Complainant Issues in Research Misconduct: The Office of Research Integrity Experience

Abstract

This paper discusses the experiences of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) with issues involving complainants who make allegations of research misconduct. The paper describes the legal framework for complainant issues, the various roles of the complainant as the allegation of misconduct proceeds through the steps of investigation and resolution, how allegations of retaliation against the complainant are handled, the responsibilities of ORI and of the research institution where the alleged misconduct occurred, and ORI's experience with several cases of alleged retaliation. In each of these areas, the paper attempts to provide guidance to prospective complainants, research institutions, and other interested persons on effective ways to approach the various problems and concerns that arise, while maintaining a balance between the needs of the complainant, the accused, the research institution handling the allegation, and ORI.

Keywords

Office of Research Integrity research misconduct complainant retaliation confidentiality allegation of misconduct

References

42 USC 289b establishes ORI's authority to respond to allegations of research misconduct involving research funded by the Public Health Service or applications for such funds. In 2000, HHS delegated additional authorities to ORI to undertake programs in education, responsible research, evaluation, research, promotion of research integrity, and prevention of research misconduct. Office of the Secretary. Statement of organization, functions, and delegations of authority. Federal Register 61: 30600–30601, 2000.

All of the cases discussed in this paper involving complainants and acts of alleged retaliation were handled under the original regulations adopted in 1989 at 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D. A new regulation was published on May 17, 2005, and became effective on June 16, 2005. It will be codified at 42 CFR Part 93 and is available on the ORI website at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf. Although the terminology has changed somewhat in 42 CFR Part 93, the basic principles of providing confidentiality for individuals making good faith allegations of research misconduct and protecting them from retaliation are the same. See 42 CFR 93.210 and 93.300(d) and (e).

42 CFR 93.308(b) and 93.312(b).

42 USC 289b(e). ORI has also added protections against retaliation for committee members who act in good faith in investigating allegations of research misconduct on behalf of the research institution. 42 CFR 93.210.

Office of Research Integrity: Guidelines for Institutions and Complainants: Responding to Possible Retaliation Against Complainants in Extramural Research. 1995 http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/Guidelines_whistleblower.shtml

42 CFR 93.210

42 CFR 93.103

Office of Research Integrity. ORI provides working definition of plagiarism. ORI Newsletter. 1994; December 3. http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml

ORI Position Paper: The Whistleblower's Conditional Privilege to Report Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/whistleblower_conditional.pdf

10.

Research Triangle Institute. Consequences of whistleblowing for the complainant in misconduct in science cases. 1995. http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/consequences.pdf

11.

42 CFR 93.108

12.

5 USC 552a

13.

Arroyo v. Rosen, 102 Md.App.101, 648 A.2d 1074 (Md. Ct. App. 1994). In this case, a scientist who was accused of research misconduct successfully sued the complainant for defamation and invasion of privacy and was awarded a jury verdict of $75,001. The court ruled that the complainant had a qualified privilege to report her allegations of misconduct, but violated that privilege by publicly disclosing the allegations after the institution exonerated the accused of all charges of misconduct.

14.

42 CFR 93.300

15.

42 CFR 93.304(e) and (0; 42 CFR 93.305(b); 42 CFR 93. 304(b); 42 CFR 93.310(f); 42 CFR 93.304(k); 42 CFR 93.500.