preliminary Investigation
23.4.2.1.1 When the Chief Internal Audit Officer finds that a reported case needs
a Preliminary Investigation, he/she may have Internal Audit Section to conduct
the Preliminary Investigation. When conducting the Preliminary Investigation,
the Chief Internal Audit Officer will investigate the credibility, rationality and the
purpose of the report, in addition to the credibility and rationality of conducting
the Substantial Investigation, etc.
23.4.2.1.2 The Chief Internal Audit Officer shall review the details of the reportfrom the standpoint of credibility, rationality and the purpose of the report, in
addition to the credibility and rationality of conducting the Substantial
Investigation, etc. within 30 days from the official receipt of the report, anddecide whether or not a Substantial Investigation is necessary. However, in casethere is a legitimate reason, such as difficulty in administrative procedures, etc.,
the said period of 30 days may be extended to a maximum of 60 days. In this case,7
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clthe Chief Internal Audit Officer shall give a written notification on the extended
duration and the reason thereof. The Chief Internal Audit Officer shall notify the
President/CEO and the whistleblower of the commencement of the Substantial
Investigation when the decision is to conduct a Substantial Investigation, or,when the decision is not to conduct a Substantial Investigation, notify thewhistleblower thereof with a reason why the Substantial Investigation will not be
conducted.
23.4.2.2 Substantial Investigation
23.4.2.2.1 The President/CEO shall, when the decision to conduct a Substantial
Investigation has been made, promptly instruct and cause the Chief Internal
Audit Officer and Internal Audit Section to conduct factual investigation.
However, the President/CEO may establish a Compliance Investigatory
Committee and have the Compliance Investigatory Committee to conduct aninvestigation, if it deems necessary. The Chief Internal Audit Officer chairs theCompliance Investigatory Committee, and convenes meetings on a case basis
selecting persons whom the Chief Internal Audit Officer considers necessary. The
Secretariat of the Compliance Investigatory Committee is handled by the Internal
Audit Section.
23.4.2.2.2 The Compliance Investigatory Committee will investigate whether
there was alleged non-compliance, who were involved in the alleged misconduct
and how deeply they were involved. The Committee may request the respondent
to submit relevant documents, make an attestation, respond to hearing and/or
other necessary cooperation.
23.4.2.2.3 The Compliance Investigatory Committee shall, before making adetermination, notify the respondent of the contents of the investigation to ask
for the respondent's comments. The respondent may submit his/her comments
to the Compliance Investigatory Committee within 30 days from the date of
notification of the contents of investigation under the preceding paragraph. In
this case, when the Compliance Investigatory Committee has received comments
or a response of “no comments” from the respondent, the Committee may makea determination even before the expiry of the 30-day period.
23.4.2.3 Determination
The Compliance Investigatory Committee shall make a determination as to whether
or not there was non-compliance, based on the results of the investigation, andnotify the President/CEO of the results of the investigation including said
determination. The President/CEO shall notify the respondent of the results of the8
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clinvestigation.
23.4.2.4 Appeal
The respondent may appeal to the President/CEO within 14 days from the date of
notification of the results of the investigation. When an appeal is lodged, thePresident/CEO may instruct the Compliance Investigatory Committee to conduct a
re-investigation at the discretion of the President/CEO. In this case, when the
respondent's claims in the appeal and grounds thereof are concerning fairness or
integrity of the Compliance Investigatory Committee such as composition of theCommittee, members of the Compliance Investigatory Committee may be replacedat the discretion of the President/CEO. When a re-investigation is instructed, theCompliance Investigatory Committee shall promptly proceed with the reinvestigation and notify the President/CEO of the results thereof. The
President/CEO shall make a decision on the appeal, and notify the respondent andthe Compliance Investigatory Committee of the decision. When the President/CEO
has decided not to conduct a re-investigation, he/she will notify the respondent andthe Compliance Investigatory Committee of the decision with a reason why the reinvestigation will not be conducted. The respondent may not further appeal against
said decision on the appeal.
23.4.2.5 Notifying and Reporting
The President/CEO shall notify the whistleblower, the respondent and the head of
the relevant department or office of the results of the investigation, and also, if any
concerned person is to receive an adverse disposition, submit reports withadditional descriptions including dispositions on the concerned persons, factors
facilitated the misconduct and recurrence prevention measures to the Board ofGovernors, Auditors, the Funding Agency, Cabinet Office and the relevant
ministries and agencies, within, unless otherwise specified, 210 days from theofficial receipt of the report made by the whistleblower.
