Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/275040871/Public-Health-Service-Policies-on-Misconduct-Research-NIH
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 02:46:29
Document Index: 611203322

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 50', 'art 50', 'art 93', 'art 93', 'art 50', 'art 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', 'art 1005', 'art 50', 'arts 50', 'art 50', 'art 50', '§ 50', 'art 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', 'art 76', 'arts 9', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', 'art 13', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93', '§ 93']

Public Health Service Policies on Misconduct Research NIH | U.S. Securities And Exchange Commission | Burden Of Proof (Law) | Kostenlose 30-Tage-Testversion | Scribd
speichernPublic Health Service Policies on Misconduct Resea... für später speichern
ortega v ca.docx
James Thomas Iii, and Boyd Thomas v. Colorado Trust Deed Funds, Inc., Mortgage Underwriting Corporation, Clifford McLin Robert Swanson, Receiver for Colorado Trust Deed Funds, Inc., and Mortgage Underwriting Corporation, 366 F.2d 136, 10th Cir. (1966)
SEC v. Williams Et Al Doc 53 Filed 06 Aug 13
42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule
E:\FR\FM\17MYR3.SGM
17MYR3
RIN 0940–AA04
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule removes 42 CFR part 50, subpart A, ‘‘Responsibilities of Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science,’’ and replaces it with a new, more comprehensive part 93, ‘‘Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.’’ The proposed part 93 was published for public comment on April 16, 2004. The final rule reflects both substantive and non-substantive amendments in response to public comments and to correct errors and
improve clarity, but the general approach of the NPRM is retained. The purpose of the final rule is to implement legislative and policy changes applicable to research misconduct that occurred over the last several years, including the common Federal policies and procedures on research misconduct issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy on December 6,
DATES: This final rule will become effective June 16, 2005. ADDRESSES: Address any comments or questions regarding this final rule to:
Chris B. Pascal, J.D., Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852. Some commonly asked questions and answers to them will be posted on the Office of Research Integrity Web site prior to the effective date of the regulation. The URL for the ORI Web site is: http://ori.hhs.gov. You may submit comments and questions on this final rule by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to research@osophs.dhhs.gov. Submit electronic comments as either a WordPerfect file, version 9.1 or higher, or a Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 file format. You may also submit comments or questions as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Brenda Harrington, (301) 443–3400. (This is not a toll-free number).
I. Public Comments—General The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to remove 42 CFR part 50, subpart A and replace it with a new part 93 was published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2004 (69 FR 20778). Comments were requested on or before June 15, 2004. In addition to this invitation for public comment on any aspect of the proposed rulemaking, the NPRM requested comment on specific aspects of the proposed rule including: (A) Whether there should be any limitation on the ability of institutions to conduct a research misconduct proceeding through a consortium or other entity qualified by practice and experience to conduct
research misconduct proceedings (§ 93.306); (B) the use of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to conduct HHS research misconduct hearings rather than a panel of three decisionmakers (§ 93.502); (C) treating the decision of the ALJ as a recommended decision to the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) as opposed to the current practice in which the decision of the panel on the merits of the HHS findings of misconduct and administrative actions, other than debarment, constitutes final agency action (§§ 93.500(d) and 93.523(c)); (D) authorizing the ALJ to appoint a scientific expert (that appointment is required if requested by either party) to advise the ALJ on scientific issues, but not provide testimony for the record (§ 93.502(b));
(E) consistent with current practice,
permitting HHS to amend its findings of research misconduct up to 30 days
before the scheduled hearing (§ 93.514);
(F) extending the period for retaining
records of the research misconduct proceeding, including inquiries, from 3 to 7 years (§ 93.317); (G) imposing a 120­ day deadline for the completion of any institutional appeal from a finding of research misconduct (§ 93.314); and (H) whether the HHS estimates on the potential burden of information collection requirements are accurate and whether those requirements are necessary for the proper performance of HHS functions. Twenty-eight documents commenting on the NPRM were submitted to HHS by mail or e-mail. Most of the documents addressed multiple sections of the proposed rule. A number of the commentators made general positive comments such as that: the proposed rule is well drafted, provides valuable guidance for researchers and institutions and is much improved over the current regulation; the detail and transparency of the procedures will result in a better focus on the merits of
a case rather than procedural
complications; the proposal recognizes the importance of primary reliance on
the institutions to respond to allegations of research misconduct; and the clarification and harmonization of definitions, standards, and procedures are appreciated. Most of the commentators endorsed the changes in the definition of research misconduct and the incorporation of the three elements necessary for a finding of research misconduct in conformity with the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Some expressed support for the PHS practice of excluding coverage of authorship disputes in the absence of a clear allegation of plagiarism. There were expressions of support for the coverage of PHS intramural programs and PHS contractors, the coverage of the plagiarism of a PHS supported research record, even if the respondent does not receive such support, the clarification of the role of the complainant, the adoption of a six-year limitation on the pursuit of misconduct allegations, separation of adjudication and appeal from the inquiry and investigation stages, setting a time limit on the investigation by the institution, and the inclusion of ALJs in the hearing process. These and other supportive comments may be discussed in the consideration of specific changes to the proposed rule that follows. There were also general, negative comments on the proposed rule, some of which were in direct opposition to positive comments. Some commentators feel that the proposal is overly detailed and thus contrary to the OSTP goal of
a more uniform Federal-wide approach.
Another criticizes the continuation in the proposed rule of a trend toward legalization of scientific disputes by immediately casting parties into adversarial roles. Other commentators object to the change from a hearing conducted by a three-member panel to one conducted by an ALJ, stating that there has not been any showing of a need to change the current practice. One commentator felt that HHS should be responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct at institutions that have repeatedly failed to properly investigate
research misconduct. These and other critical comments may be discussed in the consideration of specific changes that follow. Some letters of comment repeated comments that had been made in response to the OSTP proposal for a government-wide Federal policy on research misconduct. Because OSTP considered those comments prior to
issuing its final policy and this final rule is consistent with the aspects of the OSTP policy addressed in the comments, those comments will not be further discussed here. Comments on specific sections of the regulation are addressed below under headings based on the general issue raised by the comments. If that issue encompasses more than one section of the regulation, all those sections will be discussed under that heading.
II. Changes Made in Response to Comments
A. Applicability, Secs. 93.100(b) and
93.102(b)
A number of commentators concluded that the applicability section, 93.102, and the descriptions of applicability in other sections unreasonably extend HHS jurisdiction beyond PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research and research training. One commentator recommended that descriptions of applicability be uniform throughout the regulation. There were specific objections to: (1) The statement in Sec. 93.100(b) that covered institutions must comply with the regulation with respect to allegations of misconduct ‘‘occurring at or involving research or research training projects or staff of the institution’’; (2) the coverage, in Sec. 93.102(a) and other sections describing applicability, of ‘‘activities related to that research or research training;’’ and (3) the extension of coverage in Sec. 93.102(a) to allegations of misconduct involving any research record generated from covered research, research training, or activities related to that research or training, regardless of whether the user or reviewer receives PHS support or whether an application resulted in any PHS support. Several clarifying changes have been made in response to these comments, but these changes do not change the intended substance of the provisions in the NPRM. The current regulation, 42 CFR 50.101, covers each entity that applies for a ‘‘research, research-training or research-related grant or cooperative agreement’’ under the PHS Act. Such an entity must establish policies and procedures for investigating and reporting instances of alleged misconduct involving ‘‘research or research training or related research activities that are supported with funds available under the PHS Act.’’ Thus, applicability to research-related activities is not new. The NPRM was not intended to change the applicability to those activities as it is expressed in the current regulation and has been applied in practice under that regulation.
This rulemaking establishes the necessary HHS jurisdiction to implement the new term ‘‘reviewing research’’ in the OSTP definition of research misconduct. In ORI’s experience, plagiarism can occur during the review process when a manuscript is submitted for publication. In the great majority of cases where an allegation arises that a PHS supported research record was plagiarized, we expect that the reviewers will be current recipients of PHS research funds because the reviewers are selected based on their subject matter expertise and the research in question is PHS funded biomedical and behavioral research. In cases where the respondent is PHS supported or affiliated with a PHS supported institution, we would expect the misconduct allegation to be pursued by the PHS supported institution. In those cases where the reviewer who is alleged to have committed plagiarism is solely funded by another Federal agency, ORI would refer the allegation to that agency. In addition, jurisdiction does not attach to allegations of plagiarism where there is no PHS support for the research record in question. Thus, we have removed the phrase ‘‘regardless of whether the user or reviewer currently receives PHS support’’ from Sec. 93.102. To eliminate redundancy and clarify the general policy and applicability provisions, Secs. 93.100 and 93.102, we have: (1) Moved the statement of applicability to institutions from Sec. 93.100(b) to Sec. 93.102(b) and rewritten it to be more concise; and (2) moved paragraph (c) of Sec. 93.100 to paragraph (a) of that section and combined the proposed paragraphs (a) and (d) into a new paragraph (b). The provision setting forth the types of allegations to which the regulation applies has been moved from Sec. 93.102(a) to paragraph (b) of that section and has been amended to clarify that the regulation applies to allegations of research misconduct involving: (i) Applications or proposals for PHS support for biomedical or behavioral extramural or intramural research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training, such as the operation of tissue or data banks or the dissemination of research information; (ii) PHS supported biomedical or behavioral extramural or intramural research; (iii) PHS supported biomedical or behavioral extramural or intramural research training programs; (iv) PHS supported extramural or intramural activities that are related to biomedical or behavioral research or research training, such as the operation of tissue and data banks or the
dissemination of research information; and (v) plagiarism of research records produced in the course of PHS supported research, research training, or PHS supported activities related to that research or research training. The examples of activities that are related to research or research training are intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. They are intended to convey the concept that under its research and research training authorities, PHS funds many activities that are closely related to research and research training, but might not be considered to be within the common understanding of what constitutes research or research training. Consistent with the intent of, and practice under the current regulation, allegations of research misconduct involving those funded activities, or applications for the funding of those activities, are covered. In each section that refers to the applicability of the regulation we have referenced the applicability section or repeated the applicability of the regulation to PHS supported research, research training, and activities related to that research or research training.
B. Subsequent Use Exception to Six
Year Limitation on Misconduct Allegations, Sec. 93.105(b)(1) In response to a comment requesting clarification, we have amended paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 93.105. The amendment clarifies that even though HHS or an institution does not receive an allegation of research misconduct within six years of when the misconduct is alleged to have occurred, the regulation would apply if, within six years of when the allegation is received, the respondent has cited, republished, or otherwise used for his or her potential benefit the research record that is the subject of the allegation of misconduct.
C. Rebuttable Presumption of
Misconduct in the Absence of Records, Secs. 93.106(a)(1) and 93.516(b) Commentators raised several concerns about proposed Sec. 93.106(a)(1) and Sec. 93.516(b) under which the absence of, or respondent’s failure to provide research records adequately documenting the questioned research establishes a presumption of research misconduct that can be rebutted by credible evidence corroborating the research or providing a reasonable explanation for the absence of, or respondent’s failure to provide the research records. The concerns included: (1) Retroactive application of the provision where there was no previous requirement for the retention
of the records; (2) holding the respondent responsible for the retention of records over which he/she may have no control; and (3) there is no guidance on what would be a ‘‘reasonable explanation’’ for the absence of records. In response to these comments, we have eliminated the rebuttable presumption of research misconduct. Sections 93.106 and 93.516 have been changed to state that the destruction, absence of, or respondent’s failure to provide records adequately documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the institution or HHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but failed to do so, or maintained the records, but failed to produce them in a timely manner, and that respondent’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community. This is in keeping with the definition of falsification to include omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record (Sec. 93.103(b)) and with the requirements for a finding of research misconduct in Sec. 93.104. This answers the concerns about retroactive application and that the respondent may not have had control over the records by holding the respondent to the accepted practices of his/her research community. The weight to be accorded the evidence of research misconduct under these circumstances must be determined by the trier of fact in each case.
