United States Department of Health and Human Services
Decorative bullet image: Home
Decorative bullet image: Questions?
Decorative bullet image: Contact Us
Decorative bullet image: Site Map
HHS Logo Bottom
spacer image
    

This is an archive page. The links are no longer being updated.

July 16, 2001 Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343

PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH


Overview: The Department of Health and Human Services operates a collaborative system to promote integrity in biomedical and behavioral research supported or conducted by agencies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). The system for preventing, detecting, and investigating research misconduct and promoting research integrity involves cooperative efforts among individual scientists, research institutions, and PHS agencies, especially the National Institutes of Health. The HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) oversees this system.

Some 4,000 institutions receive research funds from PHS agencies. Institutions that receive PHS support for research or research training are required to establish policies to respond to allegations of research misconduct, including protections for both the accused (also referred to as the respondent) and the complainant. When misconduct is found, HHS may propose that certain administrative and corrective actions be imposed. If a finding of research misconduct is made, the respondent may request a hearing before the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB).

In 2000, HHS made changes to improve the integrity of research and reduce research misconduct. These included agreeing to adopt a new definition of research misconduct, assigning HHS investigations to the HHS Office of Inspector General, charging the ORI to make findings and recommend administrative actions to the Assistant Secretary for Health who will make the final decisions, subject to appeal, and focusing ORI's role more on education, research, and the prevention of research misconduct. More information about HHS efforts to promote research integrity is available on the Web at ori.hhs.gov.

BACKGROUND

Public concerns about integrity in research gained national attention in the U.S. following the public disclosure of misconduct cases at four major research centers in 1980. At the time, allegations of misconduct were addressed in an informal manner by institutions and federal agencies. Congressional and public attention to the issue continued throughout the 1980s.

In 1985, Congress enacted the Health Research Extension Act, which required institutions seeking PHS research funds to establish "an administrative process to review reports of scientific fraud" and "report to the Secretary any investigation of alleged scientific fraud which appears substantial." Guidelines were published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts in July 1986, and a final regulation was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 1989.

To carry out the law, the PHS in March 1989 created the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) in the Office of the Director at NIH, and an Office of Scientific Integrity Review (OSIR) in the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. In June 1992, these offices were merged to create the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and HHS established a mechanism to provide scientists formally charged with misconduct with an opportunity for a hearing.

In 2000, HHS modified ORI's role to focus more on education and outreach. In addition to its oversight responsibilities, ORI now emphasizes education and training in the responsible conduct of research in order to promote research integrity and prevent misconduct, and research and evaluation programs. Consistent with this mission, ORI worked with NIH and the other PHS agencies to establish a new education program in the responsible conduct of research and a new research program to study integrity issues.

RESEARCH INTEGRITY - A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Promoting research integrity requires a collaborative effort involving scientists, institutions and the PHS. The PHS is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the research it supports, protecting public health, and monitoring compliance with the misconduct regulations. Primary responsibility for responding to allegations of research misconduct rests with institutions, which generally have the administrative and scientific expertise to assess allegations.

On occasion, an institution may not be in a position to properly conduct its own investigation. In such instances, institutions can enlist the services of other organizations or individuals that specialize in conducting such investigations. In 2000, ORI established a Rapid Response for Technical Assistance program to provide direct help to institutions conducting inquiries and investigations.

ORI generally is responsible for overseeing the collaborative system for promoting research integrity in PHS-supported research programs. ORI also provides technical assistance and policy guidance to enable institutions to conduct their own investigations effectively. ORI staff includes scientists, attorneys, educators and other personnel with expertise and experience in oversight and investigations, education, technical assistance, research and evaluation, and compliance issues. ORI staff respond to more than 150 allegations of research misconduct each year. Since 1992, ORI has addressed more than 2,000 allegations of misconduct, about 20 percent of which require a formal inquiry.

RESPONDING TO MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

HHS regulations require each PHS applicant or awardee institution to have an administrative policy for responding to allegations of research misconduct. Generally, when an allegation of research misconduct is received by an institution, a preliminary assessment is conducted to determine whether the allegation falls within the PHS definition of misconduct, whether PHS funding or an application for funding is involved, and whether the allegation is specific enough to allow for investigation. If these criteria are met, the institution initiates an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient substance to the allegation to warrant a full investigation. If an institution decides that an investigation is needed, the institution seeks to determine whether misconduct occurred, who committed it, and the extent and seriousness of the misconduct. If misconduct is found, many institutions permit the respondent to appeal the finding within the institution.

In some cases, it may be necessary for HHS to conduct the investigation, such as when an allegation raises special public health or safety issues or an unavoidable conflict of interest for the research institution. When an HHS investigation is required, ORI will refer the allegation to the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG may supplement its investigation team with scientific experts as necessary. If the OIG determines that a criminal statute was violated, the matter is referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The institution must submit a report of the investigation and its resulting finding to the ORI. The ORI reviews the report to determine whether the investigation was thorough, objective and competent. As part of its oversight responsibilities, ORI will perform a careful review of the record of the institution's investigation, including documents and witness testimony, to determine whether the institution's findings are supported by the available evidence.

If an investigation results in a finding of misconduct, ORI will review the finding and the supporting evidence as well as any actions recommended by the institution. If ORI concludes that a finding of misconduct is warranted, it will forward its recommendations to the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health, who will issue a decision regarding the misconduct and administrative actions that should be taken. Such actions may include: correction of the scientific literature; special plan of supervision to ensure integrity of future scientific research; required certification of the accuracy of scientific data; required certification of the accuracy of sources and contributions for scientific ideas and writings; and prohibition against service on PHS advisory committees or as a consultant. The HHS Debarring Official (the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grants and Acquisition Management) may also issue a notice of proposed debarment, which would prohibit the accused scientist from receiving federal funds. These actions are for specified periods depending on the nature and gravity of the misconduct.

If the Assistant Secretary for Health makes a finding of misconduct, the accused scientist may request, within 30 days of receipt of the notification of findings, a hearing before the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB). Throughout this process, the accused scientist may be represented by counsel, and the ORI (with legal support from the HHS Office of the General Counsel) will represent the Department. Each hearing panel of the DAB will include up to two scientists when a scientific perspective is valuable to evaluate the evidence during the appeals process. The accused scientist may also contest any proposed debarment by submitting information and argument in opposition to it. The Debarring Official may then refer the matter to the DAB panel handling the scientific misconduct issues for consideration and a recommendation on whether to impose the debarment.

PROTECTING ALL PARTICIPANTS

The HHS research misconduct regulation provides protection for respondents and complainants in research misconduct cases. Institutions are required to protect the confidentiality of the individuals involved, including the respondent. Respondents are informed about the allegation. During an inquiry, a respondent is usually interviewed, confronts and presents evidence, and suggests witnesses. The draft inquiry report is presented to the respondent for comment. If an investigation follows, the respondent is interviewed, sometimes more than once, confronts and presents additional evidence, and suggests additional witnesses. The investigation report is also presented to the respondent for comment. In addition to protecting the confidentiality of the complainants, institutions are required to undertake diligent efforts to protect the position and reputation of those individuals who make allegations of research misconduct in good faith. The institution is also required to take reasonable steps, as appropriate, to restore the reputations of respondents when allegations are not confirmed.

ONGOING REFORMS

HHS plans additional changes to further strengthen and improve the integrity of research. These ongoing reforms include:

###


Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at http://www.hhs.gov/news.

HHS Home | Topics | What's New | For Kids | FAQs | Site Info
Disclaimers | Privacy Notice | FOIA | Accessibility | Contact Us
Last revised: October 6, 2001