Columbia University
Institutional Policy on
Research Misconduct
Naomi J. Schrag, J.D.
Director of Research Compliance & Training
Office of the Executive VP for Research
June 21, 2006
Copyright by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. All rights reserved. 2006.
Why a new policy?
 Needed
to comply with new HHS
regulations


Regulations required all institutions to develop
and implement new policies and procedures
Regulations provided new, clearer definitions
of key terms
 Wanted
a uniform policy, applicable to all
Columbia campuses
2
What is the role of the Standing Committee
on the Conduct of Research?
 “Setting
and communicating standards
with respect to Research Misconduct”
 “Oversee[ing]
the administrative
procedures relating to the review of any
allegation of Research Misconduct”
(Policy at 2, ¶ D.1)
3
What Does the Standing
Committee Actually Do?

Consult with individuals who have questions
concerning possible Research Misconduct

Oversee administrative procedures and
safeguards relating to misconduct review

Appoint Inquiry and Investigational committees

Decide whether to accept, reject or, for
Investigations, modify the recommendations of
Inquiry and/or Investigation committees.
4
If you are advising
someone about possible
Research Misconduct, you
need to know….
5
What is research misconduct?
 Fabrication
 Falsification
 Plagiarism
6
Fabrication
“The making up of data or results and the
recording or reporting thereof.”
(Policy at 1)
7
Falsification
“ the manipulation of Research materials,
equipment or processes, or the change or
omission of data or results such that the
Research is not accurately represented in
the Research Record.”
(Policy at 1)
8
Plagiarism
 “the
appropriation of another person’s
ideas, processes, results or words without
giving appropriate credit.”
(Policy at 2)
9
What is NOT research misconduct
 “Research
Misconduct does not include
honest error or differences of opinion.”
 “In
addition, this Policy does not cover
authorship disputes unless they involve
Plagiarism.”
(Policy at 1)
10
What is NOT research misconduct?
 Violations
of other University policies, such
as:




Rules of University Conduct
Policy on Protection Against Sexual
Harassment
IP policies
Etc.
11
Sometimes Research Misconduct
is easy to spot. . .
12
13
Is this Research Misconduct?
 [Example
from Bob Lewy]
14
Is this Research Misconduct?
 [Example
from Bob Lewy]
15
What can someone
concerned about potential
Research Misconduct do?

Talk to someone else


Officer of Instruction or Officer of Research
Responsible Academic Officer
• The Chair, Dean or Director of the Department, School,
Institute or Center where the Respondent is a member




Member of Standing Committee
Director of Research Compliance & Training
Office of General Counsel
Try to resolve the concern informally
(Policy, p. 3 ¶ E)
16
Informal Resolution
 Resolve
the concern informally, through
the Responsible Academic Officer (e.g.,
Chair, Dean, etc.)
(Policy, p. 3 ¶ E)
17
If informal resolution fails, what is
the next step?
 File
a formal, written allegation with either
the Chair of the Standing Committee or
the EVPR.
(Policy, p. 3, ¶ E(3))
18
A formal allegation is serious:
 “An
allegation of Research Misconduct
may have profound implications for the
Complainant, the Respondent and any
Witness in a Research Misconduct
proceeding.”
 “Any individual making an allegation of
Research Misconduct should take great
care in documenting the basis of any
charge.”
(Policy, p. 3, ¶ E.4)
19
Safeguards for the Complainant
 The



University must ensure that:
The Complainant is treated fairly and
reasonably
All reasonable and practical efforts are made
to protect the Complainant from potential or
actual retaliation
Diligent efforts are made to protect or restore
the position and reputation of the Complainant
(Policy at 7, ¶ K(3)(a))
20
Safeguards for Respondent
 Presumption
of innocence
 Should be protected from penalty and
public knowledge of accusation until
judged culpable
 University shall not impede work while
case is pending unless EVPR determines
compelling reasons to suspend work
(Policy, p. 8, ¶ K(4)(a) - (b))
21
University Guarantees

If, as a result of a finding of Research
Misconduct, a Respondent with whom a
Complainant or Witness works loses funding for
research
 Then, the University will guarantee the salary,
stipend or tuition of such person
 The substance of the guarantee depends on the
person’s position
(Policy, p. 9, ¶ K(7))
22
University Guarantees