D. Respondent’s Burden To Prove Honest Error or Difference of Opinion, Secs. 93.106(a)(2) and 93.516(b) As proposed, Sec. 93.106(a)(2) provided that once the institution or HHS makes a prima facie showing of research misconduct the respondent has the burden of proving any affirmative defenses raised, including honest error or difference of opinion. There were a number of objections to that section on the grounds that shifting the burden of proving honest error or difference of opinion to the respondent effectively shifts the burden of the institution and HHS to prove each element of research misconduct or, at the least, creates confusion. Some of the commentators opined that the institution and the HHS have the burden of proving the absence of honest error or difference of opinion. As stated in the preamble of the Federal Register notice promulgating the final OSTP Research Misconduct Policy (65 FR 76260, Dec. 6, 2000), the
exclusion of honest error or difference of opinion from the definition of research misconduct does not create a separate element of proof; institutions and agencies are not required to disprove possible honest error or difference of opinion. Given that guidance, this final rule retains honest error or difference of opinion as an affirmative defense that the respondent has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence. However, we recognize that there is an overlap between the responsibility of respondents to prove this affirmative defense and the burden of institutions and HHS to prove that research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Accordingly, consistent with the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 107 S. Ct. 1098 (1987), we have amended Sec. 93.106 to require consideration of admissible, credible evidence respondent submits to prove honest error or difference of opinion in determining whether the institution and HHS have carried their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. This consideration would be required, regardless of whether respondent carries his/her burden of proving honest error or difference of opinion by a preponderance of the evidence. In light of this change, we have removed the reference to the institution or HHS making a prima facie showing of research misconduct as unnecessary and confusing. Because this is the only use of prima facie in the regulation, we have removed the definition of that term.
E. Coordination With Other Agencies, Sec. 93.109
Some commentators pointed out that Sec. 93.109(a), as proposed, is not consistent with the statement in the OSTP Policy that a lead agency should be designated when more than one agency has jurisdiction. We have amended paragraph (a) to state that if more than one agency of the Federal government has jurisdiction, HHS will cooperate with the other agencies in designating a lead agency. We have added a sentence clarifying that where HHS is not the lead agency, it may, in consultation with the lead agency, take action to protect the health and safety of the public, promote the integrity of the PHS supported research and research process, or to conserve public funds.
F. Definition of Research Record, Sec.
One commentator recommended that the research record include the comments of the complainant and respondent on the inquiry and investigation reports. We agree that documents and materials provided by the respondent as part of his/her comments on the inquiry and investigation reports, or at any other stage of the research misconduct proceeding do not differ significantly from those provided in response to questions regarding the research. Only the latter were included in the proposed definition of research record. Accordingly, we have amended Sec. 93.224 (formerly Sec. 93.226) so that the definition of research record includes documents and materials that embody
the facts resulting from the research that are provided by the respondent at any point in the course of the research misconduct proceeding. The purpose of including documents provided by respondent in the research record is to hold the respondent responsible for the integrity of those research documents regardless of when they were prepared or furnished to the institution or HHS. Because the complainant is not being held responsible for the record of data or results that embodies the facts resulting from the research at issue, we are not including comments provided by the complainant during the research misconduct proceeding in the definition of the term ‘‘research record.’’ Those comments may be considered by the institution and/or HHS and they may be admitted as evidence in any hearing, but they are not part of the research record.
If the complainant possesses documents
that embody the facts resulting from the research that is the subject of the research misconduct proceeding, those
documents are research records and the institution is responsible for maintaining and securing those documents in the same manner as other research records. Those documents are distinct from analyses of research records or results that a complainant
may prepare prior to or in the course of
a research misconduct proceeding to
support his or her allegation of misconduct. Any such documents may be considered evidence pertinent to the allegation, but they are not part of the research record.
G. Reporting Inquiries to ORI, Sec.
93.300(a)
Several commentators interpreted the general language in proposed Sec. 93.300(a), requiring institutions to have policies and procedures for ‘‘reporting
inquiries and investigations of alleged research misconduct in compliance with this part,’’ to require the reporting of all inquiries to ORI, contrary to the requirement in Sec. 93.309 for reporting only those inquiries resulting in a finding that an investigation is warranted. We have amended Sec. 93.300(a) to clarify that the institution’s policies and procedures must comply with the requirements of the regulation for addressing allegations of research misconduct. This includes the requirements of Sec. 93.309. It was also recommended that this section be amended to require that the institution’s written policies and procedures be provided to the complainant and other interested parties on request. We have added a requirement that the policies and procedures be provided to members of the public upon request to Sec. 93.302(a)(1) because it addresses the availability of the institution’s policies and procedures to HHS and ORI upon request.
H. Precautions To Protect Against Conflicts of Interest, Secs. 93.300(b) and
93.304(b)
In response to a general comment that the regulation should ensure that those conducting inquiries and investigations do not have conflicts of interest, we have amended Secs. 93.300(b) and 93.304(b) to require institutions to include precautions against conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in the inquiry or investigation. This expands upon the requirement in Sec. 93.310(f) that institutions take reasonable steps to ensure an impartial investigation, ‘‘including participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation.’’
I. Reporting of Aggregated Information
by Institutions, Sec. 93.302(c) Several commentators recommended deletion of proposed Sec. 93.302(c) because its broad language would encompass research misconduct proceedings that are outside the jurisdiction of HHS. We agree with the intent of these comments and have amended this provision to refer to aggregated information on the institution’s research misconduct proceedings covered by this part.
J. Responsibility for Securing Research
Records and Evidence, Secs. 93.305, 93.307(b) and 93.310(d) Several commentators recommended that Sec. 93.305 be amended to ensure
that any securing of scientific instruments not interfere with ongoing research. Scientific instruments are included in the definition of ‘‘research record’’ in Sec. 93.224 to the extent they are, or contain physical or electronic records of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry. In response to these comments we have added language to paragraphs (a) and (c) of Sec. 93.305, paragraph (b) of Sec. 93.307, and paragraph (d) of Sec. 93.310 permitting institutions to secure copies of data or other research records on shared scientific instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value to the instruments themselves. It is expected that institutions will exercise discretion in determining whether copies of the data are substantially equivalent in evidentiary value to the instruments themselves, consulting with ORI as the institution determines necessary. The evidentiary value of scientific instruments will vary from case to case. In some cases their value may be dependent upon the manner in which they record data, rather than the data they contain. In those cases, it may be reasonable for the institution to permit continued use of the instrument, so long as it remains available for inspection by those conducting the inquiry and investigation.
K. Using a Consortium or Other Entity To Conduct Research Misconduct Proceedings, Sec. 93.306 One commentator recommended that there should be greater detail regarding the kinds of practice and experience that would qualify an outside entity to conduct research misconduct proceedings, how possible conflicts of interest would be handled, and whose responsibility it would be to determine whether the outside entity is qualified. The proposed Sec. 93.306 contains a catchall phrase providing that an institution may use a consortium or other entity to conduct research misconduct proceedings, if the institution prefers not to conduct its own proceeding. In light of the incorporation of this broad discretion in the proposed section, we have simplified Sec. 93.306 to provide that an institution may use the services of a consortium or person that the institution reasonably determines to be qualified by practice and experience to conduct research misconduct proceedings. Thus, the institution may decide to use an outside consortium or person for any reason and it determines whether that outside consortium or person is qualified. We have substituted the defined term ‘‘person’’ for the term
‘‘entity.’’ Any outside person conducting a research misconduct proceeding would be subject to the requirements for precautions against conflicts of interest in Secs. 93.300(b) and 93.304(b).
L. Standards for Investigation, Sec. 93.310(g) and (h)
A number of commentators felt that the provisions of proposed Sec. 93.310(g) and (h) establish a performance standard that cannot be met through the use of the terms ‘‘any’’ and ‘‘all.’’ We have amended paragraphs (g) and (h) to require, respectively, interviews of each person who has been reasonably identified as having information regarding relevant aspects of the investigation, and the pursuit of all significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation. The institutions are responsible for making the relevancy determinations that are included in these paragraphs.
M. Opportunity To Comment on the Investigation Report and Review the
Supporting Evidence, Sec. 93.312(a) and
One commentator proposed language clarifying the period for the respondent to comment on the investigation report. Another commentator felt that the institution should be required to give the respondent an opportunity to review all research records and evidence upon which the investigation report is based. We believe that clarification of the 30­ day period for comment by the respondent and for comment by the complainant, at the discretion of the institution, is needed. We have amended paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 93.312 accordingly. In addition, we have amended paragraph (b) to make it clear that institutions have the discretion to provide the complete investigation report to the complainant for comment or relevant portions of it. The OSTP Guidelines for Fair and Timely Procedures, Section IV of the Uniform Federal Policy, provide that one of the safeguards for subjects of allegations is reasonable access to the data and other evidence supporting the allegations and the opportunity to respond to the allegations, the supporting evidence and the proposed findings of research misconduct, if any. Consistent with that guidance, we have amended Sec. 93.312(a) to require institutions to give the respondent, concurrently with the draft investigation report, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based.
N. Institutional Appeals, Sec. 93.314(a)
One commentator requested language clarifying that the 120-day period for completing institutional appeals applies only to appeals from the finding of misconduct, not appeals from personnel actions. We have implemented this comment through the addition of appropriate language to Sec. 93.314(a).
O. Completing the Research Misconduct
Process, Sec. 93.316
Several commentators objected to this provision because they interpreted it as requiring that ORI be notified when an inquiry ends in a finding of no misconduct. These commentators recommended that the regulation address the question of whether settlements based on an admission of misconduct are reportable. In response to these comments we have amended Sec. 93.316(a) to require that institutions notify ORI if they plan to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that the respondent has admitted research misconduct, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except a determination at the inquiry stage that an investigation is not warranted, or a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage, which must be reported to ORI under Sec. 93.315. We have also changed Sec. 93.316(b) to provide for ORI consultation with the institution on its basis for closing a case, rather than simply reviewing the institution’s decision, and expanded the actions ORI may take to include approving or conditionally approving closure of the case and taking compliance action.
P. Retention and Custody of Records of
the Research Misconduct Proceeding, Sec. 93.317
There were several objections that the seven-year retention period: (1) Creates storage problems; (2) should not apply to scientific instruments; and (3) is contrary to the 3-year retention period for records relating to grants in OMB Circular A–110. One commentator recommended that the term ‘‘records of research misconduct proceedings’’ be defined to include a relevancy standard. In order to clarify what must be retained, we have added a new paragraph (a) to Sec. 93.317 defining records of research misconduct proceedings by referring to the sections of the regulation that describe what records institutions must prepare in the course of research misconduct proceedings. The definition includes a relevancy standard and requires that an institution document any determination
that records are irrelevant. We have added two exceptions to the requirement for retention of the records for a period of 7 years that is now in paragraph (b) of Sec. 93.317. The institution is not responsible for maintaining the records if they have been transferred to HHS in accordance with paragraph (c), formerly (b), or ORI has advised the institution in writing that it no longer needs to retain the records. As stated in the preamble of the NPRM (69 FR at 20784) the 7-year retention period is based on concerns that the 3-year period for retaining inquiry records in the current regulation, 42 CFR 50.103(d)(6) is too short to permit HHS or the Department of Justice to investigate potential civil or criminal fraud cases. While the 7-year retention period is potentially burdensome, that burden will fall on a limited number of institutions, 53 according to the Paperwork Reduction Act burden estimate in the preamble to the NPR, and the burden is mitigated by exceptions for transfer of custody to HHS and for a written notification from ORI that the records do not have to be retained by the institution. Upon the effective date of this final rule, the 7­ year retention period for records of research misconduct proceedings will supercede the more general requirements for the retention of records relating to grants. We note that the 7­ year retention period is consistent with the provision in the HHS general grants administration regulation, 45 CFR 74.53(b)(1) providing that if any review, claim, financial management review, or audit is started during the 3-year retention period, the pertinent records must be retained until all such matters have been resolved and final action taken.
Q. ORI Allegation Assessments, Sec.
Several commentators recommended requiring that ORI notify the institution of any allegation received by ORI, regardless of how ORI disposes of the allegation. Consistent with this recommendation, we have amended paragraph (d) of Sec. 93.402 to provide that if ORI decides that an inquiry is not warranted, it will close the case and may forward the allegation in accordance with paragraph (e) which provides that allegations not covered by the regulation may be forwarded to the appropriate HHS component, Federal or State agency, institution or other appropriate entity. In deciding whether to forward a specific allegation to the institution, ORI will consider potential confidentiality issues for the
complainant and others. We are open to further dialogue with the research community on this issue.