23.4.2.6 Public Announcement of The Results of Investigation
When it was determined that there was non-compliance with legal or regulatory
provisions, the President/CEO shall publicly announce the results of investigation
promptly after the determination, unless the President/CEO finds it necessary tokeep the results undisclosed because of a justifiable reason. In this case, names of
the involved persons are basically disclosed and other information are also
disclosed unless the President/CEO finds it particularly necessary to keep it
undisclosed. In addition, when information on the subject case has been divulged
outside the University or when the subject case involves a serious issue having asignificant social impact, the President/CEO may make a public announcement as9ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl

a mid-term report even during the investigation is on-going, if it deems necessary.
23.4.2.7 Measures for Whistleblowers and Respondents
23.4.2.7.1 When a determination that misconduct took place has been made, thePresident/CEO will take an appropriate disciplinary action against a person
determined to be involved in the misconduct in accordance with Chapter 38“Discipline”.
23.4.2.7.2 When a report made by a whistleblower is determined to be bad faith,
the President/CEO will take an appropriate disciplinary action against thewhistleblower in accordance with Chapter 38 “Discipline”.
23.4.3 Procedures for Investigation of Public Research Fund Misuse
23.4.3.1 Preliminary Investigation
23.4.3.1.1 When the President/CEO finds that a reported case needs a
Preliminary Investigation, he/she may have the Provost to conduct the
Preliminary Investigation. When instructed by the President/CEO to conduct the
Preliminary Investigation, the Provost will investigate the credibility and so on of
the report, and will submit the results thereof to the President/CEO within 14
days from the date of receipt of the instruction. However, if the Provost is the
respondent or has a direct interest in the complainant or the respondent, theSecretary General will conduct the matters over which the Provost has authority
in the preliminary investigation.
23.4.3.1.2 The President/CEO shall review the details of the report from thestandpoint of rationality within 30 days from the official receipt of the report,
decide whether or not a Substantial Investigation is necessary, and notify the
Board of Governors, Auditors, the Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office and therelevant ministries and agencies of the decision when the decision is to conduct a
Substantial Investigation. The President/CEO shall notify the whistleblower ofthe commencement of the Substantial Investigation when the decision is toconduct a Substantial Investigation, or, when the decision is not to conduct a
Substantial Investigation, notify the whistleblower thereof with a reason why the
Substantial Investigation will not be conducted.
23.4.3.2 Substantial Investigation
23.4.3.2.1 The President/CEO shall, when the decision is to conduct a
Substantial Investigation, promptly establish and cause a Public Research Fund
Investigatory Committee to conduct factual investigation. The Provost chairs the
Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee, and convenes meetings on a case10
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clbasis selecting persons whom the Provost considers necessary from the people
listed below. However, if the Provost is the respondent or has a direct interest in
the complainant or the respondent, the Secretary General will conduct thematters over which the Provost has authority in the substantial investigation. The
Secretariat of the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee is handled by
the Office of the Provost.
(1) Provost(2) General Counsel(3) Secretary General(4) Vice President, Financial Management(5) Dean of Faculty Affairs(6) Vice President for Human Resources(7) Vice Provost for Research Finance and Administration(8) Internal Audit Section Leader(9) Accounting Section Manager(10) Grants Section Manager(11) Business Development Section Manager(12) Other eligible persons whom the chairperson considers necessary
23.4.3.2.2 The Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee will investigate
whether there was public research fund misuse, what kind of misuse took place,
who were involved in the alleged misuse and how deeply they were involved, what
is an amount equivalent the misuse, etc. The Public Research Fund Investigatory
Committee shall discuss the policy of the investigation and what and how toinvestigate before the commencement of the Substantial Investigation. The
Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee may request the respondent tosubmit relevant documents, make an attestation, respond to hearing and/or
other necessary cooperation. In addition, the Public Research Fund Investigatory
Committee may order the respondent not to use the public research funds subject
to the investigation, if it deems necessary.
23.4.3.2.3 The Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee shall, before
making a determination, notify the respondent of the contents of theinvestigation to ask for the respondent's comments. The respondent may submit
his/her comments to the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee within
30 days from the date of notification of the contents of investigation under thepreceding paragraph. In this case, when the Public Research Fund Investigatory
Committee has received comments or a response of “no comments” from therespondent, the Committee may make a determination even before the expiry of
11ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clthe 30-day period.
23.4.3.3 Determination
The Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee shall make a determination as
to whether there was public research fund misuse, what kind of misuse took place,
who were involved in the alleged misuse and how deeply they were involved, what
is an amount equivalent the misuse, etc., based on the results of the investigation,and notify the President/CEO of the results of the investigation including said
determination.
