Such information might include a reasonable indication of possible criminal violations or facts that may affect current or potential federal funding for the individuals under investigation or that the funding agencies need to know to ensure appropriate use of federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest. The Hearing Committee of five people will be drawn from a listing of 16 experts in the area of research under investigation. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will put together this list from names suggested by the respondent's Dean or Director after consultation with the Office of Research Integrity of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. All nominees must be suitably credentialled in the research area in dispute. The respondent and the claimant each shall have three vetoes each over membership of the panel.
Due process is paramount.
B. The guidelines and procedures governing the formal hearing will be identical to those used in the investigative hearing, except that the hearing is chaired by the Vice-President for Academic Affairs. The Vice-President for Academic Affairs may interrogate witnesses but may not vote or be present during the final deliberations. At the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Hearing Committee will either reaffirm the report of the Special Investigatory Committee or modify it as it deems appropriate and forward the report to the Vice-President for Academic Affairs as the final peer report on the matter. If a formal hearing is not requested after the Special Investigatory Committee has all or part of the allegations, the report of the Hearing Committee shall serve as the final peer report on the matter. If the allegations concern research or a related activity that is externally funded, the Vice-President for Academic Affairs shall inform the funding agency of the findings.