R. Standard for the Assistant Secretary for Health’s Review of the ALJ’s Decision, Secs. 93.500(d) and 93.523 One commentator recommended that there be criteria for the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) to review the ALJ’s decision, similar to the ‘‘arbitrary and capricious, or clearly erroneous’’ standard for the HHS debarring official to review the ALJ’s decision (paragraph (e) of Sec. 93.500). In response to this comment, we have added to Sec. 93.523(b) a standard of review for the ASH’s review of the decision of the ALJ. The standard of review for the ASH is the same ‘‘arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous’’ standard that applies to the debarring official’s review where debarment or suspension is a recommended HHS administrative action. In addition, we have amended Secs. 93.500 and 93.523 to establish a procedure for the ASH review, clarify the relationship between the ASH review and the debarring official’s decision on recommended debarment or suspension actions, and identify what constitutes the final HHS action. The Assistant Secretary for Health notifies the parties of an intention to review the ALJ’s recommended decision within 30 days after service of the recommended decision. Upon review, the ASH may modify or reject the decision in whole or in part after determining it, or the part modified or rejected, to be arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous. If the ASH does not notify the parties of an intent to review the recommended decision within the 30-day period, that decision becomes final and constitutes the final HHS action, unless debarment or suspension is an administrative action recommended in the decision. If debarment or suspension is a recommended HHS action either in a decision of the ALJ that the ASH does not review, or in the decision of the ASH after review, the decision constitutes proposed findings of fact to the HHS debarring official. As noted in the discussion of changes not based on comments, we have amended several sections to ensure that the Assistant Secretary for Health cannot be responsible both for making findings of research misconduct and for reviewing the ALJ’s recommended decision on those findings, if respondent contests the findings by requesting a hearing. ORI will be responsible for making those findings, consistent with its responsibilities as the reviewer of institutional findings of
research misconduct and as a party to any hearing on those findings. This maintains the separation between investigation and adjudication, because any inquiry or investigation would be conducted by the institution, or if conducted by HHS, it would not be conducted by ORI (Sec. 93.400(a)(4)).
S. Extension for Good Cause To
Supplement the Hearing Request, Sec.
93.501(d)
One commentator recommended that the 30-day limit for supplementing the hearing request be measured from notification of the appointment of the ALJ, rather than from receipt of the charge letter. The commentator notes that the ALJ may not be appointed within 30 days after receipt of the charge letter and recommends an amendment providing that the ALJ may grant an additional period of no more than 60 days from the respondent’s receipt of notification of the appointment of the ALJ. This comment makes a good point, but 60 days from notice of the appointment of the ALJ is too long a period, given that there may be an additional 30 days for appointment of the ALJ after the request for a hearing is filed. Thus, we have amended paragraph (d) to provide that after receiving notification of the appointment of the ALJ, the respondent has 10 days to file with the ALJ a proposal for supplementation of the hearing request that includes a showing of good cause for supplementation. Note that this 10-day period is consistent with the period for responding to a motion in Sec. 93.510(c) and that in accordance with Sec. 93.509(d), the ALJ may modify the 10-day period for good cause shown.
T. Role of Scientific Expert Appointed
by ALJ, Sec. 93.502 It was recommended that advice of the scientific expert appointed to advise the ALJ be part of the record and available to both parties. It was further recommended that the scientific expert be available for questioning by the parties. Another commentator recommended specific guidance in the regulation to assist ALJs in retaining appropriate scientific expertise. Another commentator felt that the appointment of an expert to assist the ALJ should be mandatory in every case, while others felt such an appointment should be mandatory in those cases involving complex scientific, medical or technical issues. For the reasons explained below under the heading, ‘‘Significant Comments Not Resulting in Changes,’’ we are not requiring the appointment of an expert to assist the ALJ in every case.
The proposed Sec. 93.502 provides some guidance on the selection of scientific and technical experts by requiring that they have appropriate expertise to assist the ALJ in evaluating scientific or technical issues related to the HHS findings of research misconduct. Furthermore, experts may not have real or apparent conflicts of interest, or as added in this final rule, bias or prejudice that might reasonably impair their objectivity in the proceeding. In paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 93.502 of this final rule we are providing further guidance on the selection of an expert to advise the ALJ. Upon a motion by the ALJ or one of the parties to appoint an expert to advise the ALJ, the ALJ must permit the parties to submit nominations. If such a motion is made by a party, the ALJ must appoint an expert, either: (1) The expert, if any, who is agreeable to both parties and
found to be qualified by the ALJ; or, (2)
if the parties cannot agree upon an
expert, the expert chosen by the ALJ.
These provisions will ensure the selection of well-qualified experts, minimize disputes, speed the appointment process by providing precise procedural rules, and enhance fairness by providing for greater involvement of the parties in the process.
Consistent with the greater involvement of the parties in the selection of the expert and with the comment recommending a more formalized process for the expert to provide advice, we are adding Sec. 93.502((b)(2) to clarify the role of the expert appointed by the ALJ. The ALJ may seek advice from the appointed expert at any time during the discovery or hearing phase of the proceeding. Advice must be provided in the form of
a written report, containing the expert’s background and qualifications, which is served upon the parties. The report and the expert’s qualifications and advice
may be challenged by the parties in the form of a motion or through testimony of the parties’ own experts, unless the ALJ determines such testimony to be inadmissible in accordance with Sec. 93.519, or that such testimony would unduly delay the proceeding. In this manner, the report and any comment on
it would be part of the record. These
procedures will greatly enhance the detail and quality of the expert advice available for consideration by the ALJ and provide greater transparency and confidence to the scientific community on the expertise provided to the ALJ.
II. Changes Not Based on Comments
A. Grandfather Exception to Six Year
Limitation on Receipt of Misconduct Allegations, Sec. 93.105(b)(3) We have changed the condition for the grandfather exception from ‘‘had the allegation of research misconduct under review or investigation on the effective date of this regulation’’ to ‘‘had received the allegation of research misconduct before the effective date of this part.’’ This makes the condition for the grandfather exception consistent with the event that tolls the running of the six-year limitation: the receipt of the misconduct allegation by the institution or HHS.
B. Confidentiality, 93.108
Consistent with longstanding practice and with Sec. 93.403, we have added a provision to clarify that ORI is within the category of those who need to know the identity of the respondent and complainant and that an institution may not invoke confidentiality to withhold that information from ORI as it conducts its review under Sec. 93.403.
C. Definition of Deciding Official, Sec.
93.207, and Authority of ORI, Sec.
93.400.
To ensure that the Assistant Secretary for Health is not responsible for both making findings of research misconduct and for reviewing the recommended decision of the ALJ on those findings if respondent contests the findings by requesting a hearing, Sec. 93.400 has been amended to give ORI the authority to make findings of research misconduct. That section and Sec. 93.404 have also been amended to clarify that ORI proposes administrative actions to HHS (defined as the Secretary or his delegate) and upon HHS approval, proceeds to implement those proposed actions in accordance with the procedures in the regulation. Accordingly, the definition of, and references to the term ‘‘deciding official’’ have been deleted. Giving ORI the responsibility for making findings of research misconduct is consistent with its responsibilities for reviewing institutional findings of research misconduct and for defending those findings if the respondent challenges them. This change will maintain the separation between investigation and adjudication, because ORI will not conduct any inquiry or investigation on behalf of HHS. These changes have necessitated changing references to HHS and ORI and other clarifying changes in Secs. 93.403–406, 93.411, 93.500–501, 93.503, and 93.516–517. As provided in Sec.
93.406, the ORI finding of research
misconduct is the final HHS action only
if the respondent does not contest the
charge letter within the prescribed period. The administrative actions, proposed by ORI and approved by HHS, become final in the same manner, except that the debarring official’s decision is the final HHS action on any debarment or suspension action.
C. Definition of Good Faith, Sec. 93.210
Under Secs. 93.227 and 93.300(d), committee members are protected against retaliation for good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding. As proposed, Sec. 93.211 (now Sec. 93.210) defined ‘‘good faith’’ for complainants and witnesses, but not for committee members. We have added such a definition, stating that a committee member acts in good faith if he/she cooperates with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the duties assigned impartially for the purpose of helping an institution meet
its responsibilities under this regulation.
A committee member does not act in
good faith if his/her acts or omissions on the committee are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
D. Definition of Institutional Member,
Sec. 93.214 We have added more examples of institutional members.
E. Institutional Policies and
Procedures—Reporting the Opening of an Investigation, Sec. 93.304(d) We have simplified the date for institutions to report the opening of investigations to ORI. This report must be made on or before the date on which the investigation begins. Institutions are encouraged to report the opening of an investigation to ORI as promptly as possible after the decision to open an investigation is made.
F. Taking Custody of and Securing
Records at the Beginning of an Inquiry, Sec. 93.307(b)
We have added a requirement that on
or before the date on which the
respondent is notified of the inquiry, or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, the institution must, to the extent it has not already done so, promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records
or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. This is consistent with the identical requirements that become applicable when the institution notifies the respondent of the allegation and when the respondent is notified of an investigation. (Secs. 93.305(a) and 93.310(d)). These requirements are necessary because of the potential for the destruction or alteration of the research records. To minimize that potential, an institution should take custody of the records whenever it has reason to believe that the records may be subject to alteration or destruction because of an allegation or potential allegation of research misconduct. This may protect the respondent, as well as the institution.
G. Interaction With Other Offices, Sec.
To accurately reflect ORI’s authority and practices, we have expanded this section to authorize ORI to provide expertise and assistance to the Department of Justice, the HHS Inspector General, PHS and other Federal offices, and State or local offices involved in investigating or otherwise pursuing research misconduct allegations or related matters.
H. Procedures for Debarment or
Suspension Actions Based on Misconduct Findings, Secs. 93.405, 93.500–501, 93.503 and 93.523.
We have amended these sections to clarify the relationship between the regulations governing debarment and suspension and the procedures in subpart E for contesting ORI findings of research misconduct and proposed HHS administrative actions. Section 93.500(d) (comparable to Sec. 93.500(c) of the NPRM) explains that the procedures under subpart E provide the notification, opportunity to contest and fact finding required under the HHS regulation governing debarment and suspension. Consistent with that regulation, the debarring official provides notification of the proposed debarment or suspension as part of the charge letter (Sec. 93.405(a)) and makes the final decision on debarment and suspension actions whether that decision is based upon respondent’s failure to contest the charge letter (Secs. 93.406, 93.501(a) and 93.503(c)), the decision of the ALJ, or the decision of the ALJ as modified by the Assistant
Secretary for Health (Secs. 93.500(c) and 93.523(b) and (c)).
I. HHS Administrative Action—
Recovery of Funds, Sec. 93.407(b)
We have clarified what funds HHS may seek to recover in connection with a finding of research misconduct by amending Sec. 93.407(b) to refer to the potential recovery of PHS funds spent in support of activities that involved research misconduct.
J. Appointment of the ALJ—Description of Functions, Sec. 93.502(a)
We have amended Sec. 93.502(a) to describe the functions of the ALJ more completely.
K. Limits on the Authority of the ALJ, Sec. 93.506(a) and (c)
We have added references in Secs. 93.506(a) and (c) stating that the ALJ does not have the authority to find invalid or refuse to follow Federal statutes or regulations, Secretarial delegations of authority, or HHS policies. This is consistent with a similar provision in the regulation upon which the research misconduct hearing process is based, 42 CFR part 1005, which governs the hearing process for OIG exclusion of health care providers.
L. Actions for Violating an Order or
Disruptive Conduct, Sec. 93.515(b)(6)
We have changed ‘‘taking a negative inference from the absence of research records, documents, or other information’’ to ‘‘drawing the inference that spoliated evidence was unfavorable to the party responsible for its spoliation.’’ This change is intended to clarify the nature of the negative inference that may be reached by the ALJ and distinguish the spoliation of evidence during or in anticipation of the hearing, from the absence or destruction of records that may be evidence of research misconduct. In this context, spoliation has essentially the same meaning as is accepted by Federal courts, i.e., the destruction or significant alteration of evidence during or in anticipation of the hearing.
M. Corrections and Minor Changes
In addition to the significant changes not based on comments described above, we have made changes to: (1) Correct errors, such as references to PHS rather than HHS, or to a hearing officer, rather than the ALJ; (2) use uniform language in describing the same condition or event in different sections of the regulation; (3) adding citations to other sections, where appropriate, to make cross-references more concise and
technically correct; and (4) use plain, and more precise language.
III. Significant Comments Not Resulting in Changes
A. Definition of Research Misconduct,
Sec. 93.103 Although most commentators supported the new definition of research misconduct, there were a number of comments recommending changes, including that: (1) The definition should be based on deception; (2) the definition of falsification is inadequate because it does not cover the nonexperimental manipulation of human or animal subjects with the goal of influencing research results, or bias in the coding of qualitative data; (3) the definition of plagiarism should expressly exclude authorship and credit disputes; and (4) the definition of misconduct should be expanded to include negligent and intentional mistreatment of animals. As explained in the preamble of the NPRM, the proposed definition of research misconduct, which is included in this final rule without change, includes OSTP’s description of ‘‘fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.’’ That description is clear and sufficiently concrete to provide the basis for reasonable determinations of whether research misconduct has occurred and whether the misconduct was intentional, knowing, or reckless. Given the careful consideration that has been given to this definition and the value of a uniform government-wide definition, we are adopting the definition as it was proposed. We note that the nonexperimental manipulation of human or animal subjects to influence the research results would appear to be a manipulation of research materials or processes within the intendment of the definition of falsification.