23.4.3.4 Notifying and Reporting
23.4.3.4.1 The President/CEO shall, based on the results notified under thepreceding paragraph, notify the whistleblower, the respondent and the head of
the relevant department or office of the results of the investigation, and also
submit reports with additional descriptions including dispositions on theconcerned persons, factors facilitated the misuse, information on mechanisms for
managing and supervising public research funds which are other than thosesubject to the investigation and said concerned persons are involved in andrecurrence prevention measures to the Board of Governors, Auditors, theFunding Agency, the Cabinet Office and the relevant ministries and agencies,
within, unless otherwise specified, 210 days from the official receipt of the report
made by the whistleblower. The President/CEO shall notify the respondent of theresults of the investigation.
23.4.3.4.2 The President/CEO shall, even when the investigation is on-going,
when any parts of the facts of the misuse have been verified, make adetermination promptly and submit reports to the Board of Governors, Auditors,
the Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office and the relevant ministries and agencies.
In addition, when the Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office or the relevant
ministries and agencies requests, even before the completion of the investigation,a progress report of the investigation or a mid-term report shall be submitted andit shall be reported to Auditors. Also, if the Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office or
the relevant ministries and agencies requests, the President/CEO shall submit
materials related to the matter or permit their inspection and on-site investigation,
unless there are appropriate reasons for not doing so, such as when it is likely tocause an adverse effect on the investigation or undue violation of individual rights.
23.4.3.5 Appeal
The respondent may appeal to the President/CEO within 14 days from the date of
notification of the results of the investigation. When an appeal is lodged, the12ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl

President/CEO may instruct the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee to
conduct a re- investigation at the discretion of the President/CEO. In this case,when the respondent's claims in the appeal are concerning fairness or integrity of
the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee, such as composition of theCommittee, members of the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee may
be replaced at the discretion of the President/CEO. When a re-investigation is
instructed, the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee shall promptly
proceed with the re-investigation and notify the President/CEO of the results
thereof. The President/CEO shall make a decision on the appeal and notify the
respondent and the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee of the decision.
When the President/CEO has decided not to conduct a re-investigation, he/she will
notify the respondent and the Public Research Fund Investigatory Committee ofthe decision with a reason why the re-investigation will not be conducted. The
respondent may not further appeal against said decision on the appeal.
23.4.3.6 Public Announcement of the Results of Investigation
When it was determined that there was misuse, the President/CEO shall publicly
announce the results of investigation promptly after the determination, unless the
President/CEO finds it necessary to keep the results undisclosed because of ajustifiable reason. In this case, names of the involved persons are basically disclosed
and other information are also disclosed unless the President/CEO finds it
particularly necessary to keep it undisclosed. In addition, when information on thesubject case has been divulged outside the University or when the subject caseinvolves a serious issue having a significant social impact, the President/CEO may
make a public announcement as a mid-term report even during the investigation is
on-going, if it deems necessary.
23.4.3.7 Measures for Whistleblowers and Respondents
23.4.3.7.1 When a determination that misuse took place has been made, thePresident/CEO will take an appropriate disciplinary action against a person
determined to be involved in the misuse in accordance with Chapter 38“Discipline”.
23.4.3.7.2 As a result of the reporting, if the President/CEO is ordered to refund
the public research funds determined to be misused by the Funding Agency, theCabinet Office or the relevant ministries and agencies, the President/CEO may
request the respondent to return the amount. If the misuse is serious such as
misappropriation for a private purpose, legal measures may be taken, if it isdeemed necessary.

13
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl23.4.3.7.3 When no misuse was determined, the President/CEO may, based on
the results notified under the preceding paragraph, take measures for preventing
possible disadvantages on the whistleblower and the respondent, if it is deemednecessary.
23.4.3.7.4 When a report made by a whistleblower is determined to be bad faith,
the President/CEO will take an appropriate disciplinary action against thewhistleblower in accordance with Chapter 38 “Discipline”.
23.4.4 Procedures for Investigation of Specified Research Misconduct
23.4.4.1 Preliminary Investigation
A Preliminary Investigation is conducted in order to determine whether or not an
official Substantial Investigation is necessary, in accordance with the following
guidelines:
23.4.4.1.1 The Dean of Faculty Affairs will, with members selected fromfollowing list based on the research field in question, promptly form aPreliminary Investigation Committee (hereinafter, “PIC”) to evaluate thepossibility that the alleged Specified Research Misconduct took place andcredibility of the rationale provided as scientifically reasonable grounds and to
determine whether or not a substantial investigation is warranted. However,when the Dean of Faculty Affairs is the respondent or has a direct interest in thecomplainant or the respondent, the Provost or the Secretary General will conduct
the matters over which the Dean of Faculty Affairs has authority in the
preliminary investigation. All committee members shall be persons having no
direct conflict of interest with the complainant or the respondent.
