Last Updated: October 29, 2001, see Addendum below.
Scientific misconduct is morally unacceptable behavior that, if widespread, would seriously damage the institution of science. It has three main subdivisions, which are as follows:
Scientific misconduct does not include honest error or genuine difference of opinion. Although scientific ideals encourage sharing, refusing to help further the research of others is not necessarily obstruction, and therefore not necessarily misconduct.
The research enterprise is so complex that these categories may not adequately identify all cases of scientific misconduct and other ethically unacceptable practices. Further information on these and other examples of various forms of scientific misconduct and other ethically unacceptable behavior is available in the Office of Sponsored Projects. This information includes contributions by members of the Dartmouth scholarly and research community and will be updated periodically to reflect ongoing research activities.
Dartmouth College recognizes that academic freedom, including freedom in conducting research, is fundamental to educational and intellectual life and that misconduct in research, research training, and other related activities undermine the academic integrity of the College. Accordingly, this policy provides guidelines for dealing with cases of alleged misconduct in research, research training, and other related activities. Maintaining confidentiality is critical to the proceedings and inquiries conducted under this policy; therefore, the need for confidentiality should be recognized by all involved in the process.
Our policy requires that we inquire immediately into allegations or other evidence of possible misconduct. If Federal funds are involved we must be prepared where appropriate to take interim administrative steps to protect Federal funds and insure that the purposes of the Federal assistance are carried out. Institutional procedures for handling misconduct must maintain a common, formal, and easily available entry point for receiving all allegations of scientific misconduct. It is also important to maintain many routes for connecting the designated misconduct administrator (in Dartmouth's case, the Associate Provost with the appropriate responsibility) and the appropriate Dean (henceforth referred to as Dean) with other institutional personnel to whom allegations are made initially, including faculty, laboratory directors, chairs, associate deans, etc. In this document, individuals making allegations of scientific misconduct will be identified as complainants, and those against whom allegations are made will be identified as respondents.
In cases involving alleged misconduct by undergraduates, the ordinary processes set forth in the Undergraduate Student Handbook will be followed. To the extent that additional reports or proceedings are necessary for undergraduates, either to comply with federal rules or because of the involvement of undergraduates in cases involving graduate students, faculty, or employees, the Provost may direct such reports or proceedings on an ad hoc basis.
Step one involving allegations of scientific misconduct is for the individual receiving the complaint to inform the Associate Provost and appropriate Dean in writing. The complainant should state the nature of the complaint and provide all of the particulars to the Associate Provost and Dean. Before consideration of a complaint, every effort should be made by the appropriate parties to resolve complaints through an informal process of discussion and, where appropriate, through mediation. Every effort should be made to handle all complaints with sensitivity, with discretion, and with due regard for the interests of both the complainant and the respondent. Anonymous reports of misconduct will be considered only if sufficient evidence, in the judgment of the Associate Provost and Dean, is provided to warrant an objective investigation of misconduct.
The Associate Provost and Dean, at this point, must consult with at least one other individual at the College to determine whether to conclude the process or to proceed to the inquiry stage. Among those with whom the Associate Provost may consult are the Dean of Graduate Studies, the Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Officer, or the Director of the Office of Sponsored Projects. If a decision is reached to conclude the process, the Associate Provost and Dean will so inform the complainant in writing. The complainant has the opportunity to appeal the decision by stating in writing the reasons for the appeal and directing it to the Provost.
A decision to conclude the case or move to the inquiry stage must be made within 15 working days of the date that the Associate Provost and Dean received the complaint. When a decision to inform the respondent that an allegation of scientific misconduct of deception or knowing misrepresentation has been made, the Associate Provost and Dean and any other individual asked to assist in the process must immediately secure all relevant data. The data secured should include laboratory notebooks, primary data, specimens, samples, and anything else considered relevant. This is a critically important step because it protects both the complainant and the respondent as well as insuring the integrity of the process. Whenever possible, copies of notebooks or other intellectual property will be made available to the respondent upon request.
Retention of research data is the responsibility of the institution. The data are generally the property of the institution, not of the principal investigator or the researcher producing the data. Certainly that is the case if the research was funded by a federal agency because the grant is made to the institution and not to the individual. Additionally, institutions are required by federal regulations to retain records for specific lengths of time and to provide records upon request to funding agencies as well as to other government agencies.
Once a decision is made to proceed to the inquiry stage, the Associate Provost and Dean, with the assistance of the third person consulted, will appoint an Inquiry Panel. If Federal funds are involved we are required to secure necessary and appropriate expertise to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of the relevant evidence in any inquiry or investigation. And we must take all precautions against real or apparent conflicts of interest on the part of those involved in the inquiry or investigation. The Inquiry Panel will be given its charge, with as much detail as is required to conduct a thorough and fair review. The Panel also will be provided with resources needed for the inquiry, as well as time to conduct the inquiry and access to legal counsel. Members of the panel will be indemnified by the College. At all stages of the process confidentiality is to be maintained as much as possible by any and all involved. Unwarranted breaches of confidentiality may be subject to sanctions.
The Associate Provost and Dean will inform the complainant and respondent about the composition of the Panel, the process, the time schedule for completing the inquiry and any rights that they have in the process. The complainant, if they have identified themselves, and the respondent have the right to comment on the composition of the Inquiry Panel and may raise questions concerning membership. The Panel will conduct the inquiry by reviewing the evidence and interviewing the parties involved, as well as any other relevant witnesses.