B. Confidentiality, Secs. 93.108,
93.300(e) and 93.304(a)
Several commentators recommended including witnesses and committee members and strengthening the confidentiality protections to provide the same protections as the OSTP Policy. Other commentators recommended that: (1) The rule give examples of what disclosures are limited and state when an institution is free to announce the results of an investigation to scientific journals; (2) the identity of the complainant and his/ her statement be disclosed to the respondent; and (3) that the sanctions for a violation of confidentiality be specified.
We have not changed Sec. 93.108 or the other provisions requiring institutions to provide confidentiality to respondents, complainants, and research subjects who are identifiable from research records or evidence. We believe these provisions provide the same protections as the OSTP policy. Institutions have considerable discretion in implementing the confidentiality protections and are free to extend them to witnesses and committee members. However, consistent with the limitation of the OSTP confidentiality provision to complainants and respondents, we are not requiring that they do so.
C. Definition of Allegation—Inclusion of Oral Allegations, Sec. 93.201 Several commentators objected to the inclusion of oral allegations in the definition of the term ‘‘allegation.’’ Although, the current PHS regulation at 42 CFR part 50, subpart A, does not define the term allegation, it has been longstanding ORI practice to accept oral allegations, including oral, anonymous allegations. Experience has shown that oral allegations may contain relatively complete information, but if they do not, they are often followed by more complete allegations, or lead to more complete information. The definition of allegation must be considered in the context of the criteria warranting an inquiry. Under Sec. 93.307(a), an inquiry is warranted if the allegation: (1) Falls within the definition of research misconduct; (2) involves PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training; and (3) is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. Information sufficient to make these determinations can be transmitted orally. If such information is not transmitted orally or by other means, the institution cannot initiate an inquiry based upon the oral allegation. Under Sec. 93.300(b), an institution is obligated to respond to each allegation of research misconduct involving PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training. The response must consist of assessing the allegation to determine if the criteria for initiating an inquiry are met and should consist of reasonable efforts to obtain further information about the allegation. We do not believe these are unreasonable burdens in response to oral allegations, particularly since oral allegations can, and have conveyed information leading to findings of research misconduct that
have protected the integrity of PHS supported research. We also note that the Offices of the Inspector General at various Federal agencies routinely accept oral and anonymous allegations in their pursuit of fraud, waste, and abuse.
D. Definition of Research Record, Sec.
We did not make any changes in this section in response to comments that the inclusion of oral presentations will inhibit open scientific discourse and objections to the interpretation of ‘‘data and results’’ to include computers and scientific equipment. The definition of ‘‘research record’’ is consistent with the definition of that term in the OSTP Policy. Oral presentations are a widely accepted method of conveying scientific information and research results. There is no logical reason why scientists should be permitted to falsify, fabricate, and plagiarize PHS supported biomedical and behavioral research, research training and activities related to that research and research training in oral presentations. The interpretation of the OSTP definition to include computers and scientific instruments is reasonable and consistent with the wording of the definition. Laboratory records, ‘‘both physical and electronic,’’ are covered in the OSTP definition. Computers and scientific instruments contain electronic records. As explained above, we have made changes to clarify that if those electronic records can be extracted from the computer or instrument without change and recorded for later use, the computer or instrument need not be retained as the repository of the record.
E. Definition of Retaliation, Sec. 93.226;
Protection From Retaliation Secs. 93.300(d) and 93.304(l) One commentator recommended that the definition be amended to include retaliation against the respondent for his/her efforts to defend against the charges of research misconduct. The proposed definition would not include action resulting from research misconduct proceedings or personnel actions. It was also recommended that Secs. 93.300(d) and 93.304(l) be amended to require institutions to protect respondents from retaliation by referring to ‘‘all participants.’’ The purpose of the retaliation provision is to encourage researchers to come forward with good faith allegations of research misconduct and to encourage good faith cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding. In ORI’s experience, there has been no showing of a need to protect
respondents from retaliation in order to ensure they will take steps to defend against an allegation of misconduct. In contrast, experience has shown a need to restore the reputations of respondents where there is a finding of no misconduct and Sec. 93.304(k) requires institutions to do that. If a need to protect respondents from retaliation is shown, institutions have broad discretion under the rule to address that situation on a case-by-case basis or adopt a policy to remedy the problem.
F. Responsibility of Institutions To Foster Responsible Conduct of Research, Sec. 93.300(c) Several commentators objected to the requirement that institutions foster a research environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research, arguing that it is beyond the scope of a regulation on research misconduct. One letter, signed by four separate organizations, stated: ‘‘Though responsible conduct of research is clearly an imperative that our institutions embrace, the nature of the general research environment and the promotion of the responsible conduct of research are not tied only to research misconduct as ORI staff have asserted in many venues, and, as a consequence, should not be linked in this particular policy.’’ These commentators are reading too much into this provision. This is not a requirement for institutions to establish a new program for the responsible conduct of research. Rather, this provision appropriately updates the language of the current regulation requiring institutions to foster a research environment that discourages misconduct in all research and deals forthrightly with possible misconduct associated with research for which PHS funds have been provided or requested (42 CFR 50.105). The new provision recognizes the continuing importance of the responsible conduct of research to competent research that is free of any research misconduct. As stated by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its 2002 report, Integrity in Scientific Research:
Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct, ‘‘instruction in the responsible conduct of research need not be driven by federal mandates, for it derives from a premise fundamental to doing science: the responsible conduct of research is not distinct from research; on the contrary, competency in research encompasses the responsible conduct of that research and the capacity for ethical decisionmaking.’’ (Report at p. 9). In the context of this regulation, the directive in Sec. 93.300(c) to foster a research
environment that promotes the responsible conduct of research means an environment that promotes competent, ethical research that is free of misconduct. This is directly related to the purposes of the regulation to establish the responsibilities of institutions in responding to research misconduct issues and to promote the integrity of PHS supported research and the research process (Sec. 93.101).
G. Responsibility for Maintenance of
Research Records and Evidence, Sec.
One commentator recommended that this section be amended to require the prompt return to the respondent of records that, upon inventory, are found not to be relevant to the misconduct proceeding. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 93.305 requires the institution to obtain custody of all records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding. That requirement would not extend to records that are reasonably determined by the institution not to be needed to conduct the proceeding. We believe the imposition of an affirmative duty to return records that are determined to be irrelevant could adversely affect inquiries and investigations, because experience has shown that research misconduct proceedings are better served by broadly securing all records thought to be relevant. The respondent is protected by paragraph (b) of Sec. 93.305 under which he/she may obtain copies of the records or reasonable, supervised access.
H. Institutional Inquiry—Consideration
of Honest Error or Difference of Opinion, Sec. 93.307 Several commentators recommended amending this section to impose an affirmative burden on institutions to assess whether honest error or difference of opinion exempts the allegation from consideration as research misconduct. As noted earlier in this supplementary information, we have concluded that honest error or difference of opinion is an affirmative defense based on the statement in the preamble of the OSTP final rule that institutions and agencies are not required to disprove possible honest error or difference of opinion in order to make a finding of research misconduct. However, because of the overlap between this affirmative defense and the responsibility of institutions and HHS to prove that the alleged research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, evidence of honest error or difference of
opinion is to be considered in determining whether the institutions and HHS have met their burden of proving that element, a prerequisite to a finding of research misconduct. Under Sec. 93.307(c), the purpose of an inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine if an investigation is warranted. An investigation is warranted under Sec. 93.307(d) if: (1) There is a reasonable basis for concluding that the allegation involves PHS supported research,
research training, or activities related to that research or research training and falls within the definition of research misconduct, and (2) preliminary information-gathering and fact-finding from the inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance. It is important to note that possible honest error or difference of opinion goes to the issue of whether the alleged research misconduct was committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, not whether the allegation involves fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.
finding that the research misconduct
conducted intentionally, knowingly,
reckless is necessary for a finding of
research misconduct; a finding that is not made until the investigation is completed, absent an admission at an earlier stage. Given this fact, and the preliminary nature of the fact finding at the inquiry
stage, it would be appropriate for the inquiry report to note if there is possible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion for consideration in the investigation, but it would be inappropriate for the inquiry report to conclude, on the basis of an initial review of the evidence of honest error
or difference of opinion, that the
allegation should be dismissed. The determination of whether the alleged misconduct is intentional, knowing, or reckless, including consideration of evidence of honest error or difference of opinion, should be made at the investigation stage, following a complete review of the evidence. As noted in the preamble of the OSTP final policy, institutions and HHS do not have the burden of disproving possible honest error or differences of opinion.
I. Institutional Investigation, Sec. 93.310 and Investigation Time Limits, Sec.
Some commentators recommended that complainants be given a right to
participate in the process. As explained
in the preamble of the NPRM,
complainants are witnesses in that they do not control or direct the process, do not have special access to evidence, except as determined by the institution
or ORI, and do not act as decision makers. This ensures that the institution will carry out its responsibility under Sec. 93.310(f) to conduct investigations that are fair. Other commentators felt that the respondent should have an explicit right to review and comment on evidence and cross-examine witnesses at the investigation stage, and the right to request an extension of time for conducting the investigation. The proposed regulation requires that: (1) Where appropriate, the respondent be given copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records secured by the institution on or before the date it notifies the respondent of the allegation, inquiry or investigation (Sec. 93.305(b)); (2) the respondent be notified in writing of the allegations before the investigation begins (Sec. 93.310(c)); (3) the institution interview the respondent and any witnesses he/she identifies who may have substantive information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation (Sec. 93.310(g)); and (4) the respondent be given 30 days to review and comment on the investigation report (Sec. 93.312). These provisions have been retained and, as noted above, we have added to this final rule a requirement that respondent be given copies of, or supervised access to the evidence supporting the investigation report, concurrent with the period for comment. We believe these requirements ensure that the respondent will have a fair opportunity to present relevant evidence during the research misconduct proceeding, particularly when viewed in the context of the respondent’s right to contest any HHS findings of research misconduct and proposed administrative sanctions before an ALJ. It is important to note that the final rule does not prohibit institutions from giving respondents greater rights during the investigation, so long as they do not contravene HHS requirements; the rule establishes a floor for their participation.
J. Appointment of the ALJ and Scientific Expert, Sec. 93.502 Two scientific societies objected to the ALJ provision, recommending that the current three member adjudication panel be retained. Another scientific society raised concerns about the extent to which scientists would be involved in the process, if they were not part of the adjudication panel (these concerns have been addressed through the changes in this section discussed above) and four associations supported the ALJ provision, provided that scientific or technical experts are required to
participate in those cases involving complex scientific, medical or technical issues. As stated in the preamble of the NPRM, we believe that the change to a single decisionmaker will substantially improve and simplify the process for all parties. The change provides a process similar to Medicare and State health care program exclusion cases brought by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which have similar impacts on the reputations of the respondents. This process is also consistent with Recommendation 92–7 of the Administrative Conference of the United States that ALJs should hear and decide cases involving the imposition of sanctions having a substantial economic effect. Use of an ALJ with ready access to scientific and technical expertise, rather than multiple decision makers, will streamline the process without compromising the quality of decisions that are dependent upon resolution of scientific, medical, or technical issues. In addition to the comments recommending mandatory appointment of an expert in complex cases, another commentator recommended that the ALJ be required to appoint a scientific or technical expert to assist the ALJ in every case, rather than the ALJ being authorized to appoint such an expert and being required to appoint such an expert upon the request of one of the parties, as proposed in the NPRM. We are not changing the provision to require the appointment of an expert in every case or in all cases involving complex issues. We believe that such a rigid requirement is not needed to ensure fairness. In complex cases, it will always be in the interest of at least one of the parties to ensure that the ALJ fully understands the issues by requesting the appointment of an expert. Upon such a request, the appointment of an expert is mandatory. Furthermore, the ALJ, who is in the best position to assess the complexity of the case in light of his/her own knowledge and training, may appoint an expert in the absence of any motion by a party. The self-interest of the parties and the duty of the ALJ to exercise his/her discretion to provide a fair hearing should ensure that an expert is appointed where necessary to ensure fairness. We will closely monitor the appointment of experts in future hearings and, if problems are apparent, consider amending the regulations to compel the appointment of an expert in order to ensure that the ALJ will have the benefit of expert advice in cases involving complex issues.
IV. General Issues and Requests for Clarification Several general comments and
requests for clarification are addressed in the following question and answer format.
Q. Is the detail in the final rule
contrary to the goal of the OSTP Federal
Policy on Research Misconduct to
provide a more uniform Federal-wide approach?