(1) Dean of Faculty Affairs(2) General Counsel(3) Dean of Research(4) Chair of the Faculty Assembly(5) External Experts(6) Other eligible persons whom the Dean of Faculty Affairs considers necessary
23.4.4.1.2 When conducting a Preliminary Investigation with respect to amanuscript which has been withdrawn before receiving the reporting, the Deanof Faculty Affairs will, in the process of the Preliminary Investigation, also
evaluate as to whether or not the case should be investigated in a Substantial
Investigation as an issue of Specified Research Misconduct, taking account ofsuch matters as how and why the manuscript was withdrawn and any other14
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clrelevant situations, and make a decision whether to proceed with a further fullscale investigation.
23.4.4.1.3 The Dean of Faculty Affairs will confirm the source of funding whichfunds the research subject to the reporting. Sections in charge of the funding,such as the Budget Section, and Grants Section will provide a report on the sourceof funding to the Dean of Faculty Affairs.
23.4.4.1.4 The Dean of Faculty Affairs will decide whether to conduct a
Substantial Investigation within 30 days after the official receipt of the reporting
and report to the President/CEO.
23.4.4.1.5 When the decision is not to conduct a Substantial Investigation, theDean of Faculty Affairs shall notify the complainant of the decision and the reason
why the Substantial Investigation will not be conducted. In this case, the Dean ofFaculty Affairs shall archive reference materials used in the Preliminary
Investigation, and, upon request by the relevant Funding Agency, the Cabinet
Office, the relevant ministries and agencies or the complainant, disclose thesearchived references.
23.4.4.1.6 A report of a Preliminary Investigation and relevant documents will bearchived for 7 years at the University.
23.4.4.2 Substantial Investigation
A Substantial Investigation is carried out by the Substantial Investigation Committee(hereinafter, “SIC”). The Dean of Faculty Affairs chairs the SIC, and convenes
meetings on a case bases selecting persons whom the Dean of Faculty Affairsconsiders necessary from the people listed below. Internal Faculty members andexternal members are selected by the Dean of Faculty Affairs based on the research
field in question. However, when the Dean of Faculty Affairs is the respondent or
has a direct interest in the complainant or the respondent, the Provost or the
Secretary General will conduct the matters over which the Dean of Faculty Affairs
has authority in the substantial investigation. The Secretariat of the SIC is handled
by the Faculty Affairs Office. All committee members shall be persons having no
direct conflict of interest with the complainant or the respondent.
(1) Dean of Faculty Affairs(2) General Counsel(3) Dean of Research(4) Chair of the Faculty Assembly
15
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl

(5) External Experts (Needs to be over half of the members)(6) Other eligible persons whom the chairperson considers necessary
23.4.4.2.1 Notifying
When a decision to carry out a Substantial Investigation has been made, thePresident/CEO will notify in writing the complainant and the respondent that the
Substantial Investigation will be carried out and ask them to cooperate with theinvestigation. When the respondent belongs to an entity other than the University,
the notice will also be given to said entity. The chairperson will, when it hasestablished the SIC, provide the complainant and the respondent with a list ofcommittee members identifying their organizations. In response thereto thecomplainant and the respondent may file an opposition within 7 days after he/she
received said notification. In the case where an opposition is filed, thechairperson will review the contents of the opposition, and if the chairperson
finds the opposition is reasonable, it will replace the committee member(s)objected in the opposition and notify the complainant and the respondent of thereplacement. In carrying out the investigation of the alleged case, a special careshall be used so that, unless the complainant agrees to the contrary, thecomplainant cannot be identified by the respondent or a person other than the
persons working in the investigation.
i) The Dean of Faculty Affairs notifies the President/CEO, the Board ofGovernors, Auditors, the Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office and the relevant
ministries and agencies that it will carry out a Substantial Investigation.
ii) A Substantial Investigation shall be commenced no later than 30 days after
the decision to conduct the Substantial Investigation.
23.4.4.2.2 Investigation Method and Delegated Poweri) The Substantial Investigation will be carried out by scrutinizing various
reference materials such as manuscripts, experimental or observational
notebooks and raw data relating to the research activities in question,
conducting interviews with relevant personnel, requesting reproduction of thesame experiments. In doing so, the respondent shall be given an opportunity
for explanation.
ii) For investigating the possibility that the alleged Specified Research
Misconduct took place, when the SIC requests the respondent to prove
reproducibility by conducting the same experiment or when the respondent
voluntarily requests to do such experiment and the SIC finds it necessary, thereproduction of the same experiment will be carried out within the extent that
the SIC finds it reasonably necessary taking account of a necessary period and16
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clopportunity (including equipment, costs, and other relevant matters). In
doing so, guidance and supervision provided by the SIC will be followed.
iii) With respect to the Substantial Investigation, the SIC may request otherentities to conduct a necessary investigation.
iv) With respect to the preceding three paragraphs, the SIC has the power torequire concerned persons to submit reference materials, appear in hearingsand conduct reproduction of the same experiment, and require the University
to pay costs reasonably necessary for the procedures. Also, concerned persons
including the whistleblower and the respondent shall cooperate with theinvestigation carried out by the SIC based on said delegated power in goodfaith.
23.4.4.2.3 Research Activities Subject to Investigation In addition to theresearch activities in question, other research activities which involve therespondent and are relevant to the investigation may be subject to investigation
at the discretion of the SIC.
23.4.4.2.4 Measures for Preserving Evidence
In order to carry out a Substantial Investigation, the SIC will take measures forpreserving reference materials which may be used as evidence for the research
activities in question. In this case, if the research activities in question took place
at a venue controlled by an entity other than the University, the SIC will request
the entity to take measures for preserving reference materials which may be usedas evidence for the research activities in question. The respondent's research
activities will not be restricted to the extent that does not negatively affect thesemeasures.
23.4.4.2.5 Mid-term Investigation Report
If the Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office or the relevant ministries and agencies
which has distributed or took measures for the budget of the research activities inquestion requests, the President/CEO will submit a mid-term investigation
report to the Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office or the relevant ministries andagencies even before the completion of the investigation, and it will be reported
to Auditors.
23.4.4.2.6 Protection of Research or Technical Information Subject toInvestigation
In carrying out investigation, a special care shall be used so that research or
technical information subject to investigation such as data and manuscripts
before publication will not be disclosed beyond the extent that is just necessary17
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clfor carrying out the investigation. In a case where there are more than one
respondents, if it has been found that they were not collectively involved in the
alleged misconduct, investigation reports may be prepared individually for these
respondents, for the sake of maintaining confidentiality.
23.4.4.3 Determination
23.4.4.3.1 Determinationi) The SIC will complete documentation of the results of the investigation within
150 days from the commencement of the Substantial Investigation and makea determination as to whether or not Specified Research Misconduct took
place.
ii) If it is determined that Specified Research Misconduct took place, the SIC willfurther determine the details thereof, including name of persons involved in
the Specified Research Misconduct, the degree of involvement of each person,
and the roles of authors of the manuscripts relating to the research activities
being determined as Specified Research Misconduct in said manuscripts or insaid research activities.
iii) When it is determined that Specified Research Misconduct did not take place,
if it has been found that the reporting was bad faith, the SIC will make thedetermination of bad faith reporting at the same time. In doing so, thecomplainant shall be given an opportunity for explanation.
iv) Upon completion of the determinations according to the preceding threeparagraphs, the SIC will immediately report the determinations to the
President/CEO.
23.4.4.3.2 Accountability for Reporting of Specified Research
Misconduct
In the investigation carried out by the SIC, when the respondent intends to remove
the suspicions over the research activities in question, the respondent shall
explain, under his/her own responsibility, that the research activities have been
carried out in accordance with scientifically appropriate methods and procedures,and the papers have been written based thereon using appropriate expressions,presenting scientific evidence that supports his/her explanation.
23.4.4.3.3 Determination Whether or Not Specified Research
Misconduct Took Placei) The SIC takes into account the explanation given by the respondent under thepreceding paragraph and makes comprehensive evaluation of all evidence
obtained by the investigation including physical or scientific evidence,
testimonies and self-admission of the respondent, to determine whether or18
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clnot Specified Research Misconduct took place. Credibility of evidence isdetermined by the evaluation of the SIC, but, to determine factual basis of the
misconduct and intentionality, it is important to take account of various
aspects such as the organizational mechanisms applied to the research of the
respondent and how the data were checked in the mechanisms. In addition,
determination that Specified Research Misconduct took place cannot be madeif the respondent's self- admission is the only evidence supporting thedetermination.
ii) In the case where evidence supporting the Specified Research Misconduct is
submitted, when a suspicion that the Specified Research Misconduct took
place cannot be reversed by the respondent's explanation and other evidence,the determination that Specified Research Misconduct took place will bemade. Also, the same applies to the case where the respondent is unable topresent sufficient evidence that reverses the suspicion that Specified Research
Misconduct took place due to lack of basic elements which normally exist in
research activities, such as lack of raw data, experimental or observational
notebooks, experimental materials or reagents. However, this does not apply
to the case where it is found that there is a justifiable reason for that, such as
when the respondent had used a good manager's care and the inability ofpresenting sufficient evidence based on the basic elements was due to a cause
beyond control of the respondent (such as loss by disaster). Also, the same
applies to the case where lack of raw data, experimental or observational
notebooks, experimental materials or reagents, etc. is because of expiry of thereasonable period for storage specified by OIST Guidelines on Archival andDisclosure of Research Data, Laboratory Notebooks Research Specimens andChemicals [Link] or the research institution that the respondent belonged towhen he/she was carrying out the alleged research activities.
iii) Specific standard of proof regarding the preceding two paragraphs and basic
elements which should normally exist in research activities as mentioned in
the preceding paragraph are determined by the SIC taking account of thecharacteristics of the relevant research field.
iv) A report of a Substantial Investigation and relevant documents will bearchived for 7 years at the University.
23.4.4.3.4 Notifying and Reporting of Results of Investigationi) The President/CEO will promptly notify the whistleblower and the respondent(including those who are other than the respondent and determined to be
involved in the Specified Research Misconduct; the same applies hereinafter)of the results of the investigation (including the determination; the same
applies hereinafter). When the respondent belongs to an entity other than the19
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clUniversity, said entity will also be notified of said results of the investigation.
ii) In addition to the preceding paragraph, the President/CEO will report said
results of the investigation to the Board of Governors, Auditors, the Funding
Agency, the Cabinet Office and the relevant ministries and agencies.
iii) When the reporting by the whistleblower was determined to be bad faith, thePresident/CEO will also notify the entity that the complainant belongs to.
23.4.4.3.5 Appeali) The respondent of the reporting being determined as the Specified Research
Misconduct may file an appeal to the within 14 days from the date of notificationof the results of the investigation. However, once an appeal is filed, another appeal
based on the same reason cannot be filed even before the expiry of said period.

ii) The whistleblower (including those who have been determined as making a
bad faith reporting in the appeal proceedings initiated by the respondent; theprovision of “23.4.4.3.3 Determination Whether or Not Specified Research
Misconduct Took Place” above will apply mutatis mutandis to thedetermination in this case) whose reporting has been determined to be badfaith may file an appeal, by applying mutatis mutandis the preceding
paragraph.
iii) Review in the appeal proceedings will be handled by the SIC. In doing so, if
claims of the appeal may require a new determination based on expert
knowledge, the President/CEO will replace or add committee members ordelegate the review to another body in place of the SIC. However, this does not
apply to the case where the President/CEO finds there is no reasonable groundfor requiring a change of the members of the SIC with respect to said appeal
proceedings.
iv) With respect to the appeal proceedings initiated by the respondent in the casebeing determined that Specified Research Misconduct took place, the SIC(including those in place of the SIC according to (iii) above; the same applies
hereinafter in “23.4.4.3.5 Appeal”) will promptly determine whether or not itwill carry out re-investigation of the case, taking account of the claims and theground of appeal and other relevant matters. If it determines that the appeal
should be dismissed without the need of carrying out re-investigation of saidcase, it will promptly report the President/CEO thereof, and thePresident/CEO will notify the respondent of said determination. In this case,if the SIC finds that the primary purpose of said appeal is to delay theconclusion of said case or to postpone the measures to be taken relating to apossible determination, the President/CEO may decide not to receive afurther appeal. When a determination to carry out re-investigation has been
made regarding the appeal of (i) above, the SIC will request the respondent to20
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clcooperate with the re-investigation for prompt resolution of the case, such as
submission of reference materials that can be sufficient evidence to overturnthe conclusion of the earlier investigation. If the respondent is not cooperative,
the SIC may decide to terminate the review without conducting reinvestigation. In that case, the President/CEO will immediately be reported ofthe decision, and the President/CEO will notify the respondent of saiddecision.
v) When the President/CEO has received an appeal from the respondent
regarding the determination that Specified Research Misconduct took place, itwill notify the whistleblower thereof. In addition, the President /CEO willreport the relevant Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office, the relevant ministries
and agencies thereof and Auditors. The same applies to the case where it has
decided to dismiss the appeal or to carry out re-investigation.
vi) When the SIC has started re-investigation, it will decide, within a period of
50 days, whether or not it will overturn the conclusion of the earlier
investigation, and immediately report the President/CEO of the decision, andthen, the President/CEO will notify the decision to the respondent, the entitythat the respondent belongs to and the whistleblower. In addition, thePresident/CEO will report the same to the relevant Funding Agency, theCabinet Office, the relevant ministries and agencies and Auditors.
vii) Upon receipt of an appeal from the whistleblower of the reporting being
determined to be bad faith as provided in (ii) above, the President/CEO will
notify the entity that the whistleblower belongs to and the respondent thereof.
In addition, the University will report the same to the relevant Funding
Agency, the Cabinet Office, the relevant ministries and agencies and Auditors.
viii) With respect to the appeal according to (ii) above, the SIC will carry out reinvestigation within 30 days, and will immediately report the President/CEOof the results thereof. The University will notify the results of the review to thewhistleblower, the entity that the whistleblower belongs to and the
respondent. In addition, the University will report the same to the relevant
Funding Agency, the Cabinet Office, the relevant ministries and agencies andAuditors.
23.4.4.3.6 Public Announcement of The Results of Investigationi) When it has been determined that Specified Research Misconduct took place,the President/CEO promptly makes public the results of the investigation
including the category of Specified Research Misconduct, researcher(s),expenses and subject of research project, and specific description of theSpecified Research Misconduct and other required information.
ii) When it has been determined that Specified Research Misconduct did not take21
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl

place, unless otherwise provided, the President/CEO will not make public the
results of the investigation. However, it will make public the results of theinvestigation if information of the case under investigation has been divulged
outside the University or if an unintentional mistake was found in a research
paper. When it has been determined that the reporting was bad faith, theresults of the investigation will be made public.
iii) When information of an investigated case has been divulged and become
known to a person other than those in charge of the case, the President/CEO
may officially explain the investigated case even if the investigation is ongoing,
provided that the whistleblower and the respondent give consent to do so.
However, if the divulgence of information is due to a cause attributable to thewhistleblower or the respondent, consent of the person is not necessary.
23.4.4.3.7 Measures for Whistleblowers and Respondentsi) When it has been determined that Specified Research Misconduct took place,the President/CEO will take appropriate measures in accordance with
Chapter 38 “Discipline” for the person determined to be involved in theSpecified Research Misconduct or a person who is not determined to be
involved therein but determined to be responsible for the contents of a paper
relating to the determined Specified Research Misconduct as its author(hereinafter, “determined person”) and recommend the determined person towithdraw the paper or the like being determined to be Specified Research
Misconduct.
ii) When a reporting has been determined to be bad faith, the President/CEO willtake appropriate measures against the whistleblower in accordance with the
Chapter 38 “Discipline”.
iii) No one shall partially or totally prohibit the respondent from carrying out
research activities, nor fire, demote, pay cut nor give any otherdisadvantageous treatment on the respondent, simply based on the fact thatthe person has been accused in the reporting without substantial reason.
23.4.4.3.8 Refund of Competitive Research Funding and Application
for Grant and Qualification of Applicantsi) Subsequently to the determination of Specified Research Misconduct, if theFunding Agency requests to refund a part or all of the granted competitive
research funding, the determined person and the University will respond to
the request in good faith.
ii) The determined person may be subject to restrictions on submitting anapplication for grant of competitive research funding, and on participating in
granted projects. The Grants Section and Business Development Section
22
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clgather information relating to said restrictions and appropriately administers
the processing of applications.
23.4.5 How to Submit A Retaliation Complaint to the Secretary General
23.4.5.1 A Retaliation Complaint shall be submitted to the Secretary General as
promptly as possible after experiencing a suspicious action or interference or alikelihood of retaliation.
23.4.5.2 Requirements and Criteria for Making Complaint A Retaliation
Complaint under the Whistleblower Protection Policy shall be submitted in writing,with indications of the date of complaint and names of relevant persons, anddetailed descriptions of necessary facts and circumstances identifying the activityor the like that are considered to be retaliation. The complainant shall provide facts
to prove that:i) The complainant made a report or a protected disclosure with respect to specificmisconduct;ii) The complainant was under the influence of threatening, coercion or order not tomake a report, or gave up making a report due to threatening; oriii) The complainant rejected to obey an Illegal Order.
23.4.5.3 The provisions of the investigation regarding non- compliance apply
mutatis mutandis to the investigation regarding Retaliation Complaint.
