INSTITUTIONAL DECISION
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the institution’s deciding
official usually makes the final determination whether to accept the
investigation report, its findings, and the recommended institutional actions.
If this determination varies from that of the investigation committee, the
deciding official needs to explain in detail the basis for rendering a decision
different from that of the investigation committee in the institution's letter
transmitting the report to ORI. The explanation should be consistent with the
PHS definition of scientific misconduct, the institution's policies and
procedures, and the evidence reviewed and analyzed by the investigation
committee. The deciding official may also return the report to the investigation
committee with a request for further fact-finding or analysis. The deciding
official's determination, together with the investigation committee's report,
constitutes the final investigation report for purposes of ORI review.
When a final decision on the case has been reached, the institution needs to
notify both the respondent and the whistleblower in writing. In addition, the
deciding official will determine whether law enforcement agencies, professional
societies, professional licensing boards, editors of journals in which falsified
reports may have been published, collaborators of the respondent in the work, or
other relevant parties should be notified of the outcome of the case. The
institution is also responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification
requirements of funding or sponsoring agencies.
In addition, the institutional policy may permit an appeal. If so, the
policy should specify the grounds for an appeal and the procedures for filing an
appeal.
Questions/suggestions about this web page? Webmaster
Updated
January 11, 2002
|