A. No, the final rule is consistent with
the OSTP Federal Policy. As stated elsewhere in this Supplementary Information we have made some changes in order to adhere more closely to the Federal Policy and refused to make other changes that would have been inconsistent with the Federal Policy. The Supplementary Information section of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 20778, 20780 (April 16, 2004)) explained that the proposed rule contained more detail than the existing rule because institutions had over the years asked for more detailed guidance and that detailed guidance would ensure thorough and fair inquiries and investigations and greater accountability on the part of all participants in research misconduct proceedings. Similarly, it was explained that the more detailed hearing process was being proposed in response to concerns that the current informal procedures lack the consistency and clarity provided by binding rules of procedure for other types of cases. Thus, the detail in the final rule is necessary to ensure more uniformity among the various institutions that will be conducting research misconduct proceedings and to ensure fair, uniform procedures for the benefit of
respondents. The detail in the proposed rule, which is retained in this final rule, is entirely consistent with the goals of the OSTP Federal Policy to provide for fair and timely procedures and to strive for uniformity in implementation.
Q. How should institutions deal with
bad faith allegations?
A. The final rule, Sec. 93.300(d),
requires institutions to take all reasonable and practical steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith complainants and protect them from retaliation by respondents and other institutional members. By negative implication, such steps are not required for bad faith complainants. Bad faith complainants are those who, under the definition of ‘‘good faith’’ in Sec. 93.210, do not have a belief in the truth of their allegation that a reasonable person in the complainant’s position could have based on the information known to the complainant at the time.
We have determined there is no need for
the final rule to further address bad faith allegations, given that institutions may have internal standards of conduct that address matters not addressed in the final rule (Sec. 93.319). However, the definition of ‘‘good faith’’ provides important guidance for institutions because it makes clear that an allegation can lack sufficient credibility and specificity so that potential evidence of research misconduct cannot be identified (Sec. 93.307(a)(3)), but still may not be a bad faith allegation. Thus,
if institutions exercise their discretion
to adopt procedures addressing bad
faith allegations, we urge them to
include fair procedures for determining whether there has been a bad faith allegation. ORI is prepared to work collaboratively with the research community to develop guidance in this area if research institutions and associations desire to do so.
Q. Will the final rule apply
A. No, the final rule will become
effective 30 days after the date it is published in the Federal Register and will apply prospectively. The effect of that prospective application will depend upon how the provisions of the rule interact with the activities of the institution and ORI. Upon the expiration of 30 days, the final rule will immediately apply to institutions that are receiving PHS support for research, research training or activities related to that research or research training. For institutions not receiving such PHS support, the regulation will not apply until they submit an application for that support. If an institution to which the final rule applies immediately has completed
an inquiry or investigation and reports to ORI after the effective date of the final rule, ORI will take further action, make findings, and provide an opportunity for
a hearing in accordance with the final
rule. If a request for a hearing is received by the DAB Chair after the effective date of the final rule, the hearing will be conducted in accordance with the final rule. This will ensure that respondents have the benefit of the detailed, fair hearing procedures in the final rule. Because it is not possible to address every possible scenario relating to the prospective application of the final rule, institutions that have received allegations of misconduct, or have ongoing inquiries or investigations upon the effective date of this final rule should contact ORI to determine how the rule will apply to those ongoing activities. ORI will make every effort to minimize burdens and ensure that all parties are treated fairly. Generally, if an
institution has a research misconduct proceeding pending at the time the new regulation becomes effective with respect to that institution, ORI would expect the new procedural requirements to be applicable to the institution’s subsequent steps in that proceeding, unless the institution or respondent would be unduly burdened or treated unfairly. However, the definition of research misconduct that was in effect at the time the misconduct occurred would apply.
Q. Should HHS take action to provide
immunity from personal liability for institutions, committee members, and
witnesses who participate in research misconduct proceedings?
A. As the commentator who raised
this issue implied, a Federal statute, rather than an HHS regulation, would be needed to provide this immunity. Earlier attempts by HHS to develop legislation providing immunity were unsuccessful. ORI does not currently have sufficient data to make the case for
Federal legislation. Interested parties are encouraged to submit evidence that would help us in determining whether there is a need for Federal legislation to provide immunity for committee members and witnesses or to propose ways to provide such protection in the absence of such legislation.
Q. Should HHS have primary
responsibility for responding to allegations of research misconduct at
institutions that have repeatedly failed to handle such allegations properly?
A. Under the final rule, HHS has the
discretion to take responsibility for responding to allegations of research misconduct at institutions that are failing to handle such allegations properly. Under Sec. 93.400, ORI may respond directly to any allegation of research misconduct at any time before, during, or after an institution’s response to the matter. The ORI response may include, but is not limited to, reviewing an institution’s findings and process and recommending that HHS perform an inquiry or investigation. In addition,
ORI may make findings and impose HHS administrative actions related to an institution’s compliance with the final rule. Where an institution has failed in the past to respond promptly or properly to allegations of research misconduct, ORI will monitor closely its subsequent responses to allegations of research misconduct. However, ORI would intervene only as it determines necessary and would first provide advice and assistance to the institution. ORI would exercise its discretion to respond directly to an allegation of research misconduct only if the institution disregarded that advice or
assistance or otherwise continued to fail
to properly carry out its responsibilities under the final rule.
Q. Are sanctions required or available
for imposition against those who violate the confidentiality requirements in the final rule?
A. The final rule does not provide for
specific sanctions against those who violate the confidentiality protections in Sec. 93.108, but an institution would be subject to the general sanctions for failure to comply with the final rule and its assurance if it fails to comply with Sec. 93.108. Section 93.300(e) requires institutions to provide confidentiality to the extent required by Sec. 93.108, and Sec. 93.304 requires that an institution seeking an approved assurance have written policies and procedures that, consistent with Sec. 93.108, provide for protecting the confidentiality of respondents, complainants and research subjects. The final rule does not impose, or require institutions to impose sanctions against institutional members who violate the confidentiality provisions of Sec. 93.108, but institutions have the discretion to impose such sanctions by making compliance with those provisions a condition of employment. Institutions may also wish to develop specific policies addressing actions the institution may take when institutional members violate the confidentiality requirements.
Q. Does a respondent have a right to
continue his/her research after
allegations of research misconduct have been made?
A. The final rule does not directly
address the issue of whether the respondent has a right to continue his/ her research after an allegation of research misconduct has been made. Section 93.305 requires the institution to: (1) promptly obtain custody of and sequester all research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding; and (2) where appropriate, give the respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records. There are at least two reasons for providing such access: to enable the respondent to prepare a defense against the allegation, and/or to continue the research. As proposed and adopted in this final rule, Sec. 93.305(b) requires the institution to provide the respondent copies of, or supervised access to the research records secured by the institution, unless that would be inappropriate. The determination of when it would be inappropriate to provide such copies or access is left to the discretion of the institution. In exercising this discretion, institutions
should consider separately the issues of whether the respondent should continue the research and whether and under what circumstances the respondent should be given copies of or access to the research records. In considering the former issue, institutions should weigh, among other factors, the special circumstances listed in Sec. 93.318, the importance of continuing the research, and whether the expertise of the respondent is unique. Institutions must also be cognizant of the interests of the PHS funding agency and the need to confer with that agency about suspension or discontinuation of the research or to obtain approval if the Principal Investigator is being replaced. If the respondent does not continue the research, it would be appropriate, absent special circumstances, to give him/her a copy of the records, or reasonable, supervised access to them for the purpose of preparing a defense
to the allegations. In order to ensure that the respondent has this opportunity at the investigation stage, Sec. 93.312(a) requires the institution to give the respondent a copy of, or supervised access to the evidence upon which the draft investigation report is based concurrently with the provision of the draft report for comment by the respondent.
Q. Does the 120-day time limit for
completing an investigation include the 30-day period for respondent to review
and comment on the draft report?
A. Yes. Section 93.311 provides in
pertinent part that an institution must complete all aspects of an investigation within 120 days of beginning it, including providing the draft report for comment in accordance with Sec. 93.312, and sending the final report to ORI under Sec. 93.315. Under Sec. 93.313(g), the final report must include and consider any comments made by the respondent or complainant on the draft investigation report. If additional time is needed, the institution can request reasonable extensions for completion of the investigation.
Analysis of Impacts As discussed in greater detail below, we have examined the potential impact of this final rule as directed by Executive Orders 12866 and 13132, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. We have also determined that this final rule will not: (1) Have an impact on family well-being under section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999; nor (2) have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy sources under Executive Order
These final regulations have been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Department has determined that this final rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review because it will materially alter the obligations of recipients of PHS biomedical and behavioral research and research training grants. However, the final regulation is not economically significant as defined in section 3(f)(1), because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. Therefore, the information enumerated in section 6(a)(3)(C) of the Executive Order is not required. The final rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the terms of the Executive Order. Recipients of PHS biomedical and behavioral research grants will have to comply with the reporting and record keeping requirements in the proposed regulation. As shown below in the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, those burdens encompass essentially all of the activities of the institutions that are required under the proposed regulation. The estimated total annual burden is 19,727.5 hours. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, sets the mean hourly wage for Educational Administrators, Postsecondary at $ 36.12. The mean hourly wage for lawyers is $ 51.56. The average hourly cost of benefits for all civilian workers would add $ 7.40 to these amounts. In order to ensure that all possible costs are included and to account for potentially higher rates at some institutions, we estimated the cost per burden hour at $ 100. This results in a total annual cost for all institutions of $ 1,972,750.
B. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535) require that agencies prepare several analytic statements before promulgating a rule that may result in annual expenditures of State, local, and tribal governments, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. This final rule will not result in expenditures of this magnitude, and thus the Secretary certifies that such statements are not necessary.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities, but also permits agency heads to certify that the final rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary effect of this rule is to require covered institutions to implement policies and procedures for responding to research misconduct cases. The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, based on the following facts. Approximately 47 percent (1862) of the 4000 institutions that currently have research misconduct assurances are small entities. The primary impact of the final rule on covered institutions results from the reporting and record keeping provisions which are analyzed in detail under the heading, ‘‘The Paperwork Reduction Act.’’ Significant annual burdens apply only if an institution learns of possible research misconduct and begins an inquiry, investigation, or both. In 2001, 86 inquiries and 46 investigations were conducted among all the institutions. No investigations were conducted by a small entity and only one conducted an inquiry. Small entities would be able to avoid entirely the potential burden of conducting an inquiry or investigation by filing a Small Organization Statement under section 93.303. The burden of filing this Statement is .5 hour. Thus, the significant burden of conducting inquiries and investigations will not fall on a substantial number of small entities. A small organization that files the Small Organization Statement must report allegations of research misconduct to ORI and comply with all provisions of the proposed regulation other than those requiring the conduct of inquiries and investigations. The total annual average burden per response for creating written policies and procedures for addressing research misconduct is approximately 16 hours. However, approximately 99 percent of currently funded institutions already have these policies and procedures in place and spend approximately .5 hour updating
them. The most significant of the burdens that might fall on an entity filing a Small Organization Statement is taking custody of research records and evidence when there is an allegation of research misconduct. The average burden per response is 35 hours, but based on reports of research misconduct over the last three years, less than 5 small entities would have to incur that burden in any year. Based on the forgoing analysis that was not commented upon when it appeared in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department concludes that this final rule will not impose a significant burden on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we have determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
E. The Paperwork Reduction Act
Sections 300–305, 307–311, 313–318, and 413 of the rule contain information collection requirements that are subject to review by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). The title, description, and respondent description of the information collection requirements are shown below with an estimate of the annual reporting burdens. Included in the estimates is the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Public comments on these estimates and other aspects of compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act were invited in the NPRM. As indicated in the foregoing discussion of the comments, a number of them addressed reporting and recordkeeping burdens. In response to comments that the proposed reporting requirements in Secs. 93.300(a), 93.302(c) and 93.316 were subject to an overly broad interpretation, we have made clarifying changes to limit their scope. This did not result in any change in the burden estimates, because those estimates were based upon a restrictive interpretation of the requirements. While changes were made to make it easier for institutions to meet the
requirements in Secs. 93.305, 93.307, and 93.310 for securing records contained in scientific instruments we do not believe that those changes significantly affect the burden of the collection requirements. As explained above, the addition of a relevancy standard to Sec. 93.317 and provisions for transferring the custody of records to HHS will lessen the overall burden of retaining records of research misconduct proceedings, although we have added a requirement that the institutions document any determination that records are irrelevant. In addition, we are adding an explanatory note to the burden estimate for Sec. 93.317. This note explains that not all of the 53 respondents that are expected to conduct research misconduct proceedings each year, on average, will have to to retain the records of those proceedings for a full seven years. If ORI determines that a thorough, complete investigation has been conducted and finds that there was no research misconduct or settles a case, it will notify the institution that it does not have to retain the records of the research misconduct proceeding, unless ORI is aware of an action by federal or state government to which the records may pertain. Historically, about 60 percent of cases closed by ORI do not result in PHS misconduct findings or PHS administrative actions. Thus, it is expected that in the majority of cases ORI will notify the institutions that they do not have to retain the records for the full seven-year period. We have added a burden statement for the requirement in Sec. 93.302(a)(1) that institutions provide their policies and procedures on research misconduct, upon request, to ORI, HHS, and members of the public (this third item was added in response to comments). Based on recent data, we have increased the number of respondents in the items relating to the conduct of investigations by institutions. In addition, we have made minor changes to account for the renumbering of sections and paragraphs and to correct errors. With these changes, the estimates published in the NPRM are adopted as the burden estimates of the final rule. The information collection requirements in the final rule have been submitted to OMB for review. Title: Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct. Description: This final rule revises the current regulation, 42 CFR 50.101, et seq., in three significant ways and will supersede the current regulation. First, the proposed rule integrates the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) December 6, 2000,
government wide Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. Second, the proposed rule incorporates the recommendations of the HHS Review Group on Research Misconduct and Research Integrity that were approved by the Secretary of HHS on August 25, 1999. Third, the proposed rule integrates a decade’s worth of experience and understanding since the agency’s first regulations were promulgated. Description of Respondents: The ‘‘respondents’’ for the collection of information described in this regulation are institutions that apply for or receive PHS support through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for any project or program that involves the conduct of biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or training (see definition of ‘‘Institution’’ at Sec. 93.213).
