|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveNovember 8, 1989
Minutes COMMISSION ON RESEARCH November 8, 1989 President's Board Room 3:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: L. J. Arnold, F. M. Asche, E. G. Henneke, W. Flowers, G. R. Hooper, W. G. Huber, P. L. Knox, J. Randolph, E. R. Stout, W. Stutzman, L. A. Swiger. MEMBERS ABSENT: G. E. Bunce, D. M. Denbow, V. R. Fu, J. C. Lee, M. Potts, R. S. Russell, M. G. Squires, H. H. Stoevener. INVITED GUESTS: J. Eaton (for R. Teekell), K. Heidbreder, T. Hurd, P. Scanlon, A. Snoke. 1. Announcements: a. Director of Sponsored Programs: Dr. Stout announced the selection of Tom Hurd as Director of Sponsored Programs and welcomed him to the Commission. b. Commonwealth Center in Applied Mathematics: SCHEV has recommended to the Department of Planning and Budget that it be funded at the level requested. c. Dean Huber: Dean Bill Huber has resigned his administrative duties in the College of Veterinary Medicine. The Chairman thanked him for his service to the Commission. d. Dr. Hooper reported on a study performed by the Research Division on good researchers/good teachers. The study found the good teach- ers had comparable research records to the good researchers. 2. Adoption of the agenda with one addition under Other - Signature au- thority on grants and contracts. Agenda was adopted. 3. Minutes of October 11, 1989. Minutes were adopted. 4. PHS Final Rule on Misconduct in Science. The Public Health Service has adopted a final rule on Misconduct in Science as published in the Fed- eral Register on August 8, 1989 (42 CFR Part 50). The rule applies to institutions applying for or receiving financial assistance from PHS agencies, principally the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. The rule defines Misconduct in Science as "Fabri- cation, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices which seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data." The rule requires that each applicable institution "to establish uniform policies and procedures for investigating and re- porting instances of alleged or apparent misconduct involving research or research training, applications for support of research or research training, or related research activities that are supported with funds made available under the PHS act". Upon receipt of an allegation of misconduct in science, the institution must conduct an inquiry that must be completed within 60 calendar days. This is basically a determination of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to go forward. The second phase is an investigation if the inquiry warrants it. The investigation must begin within 30 calendar days of the inquiry report and must be completed within 120 days. The Office of Scientific Integrity, a component of the Office of the Direc- tor of the National Institutes of Health, must be informed of the con- clusions at each step of the process. For a discussion of the institutional response which is required by January 1, 1990, the Commission invited Kay Heidbreder, Associate Gen- eral Counsel, Dr. Patrick Scanlon, President of the Faculty Senate and Dr. Arthur Snoke, Chairman of Degree Requirements, Standards, Criteria and Academic Policies Committee of the Commission on Graduate Studies. Ms. Heidbreder reviewed the requirements of the Misconduct in Science rule and pointed out areas where she believes we are not in compliance. a. The University does not have a definition of Misconduct in Science. b. We do not have procedures in place to satisfy the inquiry and in- vestigative phases of the rule nor to meet the time requirements. c. The procedures of the Faculty Ethics Committee require a written allegation of an ethics violation. The PHS rule requires "protect- ing, to the maximum extent possible, the privacy of those who in good faith report apparent misconduct". Under the Freedom of In- formation statutes, the University would most likely be compelled to produce all written materials including the written allegation. Such action would be inconsistent with protecting the privacy of the complainant. Dr. Scanlon is concerned that the Misconduct in Science rule require- ment could be used as a mechanism for administrative charges of ethics violations in contrast to the "faculty policing faculty" ideal of the current faculty ethics policy. Ms. Heidbreder pointed out that allegations of misconduct could go beyond faculty to include students and classified staff. Dr. Scanlon pointed out that allegations could involve financial irregularities. He believes there would be resist- ance from the faculty for the Faculty Ethics Committee to accept charges brought by these other than faculty. Dr. Arnold is concerned about multiple jurisdictions. Allegations of misconduct against a member of a group within the University community (faculty, classified staff, students) must have a single jurisdictional route. Dr. Hooper suggested that in view of the very tight time frame for the institution to respond (Jan. 1, 1990) that temporary or interim proce- dures might be satisfactory to the PHS. We would then develop compre- hensive Misconduct in Science procedures and carry them through the governance system this year. The Commission directed Dr. Scanlon, Dr. Eng, Chairman of the Commis- sion on Faculty Affairs and Dr. Stout to draft an interim response. 5. Signature Authority for Sponsored Projects. In response to a question by Dr. Henneke, Dr. Stout responded that only the principal investi- gator of a grant or contract is empowered to initiate charges against that project. When personnel appointments arrive in the Office of Sponsored Programs, a check is made to see that the college dean or his designee has approved. We assume if the dean has approved the signa- tures of the department head and the principal investigator are valid. 6. Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 4:45PM. ERS/php
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cor/1989/November+8++1989.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:24 EDT