Officers of Instruction:
salary in accordance with University policy.
 Officers of Research, staff, other officers:
salary or stipend for at least six months after last
day person is paid from terminated funding.
 Students:
in accordance with commitment made by
School, subject to remaining in good standing.
(Policy, p. 9, ¶ K(7))
23
Safeguards for Witnesses, Preliminary
Reviewers and Committee Members
 Reasonable
and practical efforts to protect
from potential or actual retaliation
 Diligent efforts to protect or restore
position and reputation
(Policy, p. 9, ¶ K(7))
24
Confidentiality Obligations
 NOT
absolute
 “To
the extent possible consistent with a
fair and thorough investigation and as
allowed by law. . .”
(Policy, p. 7, ¶ K(1))
25
Confidentiality Obligations

Knowledge about the identity of:
 a Complainant,
 a Respondent
 any Witnesses
“shall be limited to those persons identified in this Policy
and others who need to know.”

“All written materials and information with respect to any
proceedings shall be kept confidential.”
(Policy, p. 7 ¶ K(1))
26
After a formal Allegation is filed,
what happens next?

Standing Committee sequesters the Research
Record and evidence

Three-Phased Misconduct Proceeding begins:



Inquiry
Investigation
Adjudication
(Policy, p. 3, ¶ F.1)
27
Sequestering the Evidence

What must be sequestered?

The “Research Record”:
• the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from the
research inquiry, including, without limitation, research proposals,
laboratory records, both physical and electronic, progress reports,
abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports and journal
articles.
• Except: for 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.

Other evidence.
(Policy, p. 4, ¶ 2)
28
Inquiry
 “The
gathering of preliminary information
and fact-finding to assess whether such
Allegation has substance and if so,
whether an Investigation is warranted.”
(Policy, p. 3, ¶ F.1(a))
29
Who conducts the Inquiry?

3 or more Preliminary Reviewers

Appointed by the Chair, in consultation with the
Standing Committee

Officers of Instruction, Officers of Research,
Officer of the Libraries, or students, who may or
may not be members of the Standing Committee
(Policy, p. 4, ¶ G.1)
30
How comprehensive is the Inquiry?

NOT all-inclusive

“The Preliminary Reviewers shall review such
evidence and interview such persons as may be
necessary to make an assessment of whether
the Allegation has substance and whether an
Investigation is warranted.”
(Policy, p. 4, ¶ G.3)
31
Steps for an Inquiry:
Chair, in consultation with
Standing Committee,
appoints Preliminary
Reviewers
|
Preliminary Reviewers
review evidence and
conduct interviews as
necessary
|
Preliminary Reviewers
draft Inquiry Report
|
Comments from
Complainant and
Respondent
|
Final Inquiry Report to
Standing Committee
32
Safeguards
 Complainant:

Right to meet with Preliminary Reviewers
 Respondent:



Right to meet with Preliminary Reviewers
Right to have reasonable access to evidence
supporting the Allegation
Right to respond to the Allegation orally and in
writing
(Policy, pp. 7-8, ¶ K(3) and (4))
33
Time Frame
 In
general, an Inquiry must be completed
within 60 days of its initiation.
 The
Standing Committee may approve
one or more reasonable extensions to the
extent deemed necessary or appropriate.
(Policy, p. 5, ¶ G(8))
34
What is the role of the Standing
Committee?
 Chair
consults with members of Standing
Committee in appointing Inquiry
Committee
 Standing Committee sequesters evidence
 The Standing Committee may accept or
reject the recommendation of the
Preliminary Reviewers.
(Policy, p. 4, ¶ G(1)-(2), (7))
35
What if the Standing Committee
decides an Investigation is warranted?
36
What is an Investigation?
 the
formal development of a factual record
with respect to such Allegation
 the examination and evaluation of such
record leading to:


dismissal of the case or
a recommendation of a finding of Research
Misconduct and/or other appropriate
corrective actions
(Policy, p. 3, ¶ F(1)(b))
37
What does the Standing Committee
do?
 Appoint
the Ad Hoc Committee to conduct
the Investigation
 Accept, reject, or modify the
recommendations of the Ad Hoc
Committee
38
What does the Ad Hoc Committee
do?
 Examine
all relevant Research records
and evidence
 Interview the Complainant, Respondent,
and Witnesses
 Draft a report
39
Safeguards for the Complainant

Complainant may:



Identify witnesses to be interviewed
Be accompanied by counsel for advisory purposes
only when appearing before the Ad hoc Committee
Obtain a copy of a transcript of his/her own testimony,
if any, and to correct such transcript, if necessary
(Policy, p. 7, ¶ K(3)(c))
40
Safeguards for the Respondent

Respondent may:




Appear before the Ad Hoc Committee to present testimony on
her/her behalf
Identify witnesses to be interviewed
Be accompanied by counsel for advisory purposes only when
appearing before the Ad hoc Committee
Obtain a copy of a transcript of his/her own testimony, if any, and
to correct such transcript, if necessary
(Policy, p. 7, ¶ K(3)(c))
41
Steps for an Investigation
Standing Committee appoints Ad Hoc Committee to
conduct Investigation
Ad Hoc Committee examines Research records and
evidence; interviews Complainant, Respondent, and
witnesses.
Ad Hoc Committee prepares draft Investigation
Report, including whether finding of Research
Misconduct should be made, and, if so, what
corrective action is recommended
Comments from Complainant
and Respondent
Final Ad Hoc Committee Investigation Report to
Standing Committee
42
A Finding of Research Misconduct
Must Meet Three Requirements:

Significant departure from accepted practices in
the relevant research community;
 The Research Misconduct has been committed
intentionally, knowingly or recklessly;
 The Allegation is proved by a Preponderance of
the Evidence.
(Policy, p. 4, ¶ F(2))
43
Corrective Actions and Penalties

Commensurate with seriousness of Research
Misconduct, including, without limitation, whether
it:



Was knowing, intentional or reckless;
Was an isolated event or part of a pattern; or
Had significant impact on the Research Record,
Research subjects, other researchers, the University,
other institutions or the public.
(Policy, p. 8, ¶ K(8)(a))
44
What is the time frame for an
Investigation?
 In
general, the Investigation should be
completed within 120 days from initiation
 The
Standing Committee may approve
one or more reasonable extensions to the
extent deemed necessary or appropriate.
(Policy, p. 6, ¶ J(8))
45
What happens after the Standing
Committee votes on the Ad Hoc
Committee’s Recommendations?

Adjudication:


“the formal procedure for reviewing and evaluating
the evidentiary record and report of an Investigation
and
for determining whether to agree with the
recommended findings and to impose appropriate
corrective actions.”
(Policy, p. 3, ¶ F(1)(c))
46
Steps for Adjudication
EVPR reviews report of Ad Hoc
Committee and Standing Committee and
consults with Responsible Academic
Officer and, if the Respondent is a
CUMC Respondent, the EVPHS
EVPR accepts, rejects or modifies
|
recommendations
47
Appeal
 Respondent
has the right to appeal
 To the Provost
 As to either:


the finding of Research Misconduct; or
the corrective actions imposed
(Policy, p. 6, ¶ J)
48
Is this misconduct?
Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method
June 5, 2006 | Issue 42•23
TALLAHASSEE, FL—Only months after abandoning a tenured position at Lehigh
University, maverick chemist Theodore Hapner managed to disprove two of the three laws
of thermodynamics and show that gold is a noxious gas, turning the world of science—
defined for centuries by exhaustive research, painstaking observation, and hard-won
theories—completely on its head.
The brash chemist, who conducts independent research from his houseboat, has infuriated
peers by refusing to "play by the rules of Socrates, Bacon, and Galileo," calling test results
as he sees them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"If you're looking for some button-down traditionalist who relies on so-called induction,
conventional logic, and verification to arrive at what the scientific community calls 'proof,'
then I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy," said the intrepid 44-year-old rebel, who last
month unveiled a revolutionary new model of atomic structure that contradicted 300 years
of precedent. "But if you want your results fast and with some flair, then come with me and
I'll prove that the boiling point of water is actually 547 degrees Fahrenheit."
49
Questions?
 Naomi
J. Schrag
Director of Research Compliance &
Training
212-854-8123
ns2333@columbia.edu
 Jane E. Booth, Esq.
Office of General Counsel
212-854-0286
jeb@gc.columbia.edu
50