Section 93.300(a)
See Sec. 93.304 for burden statement.
Section 93.300(c)
See Sec. 93.302(a)(2)(i) for burden statement.
Section 93.300(i)
See Sec. 93.301(a) for burden statement.
Section 93.301(a)
Covered institutions must provide ORI with an assurance either by submitting the initial certification (500 institutions) or by submitting an annual report (3500 institutions). Number of Respondents—4000. Number of Responses per
Respondent—1.
Annual Average Burden per Response—.5 hour. Total Annual Burden—2000 hours.
Section 93.302(a)(1)
Covered institutions must, upon request, provide their policies and procedures on research misconduct to ORI, authorized HHS personnel, and members of the public. Number of Respondents—2000. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—.5 hour. Total Annual Burden—1000 hours.
Section 93.302(a)(2)(i)
Each applicant institution must inform its research members
participating in or otherwise involved with PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training, including those applying for PHS support, of the institution’s policies and procedures and emphasize the importance of compliance with these policies and procedures. Number of Respondents—4000. Number of Responses per
Section 93.302(b) See Sec. 93.301(a) for burden statement.
Section 93.302(c) In addition to the annual report, covered institutions must submit aggregated information to ORI on request regarding research misconduct proceedings. Number of Respondents—100. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—1 hour. Total Annual Burden—100.
Section 93.303 Covered institutions that, due to their small size, lack the resources to develop their own research misconduct policies and procedures may elect to file a ‘‘Small Organization Statement’’ with ORI. Number of Respondents—75. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—.5 hour. Total Annual Burden—37.5 hours.
Section 93.304 Covered institutions with active assurances must have written policies and procedures for addressing research misconduct. Approximately 3500 institutions already have these policies and procedures in place in any given year and spend minimal time (.5 hour) updating them. Approximately 500 institutions each year spend an average of two days creating these policies and procedures for the first time. Number of Respondents—4000. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—2.5 hours. Total Annual Burden—10,000 hours.
Section 93.305(a), (c), and (d) When a covered institution learns of possible research misconduct, it must
promptly take custody of all research records and evidence and then inventory and sequester them. Covered institutions must also take custody of additional research records or evidence discovered during the course of a research misconduct proceeding. Once the records are in custody, the institutions must maintain them until ORI requests them, HHS takes final action, or as required under Sec. 93.317. Number of Respondents—53. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—35 hours. Total Annual Burden—1855 hours.
Section 93.305(b)
Where appropriate, covered institutions must give the respondent copies of or reasonable, supervised access to the research record. Number of Respondents—53. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—5 hours. Total Annual Burden—265 hours.
Section 93.307(b)
At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, covered institutions must notify the presumed respondent in writing. Number of Respondents—53. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—1 hour. Total Annual Burden—53 hours.
Section 93.307(e)
See Sec. 93.309 for burden statement.
Section 93.307(f)
Covered institutions must provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report and attach any comments to the report. Number of Respondents—53. Number of Responses per
Section 93.308(a)
Covered institutions must notify the respondent whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. Number of Respondents—53. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—.5 hour. Total Annual Burden—26.5 hours.
Section 93.309(a)
When a covered institution issues an inquiry report in which it finds that an investigation is warranted, the institution must provide ORI with a specified list of information within 30 days of the inquiry report’s issuance. Number of Respondents—20. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—16 hours. Total Annual Burden—320 hours.
Section 93.309(c)
Covered institutions must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of inquiries to permit a later assessment by ORI of reasons why decision was made to forego an investigation. Number of Respondents—37. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—1 hour. Total Annual Burden—37 hours.
Section 93.310(b)
See Sec. 93.309(a) for burden statement.
Section 93.310(c)
Covered institutions must notify the respondent of allegations of research misconduct before beginning the investigation. Number of Respondents—20. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per
Response—1.
Total Annual Burden—20 hours.
Section 93.310(d)
See Sec. 93.305(a), (c), and (d) for burden statement.
Section 93.310(g)
Covered institutions must record or transcribe all witness interviews, provide the recording or transcript to the witness for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation. Number of Respondents—20. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—15 hours. Total Annual Burden—300 hours.
Section 93.311(b)
If unable to complete the investigation in 120 days, covered institutions must submit a written request for an extension from ORI. Number of Respondents—16.
Annual Average Burden per Response—1 hour. Total Annual Burden—16 hours.
Section 93.313 See Sec. 93.315 for burden statement.
Section 93.314(b) If unable to complete any institutional appeals process relating to the institutional finding of misconduct within 120 days from the appeal’s filing, covered institutions must request an extension in writing and provide an explanation. Number of Respondents—5. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—.5 hour. Total Annual Burden—2.5 hours.
Section 93.315 At the conclusion of the institutional investigation process, covered institutions must submit four items to ORI: the investigation report (with attachments and appeals), final institutional actions, the institutional finding, and any institutional administrative actions. Number of Respondents—20. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—80 hours. Total Annual Burden—1600 hours.
Section 93.316(a) Covered institutions that plan to end an inquiry or investigation before completion for any reason must contact ORI before closing the case and submitting its final report. Number of Respondents—10. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—2 hours. Total Annual Burden—20 hours.
Section 93.317(a) and (b) See Sec. 93.305(a), (c), and (d), for burden statement. It is expected that not all of the 53 respondents that learn of misconduct will have to retain the records of their research misconduct proceedings for seven years. If ORI determines that a thorough, complete investigation has been conducted and finds that there was no research misconduct, or settles the case, it will notify the institution that it does not have to retain the records of the research misconduct proceeding, unless ORI is aware of an action by federal or state
government to which the records pertain.
Section 93.318
Covered institutions must notify ORI immediately in the event of any of an enumerated list of exigent circumstances. Number of Respondents—2. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—1 hour. Total Annual Burden—2 hours.
Subpart D—Responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Institutional Compliance Issues
Section 93.413(c)(6)
ORI may require noncompliant institutions to adopt institutional integrity agreements. Number of Respondents—1. Number of Responses per
Annual Average Burden per Response—20 hours. Total Annual Burden—20 hours. The Department has submitted a copy of this final rule to OMB for its review of these information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520). Prior to the effective date of this final rule, HHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing OMB’s decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the information collection provisions in this final rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Science and technology, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Government contracts, Grant programs.
Dated: January 14, 2005. Cristina V. Beato, Acting Assistant Secretary for Health.
Dated: May 3, 2005. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services.
■ Accordingly, under the authority of 42
U.S.C. 289b, HHS is amending 42 CFR parts 50 and 93 as follows:
■ 1. The authority citation for 42 CFR
part 50 continues to as follows:
Authority: Sec. 215, Public Health Service Act, 58 Stat. 690 (42 U.S.C. 216); Sec. 1006, Public Health Service Act, 84 Stat. 1507 (42 U.S.C. 300a–4), unless otherwise noted.
■ 2. Part 50, Subpart A (§§ 50.101– 50.105) is removed and reserved.
■ 3. A new Part 93, with subparts A, B,
C, D and E is added to read as follows:
93.100 General policy.
93.101 Purpose.
93.102 Applicability.
93.103 Research misconduct.
93.104 Requirements for findings of
93.105 Time limitations.
93.106 Evidentiary standards.
93.107 Rule of interpretation.
93.108 Confidentiality.
93.109 Coordination with other agencies.
93.200 Administrative action.
93.201 Allegation.
93.202 Charge letter.
93.203 Complainant.
93.204 Contract.
93.205 Debarment or suspension.
93.206 Debarring official.
93.207 Departmental Appeals Board or
93.208 Evidence.
93.209 Funding component.
93.210 Good faith.
93.211 Hearing.
93.212 Inquiry.
93.213 Institution.
93.214 Institutional member
93.215 Investigation.
93.216 Notice.
93.217 Office of Research Integrity or ORI.
93.218 Person.
93.219 Preponderance of the evidence.
93.220 Public Health Service or PHS.
93.221 PHS support.
93.222 Research.
93.223 Research misconduct proceeding.
93.224 Research record.
93.225 Respondent.
93.226 Retaliation.
93.227 Secretary or HHS.
93.300 General responsibilities for
93.301 Institutional assurances.
93.302 Institutional compliance with
93.303 Assurances for small institutions.
93.304 Institutional policies and
93.305 Responsibility for maintenance and
custody of research records and evidence.
93.306 Using a consortium or person for
93.307 Institutional inquiry.
93.308 Notice of the results of the inquiry.
93.309 Reporting to ORI on the decision to
93.310 Institutional investigation.
93.311 Investigation time limits.
93.312 Opportunity to comment on the
93.313 Institutional investigation report.
93.314 Institutional appeals.
93.315 Notice to ORI of institutional
findings and actions.
93.316 Completing the research misconduct
93.317 Retention and custody of the
research misconduct proceeding record.
93.318 Notifying ORI of special
93.319 Institutional standards.
93.400 General statement of ORI authority.
93.401 Interaction with other offices and
93.402 ORI allegation assessments.
93.403 ORI review of research misconduct
93.404 Findings of research misconduct
and proposed administrative actions.
93.405 Notifying the respondent of findings
of research misconduct and HHS administrative actions.
93.406 Final HHS actions.
93.407 HHS administrative actions.
93.408 Mitigating and aggravating factors in
93.409 Settlement of research misconduct
93.410 Final HHS action with no settlement
or finding of research misconduct.
93.411 Final HHS action with a settlement
or finding of misconduct.
93.412 Making decisions on institutional
93.413 HHS compliance actions.
93.414 Notice.
93.500 General policy.
93.501 Opportunity to contest findings of
research misconduct and administrative
93.502 Appointment of the Administrative
Law Judge and scientific expert.
93.503 Grounds for granting a hearing
93.504 Grounds for dismissal of a hearing
93.505 Rights of the parties.
93.506 Authority of the Administrative Law
93.507 Ex parte communications.
93.508 Filing, forms, and service.
93.509 Computation of time.
93.510 Filing motions.
93.511 Prehearing conferences.
93.512 Discovery.
93.513 Submission of witness lists, witness
statements, and exhibits.
93.514 Amendment to the charge letter.
93.515 Actions for violating an order or for
93.516 Standard and burden of proof.
93.517 The hearing.
93.518 Witnesses.
93.519 Admissibility of evidence.
93.520 The record.
93.521 Correction of the transcript.
93.522 Filing post-hearing briefs.
93.523 The Administrative Law Judge’s
§ 93.25
You will find provisions related
General information about this rule.
Responsibilities of institutions with PHS support.
Responsibilities of the U.S. De­ partment of Health and Human Services and the Of­ fice of Research Integrity.
Information on how to contest ORI research misconduct find­ ings and HHS administrative actions.
§ 93.50
(a) Research misconduct involving
PHS support is contrary to the interests of the PHS and the Federal government and to the health and safety of the
public, to the integrity of research, and to the conservation of public funds.
(b) The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and institutions that apply for or receive Public Health Service (PHS) support for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training share responsibility for the integrity of the research process. HHS has ultimate oversight authority for PHS supported research, and for taking other actions as appropriate or necessary, including the right to assess allegations and perform inquiries or investigations at any time. Institutions and institutional members have an affirmative duty to protect PHS funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all PHS supported work, and primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations of research misconduct, as provided in this part.