The inquiry will conclude with a decision by the panel about whether a formal investigation is necessary. The decision will be rendered in a report to the Associate Provost and Dean and may include recommendations for further actions. The decision must be rendered to the Associate Provost and Dean within 60 days of the appointment of the panel. If the panel believes that the allegation appears substantiated, the process will move to the investigation stage. If the allegation is unsubstantiated, the Associate Provost and Dean will seal the record. Before the record is sealed a written report shall be prepared that states what evidence was reviewed, summarizes relevant interviews, and includes the conclusions of the inquiry. The individual(s) against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of the report of inquiry. If they comment on that report, their comments may be made part of the record. If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days to complete, the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60 day period. All records will be kept for a minimum of three years.
If, after reviewing the record of the inquiry, the Panel, the Associate Provost or the Dean believe that there may have been misconduct, they will notify the respondent and will discuss the findings with the respondent. If, after this discussion, they still believe that misconduct may have occurred, they will refer the case (within seven days) to one of the following for a detailed investigation. The Associate Provost and Dean will determine specific procedures for carrying out the investigation.
In addition, if a reasonable basis for potential misconduct has been determined in the context of an externally funded program, the Director of Sponsored Projects must be informed (see Appendix below for additional guidance if PHS funding is involved). If there is an allegation of misconduct involving individuals from different categories of employees and/or students, the Provost will meet with the appropriate Deans, Committee Chairs or other responsible officers listed above to organize a single, coordinated detailed investigation. If during the course of the investigation facts are discovered that affect current or potential Department of Health and Human Services funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that the PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest then the Office of Research Integrity at NIH must be informed.
The body or person assigned to conduct the detailed investigation must initiate the investigation within 30 calendar days of receiving the Inquiry Panel's report from the Associate Provost. The detailed investigation will consist of an examination of all relevant documentation, e.g., research data, correspondence, grant proposals, and publications, and interviews with all concerned, including the individual who made the original allegation of misconduct, the person alleged to have committed the misconduct, and any others who might have pertinent information. Complete summaries of these interviews will be prepared and made available to the interviewees for comment and revision, and then made part of the investigation's supporting documentation. Periodic written progress reports of the investigation shall be submitted to the Associate Provost and Dean as requested. The detailed investigation should be completed within the period set by appropriate college guidelines and/or the federal government, and a final written report that either supports or rejects the Inquiry Panel's report shall be submitted to the appropriate Dean and the Provost. An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 120 days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making that report available for comment by respondents and submitting the report to the Office of Research Integrity. If they can be identified the complainant(s) should be provided with those portions of the report that address their role and opinions in the investigation. If the investigation cannot be completed in 120 days a request for an extension request should include an explanation for the delay, an interim report on the progress date, and outline of what remains to be done, and an estimated date of completion. If it is concluded that misconduct occurred, disciplinary actions will be initiated according to applicable College policies for faculty, staff, and students.
The guidelines outlining this process are contained in the Organization of the Faculty of Dartmouth College (faculty), the graduate Student Handbook (Arts & Sciences graduate students), the appropriate handbook for professional schools (graduate students in the professional programs),and the API and APII handbooks.
According to applicable Dartmouth College policy, individuals found to have committed misconduct may be:
If the detailed investigation concludes that misconduct did not take place, efforts will be made to:
Regardless of the conclusion, copies of the final report will be provided to the Provost, the Chair of the Council on Sponsored Activities, the individual against whom the allegation of misconduct was made, the Inquiry Panel, and the Director of Sponsored Projects (if extra mural funding was involved). A copy of the complete investigation record must be kept in the Provost's office and in the Dean's office.
Misconduct as defined above violates Dartmouth College policy and undermines the integrity of scholarly endeavors within the larger academic community. Dartmouth College encourages serious and well-intentioned efforts to expose misconduct and will take appropriate action against individuals found to have committed such actions.
If a detailed investigation of the alleged misconduct is warranted (see Step 3), the Associate Provost and appropriate Dean must provide an initial written notice to the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) at PHS on or before the date the investigation begins. This notice will include the name of the individual against whom the allegation of misconduct has been made, the general nature of the alleged misconduct, and the PHS proposal and grant numbers involved.
If either the initial inquiry or the detailed investigation is terminated before completion for any reason, the Associate Provost and Dean must provide OSI with a written explanation for terminating the proceedings.
The detailed investigation's final report must be completed within 120 calendar days after initiation of the investigation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the final report, circulating the report to appropriate individuals, and submitting the report to OSI. The final written report to OSI will include:
In addition, if any of the following conditions exists at any point in either the initial inquiry or the detailed investigation, the Associate Provost and Dean will notify the Provost, who in turn should notify OSI and the Director of Sponsored Projects:
In addition, the Associate Provost will submit an annual written assurance to OSI that Dartmouth has an established administrative process to review allegations of misconduct and report any investigation of misconduct that seems substantial to the Secretary of HHS. The Associate Provost also will submit aggregate information on allegations of misconduct and subsequent initial and detailed investigations upon request to the Secretary of HHS.
Upon recommendation of the Council on Sponsored Activities, the Academic Council voted to amend the policy and procedures set forth above, effective October 29, 2001, as follows:
