SUPPLEMENT TO MIT PROCEDURES DEALING WITH
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
In addition to those set forth in "MIT Procedures for Dealing with Academic
Misconduct," the following requirements apply to allegations arising from the conduct of
research sponsored by federal agencies. Copies of referenced documents may be obtained
from the Vice President for Research and Associate Provost or from the Director of the
Office of Sponsored Programs. When allegations of research misconduct involve
research funded by federal agencies, the federal policy should be reviewed carefully in
addition to noting the procedures and requirements covered in this supplement. For
federal agencies not mentioned in this supplement, the Vice President for Research and
Associate Provost will consult the relevant agency to obtain the agency’s policy if there is
one.
The federal Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a final Federal
research misconduct policy on December 6, 2000 in 65 FR 76260-76264. The Federal
policy consists of a definition of research misconduct and basic guidelines to help Federal
agencies and Federally funded research institutions respond to allegations of research
misconduct. The policy directs Federal agencies that support or conduct research to
implement the Federal policy.
Prior to the issuance of the Federal-wide policy referenced above, only two
agencies (the Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation) had adopted
formal policies on research misconduct. This Supplement incorporates the NSF revisions
of 2002 and PHS revisions of 2005. In cases, involving any other Federal agencies, the
Vice President for Research should be consulted.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION - REGULATIONS ON MISCONDUCT
NSF regulations, which became effective July 1, 1987, were published in the
Federal Register, Volume 52, pages 24486 ff. on July 1, 1987, and amended on May 14,
1991 (Federal Register, Volume 56, pages 22287 ff) and on April 17, 2002 (Federal
Register, Volume 67, pages 11936 ff). The NSF regulations are contained at 45 CFR
689, “Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research” as modified by the April 17,
2002 issuance in the Federal Register.
General Policies
The NSF statement of general policies and responsibilities with respect to
misconduct are set forth in Section 689. The National Science Foundation has adopted
the government-wide definition of research misconduct as follows:
(a) Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in
proposing or performing research funded by NSF; reviewing research proposals
submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF.
(1) Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(2) Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes,
or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.
(3) Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes,
results or words without giving appropriate credit.
(4) Research, for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, includes proposals
submitted to NSF in all fields of science, engineering, mathematics, and
education and results from such proposals.
1
(b) Research misconduct does not include honest error or difference of opinion.
Role of NSF
The initial handling of alleged misconduct matters by NSF staff who learn of it
and the subsequent role of the NSF Office of the Inspector General (OIG) are covered in
Section 689.5. The role of OIG in deferring or initiating an NSF inquiry or investigation
and the procedures involved in such investigations are also covered in Section 689.5. The
role of OIG in notifying NSF officials of alleged misconduct and the circumstances under
which reviewers and panelists will be informed are set forth in Section 689.7. The
interim actions that NSF may take to protect Federal interests are set forth in Section
689.8, and the possible actions that NSF may take upon a determination that misconduct
has occurred under an NSF award are set forth in Section 689.9.
Role of Awardee Institution
The NSF policy provides that "Awardee institutions bear primary responsibility
for prevention and detection of research misconduct and for the inquiry, investigation,
and adjudication of alleged research misconduct." Section 689.4 sets out the role of the
awardee institution with respect to initiating an inquiry and conducting an investigation
and the steps to be taken if the institution wishes NSF to defer independent inquiry or
investigation.
Disposition and Appeal
The review and disposition within NSF of the report from an investigation is
covered in Section 689.9 and depends upon whether the report confirms or fails to
confirm the alleged misconduct. As stated in Section 689.10 appeals may be made to the
NSF director.
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE – RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
The applicable requirements are set forth in a Final Rule issued in the Federal
Register dated May 17, 2005; 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93. This final rule removes 42 CFR
part 50, subpart A. Requirements not already reflected in the MIT Policy Statement on
Academic Misconduct, Policies and Procedures, Section 10.1 are set forth below.
Research Misconduct
Research Misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It does not include
honest error or differences of opinion. A finding of research misconduct requires that
there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research
community, the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and the
allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the
evidence is defined as proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to
the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
An Inquiry is preliminary information gathering and preliminary fact-finding that
meets the criteria and follows the procedures of § 93.307 – 93.309.
2
An Investigation is 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.
Inquiry
An inquiry must be completed within 60 calendar days of its initiation unless
circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 60 days,
the record of the inquiry shall include documentation of the reasons for exceeding the 60day period. If a decision is made that an investigation is not warranted the institution
must keep sufficiently detailed documentation to permit a later assessment of the reasons
for determining that an investigation was not warranted. The records will be maintained
in a secure manner in the Office of the Vice President for Research for a period of seven
years after the termination of the inquiry, and shall, upon request, be provided to ORI or
other authorized Health and Human Service (HHS) personnel.
Notice of the results of the Inquiry to the respondent must include a copy of or
refer to CFR parts 50 and 93 as well as to the institution’s policies and procedures
adopted under its assurance.
If an institution plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason
without completing all relevant requirements of the final rule cited above, a report of such
planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, shall be
made to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which
will then decide whether further investigation should be undertaken.
Investigation
An institution's decision to initiate an investigation must be reported in writing to
the Director of ORI on or before the date that an investigation begins. At a minimum the
notification should include: the name of the person(s) against whom the allegations have
been made, the general nature of the allegation(s), and the PHS application or award
number(s) involved.
Information provided through the notification will be held in confidence to the
extent permitted by law, will not be disclosed as part of the peer review and Advisory
Committee review processes, but may be used by the Secretary in making decisions about
the award or continuation of funding.
An investigation must be initiated within 30 days after determining that an
investigation is warranted. The Director of ORI must be notified on or before the date the
investigation begins and provide an inquiry report as described above. The investigation
should be thorough, sufficiently documented, and include examination of all research
records and evidence relevant to reaching a decision on the merits of the allegations.
Steps should be taken 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. Interviews will include 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. Interviews should be recorded or transcribed and the
recording or transcription must be provided to the interviewer for correction, and must be
included in the record of the investigation. All significant issues and leads relevant to the
3
investigation, including any evidence of additional instances of possible research
misconduct should be pursued.
An investigation must 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 the subjects of the investigation, and submitting the
report to the ORI. If unable to complete the investigation in 120 days, the institution
must ask ORI for an extension in writing. ORI may direct the institution to file periodic
progress reports.
The investigation report submitted to the ORI must include items a-g of §93.313
and the institution must 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.
In conducting its review of misconduct proceedings, the ORI may review the
information in order to determine whether the investigation has been performed in a
timely manner and with sufficient objectivity, thoroughness and competence to support
the conclusions. The ORI may then request clarification or additional information and, if
necessary, perform its own investigation.
Documentation will be maintained in the Office of the Vice President for
Research to substantiate the findings of the investigation. This documentation will be
made available to the ORI Director, who will decide whether that office will either
proceed with its own investigation or will act on the institution's findings. Such records
shall be maintained for a period of at least seven years after PHS acceptance of the final
report.
Protecting Federal Interests: The institution will (1) take interim administrative
actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal funds and insure that the purposes of the
Federal financial assistance are carried out, and (2) keep the ORI apprised of any
developments during the course of the investigation which disclose facts that may 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.
Special Notifications
The institution is responsible for notifying the ORI immediately if it ascertains at
any stage of the inquiry or investigation that any of the following conditions exist:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Health or safety of the public is at risk, including an immediate need to
protect human or animal subjects.
HHS resources or interests are threatened.
Research activities should be suspended.
There is reasonable indication of possible violations of civil or criminal
law.
Federal action is required to protect the interests of those involved in the
research misconduct proceeding.
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.
The research community or public should be informed.
4
Amended December 1994
Amended April 1997
Amended June 2002
Amended August 2006
5