(a) Establish the responsibilities of
HHS, PHS, the Office of Research
Integrity (ORI), and institutions in responding to research misconduct issues;
(b) Define what constitutes
misconduct in PHS supported research;
(c) Define the general types of
administrative actions HHS and the PHS
may take in response to research misconduct; and
(d) Require institutions to develop
Reporting and responding to
allegations of research misconduct covered by this part;
(2) Providing HHS with the
assurances necessary to permit the
institutions to participate in PHS supported research.
(e) Protect the health and safety of the
public, promote the integrity of PHS
supported research and the research process, and conserve public funds.
(a) Each institution that applies for or
receives PHS support for biomedical or
behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training must comply with this part. (b)(1) This part applies to allegations of research misconduct and research misconduct involving:
(i) Applications or proposals for PHS
support for biomedical or behavioral extramural or intramural research,
research training or activities related to that research or research training, such as the operation of tissue and data banks and the dissemination of research information;
(ii) PHS supported biomedical or
behavioral extramural or intramural research;
(iii) PHS supported biomedical or
behavioral extramural or intramural
(iv) PHS supported extramural or
intramural activities that are related to
biomedical or behavioral research or
research training, such as the operation of tissue and data banks or the dissemination of research information; and
(v) Plagiarism of research records
produced in the course of PHS
supported research, research training or activities related to that research or research training.
(2) This includes any research
proposed, performed, reviewed, or reported, or any research record generated from that research, regardless of whether an application or proposal
for PHS funds resulted in a grant,
contract, cooperative agreement, or other form of PHS support.
(c) This part does not supersede or
establish an alternative to any existing
regulations or procedures for handling fiscal improprieties, the ethical treatment of human or animal subjects, criminal matters, personnel actions against Federal employees, or actions taken under the HHS debarment and suspension regulations at 45 CFR part 76 and 48 CFR subparts 9.4 and 309.4.
(d) This part does not prohibit or
otherwise limit how institutions handle
allegations of misconduct that do not fall within this part’s definition of research misconduct or that do not involve PHS support.
§ 93.103
(a) Fabrication is making up data or
results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification is manipulating
research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of
another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not
include honest error or differences of opinion.
Requirements for findings of
made under this part requires that—
(a) There be a significant departure
from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
(b) The misconduct be committed
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and
(c) The allegation be proven by a
(a) Six-year limitation. This part
applies only to research misconduct
occurring within six years of the date HHS or an institution receives an allegation of research misconduct.
(b) Exceptions to the six-year
limitation. Paragraph (a) of this section
does not apply in the following instances:
(1) Subsequent use exception. The
respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred before the six-year limitation through the citation, republication or other use for the potential benefit of the respondent of the research record that is alleged to have been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized.
(2) Health or safety of the public
exception. If ORI or the institution, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged misconduct,
if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public.
(3) ‘‘Grandfather’’ exception. If HHS
or an institution received the allegation of research misconduct before the
(a) Standard of proof. An institutional
or HHS finding of research misconduct must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
(b) Burden of proof. (1) The institution
or HHS has the burden of proof for making a finding of research misconduct. The destruction, absence of, or respondent’s failure to provide research records adequately
documenting the questioned research is evidence of research misconduct where the institution or HHS establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly had research records and destroyed them, had the opportunity to maintain the records but did not do so, or maintained the records and failed to produce them in a timely manner and that the respondent’s conduct constitutes a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.
(2) The respondent has the burden of
going forward with and the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, any and all affirmative defenses raised. In determining whether HHS or the institution has carried the burden of proof imposed by this part, the finder of fact shall give due consideration to admissible, credible evidence of honest error or difference of opinion presented by the respondent.
(3) The respondent has the burden of
going forward with and proving by a preponderance of the evidence any mitigating factors that are relevant to a decision to impose administrative actions following a research misconduct proceeding.
(a) Disclosure of the identity of
respondents and complainants in research misconduct proceedings is limited, to the extent possible, to those who need to know, consistent with a thorough, competent, objective and fair research misconduct proceeding, and as allowed by law. Provided, however, that:
(1) The institution must disclose the
identity of respondents and complainants to ORI pursuant to an ORI review of research misconduct proceedings under § 93.403.
(2) Under § 93.517(g), HHS
administrative hearings must be open to the public.
(b) Except as may otherwise be
prescribed by applicable law, confidentiality must be maintained for any records or evidence from which research subjects might be identified. Disclosure is limited to those who have a need to know to carry out a research misconduct proceeding.
(a) When more than one agency of the
Federal government has jurisdiction of the subject misconduct allegation, HHS will cooperate in designating a lead
agency to coordinate the response of the agencies to the allegation. Where HHS is not the lead agency, it may, in consultation with the lead agency, take appropriate action to protect the health and safety of the public, promote the integrity of the PHS supported research and research process and conserve public funds.
(b) In cases involving more than one
agency, HHS may refer to evidence or reports developed by that agency if HHS determines that the evidence or reports will assist in resolving HHS issues. In appropriate cases, HHS will seek to resolve allegations jointly with the other agency or agencies.
(a) An HHS action in response to a
research misconduct proceeding taken to protect the health and safety of the public, to promote the integrity of PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training and to conserve public funds;
or (b) An HHS action in response either to a breach of a material provision of a settlement agreement in a research misconduct proceeding or to a breach of any HHS debarment or suspension.
§ 93.202
§ 93.203
Contract means an acquisition instrument awarded under the HHS
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 CFR Chapter 1, excluding any small purchases awarded pursuant to FAR Part 13.
Debarring official means an official
authorized to impose debarment or suspension. The HHS debarring official is either—
An official designated by the
§ 93.207
Departmental Appeals Board or
(a) The organization, within the Office
of the Secretary, established to conduct hearings and provide impartial review of disputed decisions made by HHS operating components; or
(b) An Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) at the DAB.
§ 93.209
Good faith as applied to a complainant or witness, means having a belief in the truth of one’s allegation or testimony that a reasonable person in the complainant’s or witness’s position could have based on the information known to the complainant or witness at the time. An allegation or cooperation with a research misconduct proceeding is not in good faith if made with knowing or reckless disregard for information that would negate the allegation or testimony. Good faith as
applied to a committee member means cooperating with the research misconduct proceeding by carrying out the duties assigned impartially for the purpose of helping an institution meet its responsibilities under this part. A committee member does not act in good faith if his/her acts or omissions on the committee are dishonest or influenced by personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved in the research misconduct proceeding.
Inquiry means preliminary information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding that meets the criteria and follows the procedures of §§ 93.307–
93.309.
Investigation means the formal development of a factual record and the examination of that record leading to a decision not to make a finding of research misconduct or to a recommendation for a finding of research misconduct which may include
a recommendation for other appropriate actions, including administrative actions.
§ 93.216
§ 93.217
Office of Research Integrity or
§ 93.221
§ 93.222
§ 93.223
§ 93.225
§ 93.226
(a) A good faith allegation of research
(b) Good faith cooperation with a
§ 93.300
General responsibilities for
(a) Have written policies and
procedures for addressing allegations of
research misconduct that meet the requirements of this part;
(b) Respond to each allegation of
research misconduct for which the institution is responsible under this part in a thorough, competent, objective and fair manner, including precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent or witnesses;
(c) Foster a research environment that
promotes the responsible conduct of research, research training, and
activities related to that research or research training, discourages research misconduct, and deals promptly with allegations or evidence of possible research misconduct;
(d) Take all reasonable and practical
steps to protect the positions and reputations of good faith complainants,
witnesses and committee members and protect them from retaliation by respondents and other institutional members;
(e) Provide confidentiality to the
extent required by § 93.108 to all respondents, complainants, and research subjects identifiable from
research records or evidence;
(f) Take all reasonable and practical
steps to ensure the cooperation of
respondents and other institutional members with research misconduct proceedings, including, but not limited to, their providing information, research records, and evidence;
(g) Cooperate with HHS during any
research misconduct proceeding or compliance review;
(h) Assist in administering and
enforcing any HHS administrative
actions imposed on its institutional members; and
(i) Have an active assurance of
§ 93.301
(a) General policy. An institution with
PHS supported biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training must provide PHS with an assurance of compliance with this part, satisfactory to the Secretary. PHS funding components may authorize
funds for biomedical and behavioral
research, research training, or activities related to that research or research training only to institutions that have approved assurances and required renewals on file with ORI.
(b) Institutional Assurance. The
responsible institutional official must assure on behalf of the institution that the institution—
(1) Has written policies and
procedures in compliance with this part for inquiring into and investigating allegations of research misconduct; and
(2) Complies with its own policies
and procedures and the requirements of this part.
Institutional compliance with
(a) Compliance with assurance. ORI
considers an institution in compliance with its assurance if the institution—
(1) Establishes policies and
procedures according to this part, keeps them in compliance with this part, and upon request, provides them to ORI, other HHS personnel, and members of the public;
(2) Takes all reasonable and practical
specific steps to foster research integrity consistent with § 93.300, including—
(i) Informs the institution’s research
members participating in or otherwise involved with PHS supported
biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training, including those applying for support from any PHS funding component, about its policies and procedures for responding to allegations of research misconduct, and the institution’s commitment to compliance with the policies and procedures; and
(ii) Complies with its policies and
procedures and each specific provision
(b) Annual report. An institution must
file an annual report with ORI which contains information specified by ORI on the institution’s compliance with
(c) Additional information. Along
with its assurance or annual report, an institution must send ORI such other aggregated information as ORI may request on the institution’s research misconduct proceedings covered by this part and the institution’s compliance with the requirements of this part.
(a) If an institution is too small to
handle research misconduct proceedings, it may file a ‘‘Small Organization Statement’’ with ORI in place of the formal institutional policies and procedures required by §§ 93.301 and 93.304.
(b) By submitting a Small
Organization Statement, the institution
agrees to report all allegations of research misconduct to ORI. ORI or another appropriate HHS office will
work with the institution to develop and implement a process for handling allegations of research misconduct consistent with this part.
(c) The Small Organization Statement
does not relieve the institution from complying with any other provision of this part.
§ 93.304
Institutions seeking an approved assurance must have written policies and procedures for addressing research
misconduct that include the following—
(a) Consistent with § 93.108,
protection of the confidentiality of respondents, complainants, and research subjects identifiable from research records or evidence;
(b) A thorough, competent, objective,
and fair response to allegations of research misconduct consistent with and within the time limits of this part, including precautions to ensure that individuals responsible for carrying out any part of the research misconduct proceeding do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the complainant, respondent, or witnesses;
(c) Notice to the respondent,
consistent with and within the time limits of this part;
(d) Written notice to ORI of any
decision to open an investigation on or before the date on which the investigation begins;
(e) Opportunity for the respondent to
institution’s inquiry report;
(f) Opportunity for the respondent to
provide written comments on the draft report of the investigation, and provisions for the institutional investigation committee to consider and
address the comments before issuing the final report;
(g) Protocols for handling the research
record and evidence, including the requirements of § 93.305;
(h) Appropriate interim institutional
actions to protect public health, Federal funds and equipment, and the integrity of the PHS supported research process;
(i) Notice to ORI under § 93.318 and
notice of any facts that may be relevant to protect public health, Federal funds
and equipment, and the integrity of the PHS supported research process;
(j) Institutional actions in response to
final findings of research misconduct;
(k) All reasonable and practical
efforts, if requested and as appropriate,
to protect or restore the reputation of persons alleged to have engaged in research misconduct but against whom no finding of research misconduct is made;
(l) All reasonable and practical efforts
to protect or restore the position and reputation of any complainant, witness, or committee member and to counter potential or actual retaliation against these complainants, witnesses, and committee members; and
(m) Full and continuing cooperation with ORI during its oversight review under Subpart D of this part or any subsequent administrative hearings or appeals under Subpart E of this part. This includes providing all research records and evidence under the institution’s control, custody, or possession and access to all persons within its authority necessary to develop a complete record of relevant evidence.
§ 93.305
and custody of research records and evidence.
(a) Either before or when the
institution notifies the respondent of the allegation, inquiry or investigation,
promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments;
(b) Where appropriate, give the
respondent copies of, or reasonable, supervised access to the research records;
(c) Undertake all reasonable and
practical efforts to take custody of additional research records or evidence that is discovered during the course of a research misconduct proceeding, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the
evidentiary value of the instruments; and
(d) Maintain the research records and
evidence as required by § 93.317.
§ 93.306
person for research misconduct proceedings.
Using a consortium or other
(a) An institution may use the services
of a consortium or person that the institution reasonably determines to be qualified by practice and experience to conduct research misconduct proceedings.
(b) A consortium may be a group of
institutions, professional organizations,
or mixed groups which will conduct research misconduct proceedings for other institutions.
(c) A consortium or person acting on
behalf of an institution must follow the requirements of this part in conducting research misconduct proceedings.
(a) Criteria warranting an inquiry. An
inquiry is warranted if the allegation—
(1) Falls within the definition of
research misconduct under this part;
Is sufficiently credible and specific
so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified.
(b) Notice to respondent and custody
of research records. At the time of or before beginning an inquiry, an institution must make a good faith effort to notify in writing the presumed respondent, if any. If the inquiry subsequently identifies additional respondents, the institution must notify them. To the extent it has not already done so at the allegation stage, the institution must, on or before the date on which the respondent is notified or the inquiry begins, whichever is earlier, promptly take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments.
(c) Review of evidence. The purpose
of an inquiry is to conduct an initial review of the evidence to determine whether to conduct an investigation. Therefore, an inquiry does not require a full review of all the evidence related to the allegation.
(d) Criteria warranting an
investigation. An inquiry’s purpose is to decide if an allegation warrants an investigation. An investigation is warranted if there is—
(1) A reasonable basis for concluding
that the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under this part and involves PHS supported
biomedical or behavioral research, research training or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in § 93.102; and
(2) Preliminary information-gathering
and preliminary fact-finding from the
inquiry indicates that the allegation may have substance.
(e) Inquiry report. The institution
must prepare a written report that meets
the requirements of this section and § 93.309. (f) Opportunity to comment. The institution must provide the respondent an opportunity to review and comment on the inquiry report and attach any comments received to the report.
(g) Time for completion. The
institution must complete the inquiry within 60 calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days to complete, the inquiry record must include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60-day
§ 93.308
Notice of the results of the
(a) Notice to respondent. The
institution must notify the respondent
whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. The notice must include a copy of the inquiry report and include a copy of or refer to this part and the institution’s policies and procedures adopted under its assurance.
(b) Notice to complainants. The
institution may notify the complainant who made the allegation whether the inquiry found that an investigation is warranted. The institution may provide relevant portions of the report to the complainant for comment.
Reporting to ORI on the decision
(a) Within 30 days of finding that an
investigation is warranted, the institution must provide ORI with the written finding by the responsible
institutional official and a copy of the inquiry report which includes the following information—
(1) The name and position of the
(2) A description of the allegations of
(3) The PHS support, including, for
example, grant numbers, grant
(4) The basis for recommending that
the alleged actions warrant an
(5) Any comments on the report by
the respondent or the complainant.
(b) The institution must provide the
following information to ORI on
(1) The institutional policies and
procedures under which the inquiry was conducted;
(2) The research records and evidence
reviewed, transcripts or recordings of any interviews, and copies of all relevant documents; and
(3) The charges for the investigation to
(c) Documentation of decision not to
investigate. Institutions must keep sufficiently detailed documentation of
inquiries to permit a later assessment by ORI of the reasons why the institution decided not to conduct an investigation. Consistent with § 93.317, institutions must keep these records in a secure manner for at least 7 years after the termination of the inquiry, and upon request, provide them to ORI or other authorized HHS personnel.
(d) Notification of special
circumstances. In accordance with § 93.318, institutions must notify ORI and other PHS agencies, as relevant, of any special circumstances that may exist.
§ 93.310
(a) Time. Begin the investigation
within 30 days after determining that an investigation is warranted.
(b) Notice to ORI. Notify the ORI
Director of the decision to begin an
investigation on or before the date the investigation begins and provide an inquiry report that meets the requirements of § 93.307 and § 93.309.
(c) Notice to the respondent. Notify
the respondent in writing of the allegations within a reasonable amount of time after determining that an investigation is warranted, but before the investigation begins. The institution must give the respondent written notice of any new allegations of research
misconduct within a reasonable amount of time of deciding to pursue allegations not addressed during the inquiry or in the initial notice of investigation.
(d) Custody of the records. To the
extent they have not already done so at the allegation or inquiry stages, take all reasonable and practical steps to obtain custody of all the research records and
evidence needed to conduct the research misconduct proceeding, inventory the records and evidence, and sequester them in a secure manner, except that where the research records or evidence encompass scientific instruments shared by a number of users, custody may be limited to copies of the data or evidence on such
instruments, so long as those copies are substantially equivalent to the evidentiary value of the instruments. Whenever possible, the institution must take custody of the records—
(1) Before or at the time the institution
notifies the respondent; and
(2) Whenever additional items
become known or relevant to the investigation.
(e) Documentation. Use diligent
efforts to ensure that the investigation is thorough and sufficiently documented and includes examination of all research records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations.
(f) Ensuring a fair investigation. Take
reasonable steps to ensure an impartial
and unbiased investigation to the maximum extent practicable, including participation of persons with appropriate scientific expertise who do not have unresolved personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with those involved with the inquiry or investigation.
(g) Interviews. Interview each
respondent, complainant, and any other available person who has been reasonably identified as having
information regarding any relevant aspects of the investigation, including witnesses identified by the respondent, and record or transcribe each interview, provide the recording or transcript to the interviewee for correction, and include the recording or transcript in the record of the investigation.
(h) Pursue leads. Pursue diligently all
significant issues and leads discovered that are determined relevant to the investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research misconduct, and continue the investigation to completion.
§ 93.311
(a) Time limit for completing an
investigation. An institution must complete all aspects of an investigation within 120 days of beginning it, including conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, providing the draft report for comment in accordance with § 93.312, and sending the final report to ORI under § 93.315.
(b) Extension of time limit. If unable
to complete the investigation in 120
days, the institution must ask ORI for an extension in writing.
(c) Progress reports. If ORI grants an
extension, it may direct the institution to file periodic progress reports.
§ 93.312
(a) The institution must give the
respondent a copy of the draft investigation report and, concurrently, a copy of, or supervised access to, the evidence on which the report is based. The comments of the respondent on the draft report, if any, must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the respondent received the draft investigation report.
(b) The institution may provide the
complainant a copy of the draft investigation report or relevant portions of that report. The comments of the complainant, if any, must be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the complainant received the draft investigation report or relevant portions of it.
§ 93.313
The final institutional investigation
report must be in writing and include:
(a) Allegations. Describe the nature of
the allegations of research misconduct.
(b) PHS support. Describe and
document the PHS support, including, for example, any grant numbers, grant
applications, contracts, and publications listing PHS support.
(c) Institutional charge. Describe the
specific allegations of research misconduct for consideration in the
(d) Policies and procedures. If not
already provided to ORI with the inquiry report, include the institutional policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted.
(e) Research records and evidence.
Identify and summarize the research
records and evidence reviewed, and identify any evidence taken into custody but not reviewed.
(f) Statement of findings. For each
separate allegation of research misconduct identified during the investigation, provide a finding as to whether research misconduct did or did
not occur, and if so—
(1) Identify whether the research
misconduct was falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, and if it was
(2) Summarize the facts and the
analysis which support the conclusion and consider the merits of any reasonable explanation by the respondent;
(4) Identify whether any publications
need correction or retraction;
(5) Identify the person(s) responsible
for the misconduct; and
(6) List any current support or known
applications or proposals for support that the respondent has pending with non-PHS Federal agencies.
(g) Comments. Include and consider
any comments made by the respondent
and complainant on the draft investigation report.
(h) Maintain and provide records.
Maintain and provide to ORI upon request all relevant research records and records of the institution’s research misconduct proceeding, including results of all interviews and the transcripts or recordings of such interviews.
§ 93.314
(a) While not required by this part, if
the institution’s procedures provide for
an appeal by the respondent that could result in a reversal or modification of the findings of research misconduct in the investigation report, the institution must complete any such appeal within 120 days of its filing. Appeals from personnel or similar actions that would not result in a reversal or modification of the findings of research misconduct are excluded from the 120-day limit.
(b) If unable to complete any appeals
within 120 days, the institution must ask ORI for an extension in writing and
(c) ORI may grant requests for
extension for good cause. If ORI grants
an extension, it may direct the institution to file periodic progress reports.
§ 93.315
Notice to ORI of institutional
(a) Investigation Report. Include a
copy of the report, all attachments, and any appeals.
(b) Final institutional action. State
whether the institution found research misconduct, and if so, who committed the misconduct.
(c) Findings. State whether the
institution accepts the investigation’s findings.
(d) Institutional administrative
actions. Describe any pending or completed administrative actions against the respondent.
misconduct process.
(a) ORI expects institutions to carry
inquiries and investigations through to completion and to pursue diligently all significant issues. An institution must
notify ORI in advance if the institution plans to close a case at the inquiry, investigation, or appeal stage on the basis that the respondent has admitted guilt, a settlement with the respondent has been reached, or for any other reason, except the closing of a case at the inquiry stage on the basis that an investigation is not warranted or a finding of no misconduct at the investigation stage, which must be reported to ORI under § 93.315.
(b) After consulting with the
institution on its basis for closing a case
under paragraph (a) of this section, ORI may conduct an oversight review of the institution’s handling of the case and take appropriate action including:
(1) Approving or conditionally
approving closure of the case;
(2) Directing the institution to
complete its process;
(3) Referring the matter for further
investigation by HHS; or,
§ 93.317
(a) Definition of records of research
Retention and custody of the
misconduct proceedings. As used in this section, the term ‘‘records of research
misconduct proceedings’’ includes:
(1) The records that the institution
secures for the proceeding pursuant to
§§ 93.305, 93.307(b) and 93.310(d), except to the extent the institution subsequently determines and documents that those records are not relevant to the proceeding or that the
records duplicate other records that are being retained;
(2) The documentation of the
determination of irrelevant or duplicate records; (3) The inquiry report and final documents (not drafts) produced in the course of preparing that report, including the documentation of any decision not to investigate as required by § 93.309(d);
(4) The investigation report and all
records (other than drafts of the report) in support of that report, including the recordings or transcriptions of each interview conducted pursuant to § 93.310(g); and
(5) The complete record of any
institutional appeal covered by § 93.314.
(b) Maintenance of record. Unless
custody has been transferred to HHS under paragraph (c) of this section, or ORI has advised the institution in writing that it no longer needs to retain the records, an institution must maintain records of research misconduct proceedings in a secure manner for 7 years after completion of the proceeding or the completion of any
PHS proceeding involving the research misconduct allegation under subparts D and E of this part, whichever is later.
(c) Provision for HHS custody. On
request, institutions must transfer custody of or provide copies to HHS, of any institutional record relevant to a research misconduct allegation covered
by this part, including the research records and evidence, to perform forensic or other analyses or as otherwise needed to conduct an HHS inquiry or investigation or for ORI to conduct its review or to present evidence in any proceeding under subparts D and E of this part.
§ 93.318
Notifying ORI of special
(a) Health or safety of the public is at
risk, including an immediate need to protect human or animal subjects.
(b) HHS resources or interests are
(c) Research activities should be
(d) There is reasonable indication of
possible violations of civil or criminal law.
(e) Federal action is required to
protect the interests of those involved in
(f) The research institution believes
the research misconduct proceeding may be made public prematurely so that HHS may take appropriate steps to safeguard evidence and protect the rights of those involved.
(g) The research community or public
§ 93.319
(a) Institutions may have internal
standards of conduct different from the HHS standards for research misconduct under this part. Therefore, an institution may find conduct to be actionable under its standards even if the action does not meet this part’s definition of research misconduct.
(b) An HHS finding or settlement does
not affect institutional findings or
administrative actions based on an institution’s internal standards of conduct.
General statement of ORI
(a) ORI review. ORI may respond
directly to any allegation of research misconduct at any time before, during,
or after an institution’s response to the matter. The ORI response may include, but is not limited to—
(1) Conducting allegation
(2) Determining independently if
jurisdiction exists under this part in any
(3) Forwarding allegations of research
misconduct to the appropriate
institution or HHS component for inquiry or investigation;
(4) Recommending that HHS should
perform an inquiry or investigation or issue findings and taking all appropriate actions in response to the inquiry, investigation, or findings;
(5) Notifying or requesting assistance
and information from PHS funding components or other affected Federal and state offices and agencies or institutions;
(6) Reviewing an institution’s findings
(7) Making a finding of research
(8) Proposing administrative actions
(b) Requests for information. ORI may
request clarification or additional information, documentation, research records, or evidence from an institution or its members or other persons or sources to carry out ORI’s review.
(c) HHS administrative actions. (1) In
response to a research misconduct proceeding, ORI may propose administrative actions against any person to the HHS and, upon HHS
approval and final action in accordance with this part, implement the actions.
(2) ORI may propose to the HHS
debarring official that a person be suspended or debarred from receiving Federal funds and may propose to other