23.5 Forms
23.5.1 Whistleblower Report
23.6 Contacts
23.6.1 Policy Owner
Secretary General
ProvostDean of Research
Dean of Faculty Affairs
Chief Internal Audit Officer
23.6.2 Other Contacts
The office of the Provost
The Office of the Dean of Research
The Office of Dean of Faculty Affairs
Internal Audit Section
Grants Section
23
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl

Business Development Section
Occupational Health and Safety Section
23.7 Definitions
23.7.1 Funding Agency
It means an agency that distributes grants or provides measures through competitive
research funding or other open-recruitment type research funding.
23.7.2 Preliminary Investigation
It means an investigation consisting of a preliminary information gathering and a
preliminary fact-finding investigation, based on which a determination as to whether
a report of misconduct or a fact that is suspected to be misconduct has substance.
Based on the results of a Preliminary Investigation, a decision whether to conduct a
Substantial Investigation is made.
23.7.3 Substantial Investigation
It means an official investigation and evaluation of relevant facts in order todetermine whether or not misconduct took place.
23.7.4 Groundless Report or Complaint
It is a report or complaint made through a major oversight in the fact, with anintentional falsity, or with a bad faith intention. Individuals who have made suchreports or complaints may be subject to disciplinary actions by the University and/or
legal claims by individuals wrongfully accused of such conduct.
23.7.5 Illegal OrderAny directive to violate or to assist in violating any applicable Japanese and local legal
or regulatory provisions, or to violate or to assist in violating University Policies, Rules
and Procedures (PRPs).
23.7.6 Misconduct
It means any activity undertaken by anyone affiliated with OIST Graduate University(University), including, without limitation, officers, employees, students, vendors,
that violates any applicable Japanese legal or regulatory provisions, or violates Bylaws,
University Rules, Policies, Rules, and Procedures (PRPs), (collectively, “noncompliance”), and misconduct in research activities by these people. The scope of
non-compliance includes public research fund misuse.
23.7.6.1 Non-compliance
It means any activity that contradicts with applicable Japanese legal or regulatory24
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clprovisions or with Bylaws, University Rules or the PRPs.
23.7.6.1.1 Public Research Fund Misuse
It means any activity that violates the University's internal rules or Japanese legal
or regulatory provisions by submitting falsified documentation for disbursement
claim, such as obtaining deposit money taking advantage of a relationship with avendor and receiving money based on false claims for business trip expenses,
wages and other remuneration, and involves spending of the University's publicfunds sourced from operating expense subsidies and competitive researchfunding such as grants-in-aid for scientific research and sponsored researchfunding.
23.7.6.2 Misconduct in Research Activities
It means, in the conduct of research activities or activities to make the research
results public, any act that distorts the essence or the spirits of these activities, andimpedes normal scientific communication among the members of the scientificcommunity. Specifically, acts that fall within the scope of misconduct include
fabrication or falsification of data or results being obtained, plagiarism and an act
that contradicts research ethics, but are not limited to these. Determination of
misconduct will be made on a case basis and depend on the specific details of thecase.
23.7.6.2.1 Specified Research Misconduct
It means fabrication, falsification and plagiarism relating to data, findings of study
and the like which are present in research results published in a paper submitted
to academic journals, which are caused by a willful act or gross negligence of due
care that shall have been exercised by an ordinary researcher.
(i) Fabrication: It means making up data, research results, etc.
(ii) Falsification: It means manipulating research materials, equipment orprocesses, or changing data or results being obtained from research activities
such that the research is not accurately represented.
(iii) Plagiarism: It is the appropriation of another researcher's ideas, analysis
processes, data, results, manuscripts or words without obtaining consent
from the researcher or giving appropriate credit.
In addition, misconduct in research activities are not limited to those fall under
the Specified Research Misconduct.
23.7.7 Use of Official Authority or Official influence
It means to give an order, proposal, treatment or approval to give benefits or make a25
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_clpromise to give benefits, exercise retaliation or make a threat to retaliate, takepersonnel measures (including, but not limited to, appointment, promotion,
relocation, selection, performance appraisal, suspension and other disciplinary
actions) or an order, proposal, treatment or approval to have others to do any of these.
23.7.8 Protected Disclosure
Any good faith communication that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose
an alleged misconduct.
23.7.9 Retaliation Complaint
It means a complaint made by an employee or a third party claiming that a retaliation
against a Protected Disclosure or the rejection to an Illegal Order has been made, or acomplaint made by an employee or a third party claiming that an interference wasmade in the course of making a Protected Disclosure, which is submitted in writingalong with a statement that the contents of the complaint are true or a statement thatthe complainant believes that the contents of the complaint are true.

26
ch23_misconduct-and-whistleblower-protection_en_20240401_cl