University of New Orleans
Revised March 24, 1999

Table of Contents

II. Definitions

III. Rights and Responsibilities
A. Research Integrity Office
B. Whistleblower
C. Respondent
D. Deciding Official

IV. General Policies and Principles
A. Responsibility to Report Misconduct
B. Protecting the Whistleblower
C. Protecting the Respondent
D. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations
E. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations

V. Conducting the Inquiry
A. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry
B. Sequestration of the Research Records
C. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee
D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
E. Inquiry Process

VI. The Inquiry Report
A. Elements of the Inquiry Report
B. Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Whistleblower
C. Inquiry Decision and Notification
D. Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry Report

VII. Conducting the Investigation
A. Purpose of the Investigation
B. Sequestration of the Research Records
C. Appointment of the Investigation Committee
D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting
E. Investigation Process

VIII. The Investigation Report
A. Elements of the Investigation Report
B. Comments on the Draft Report
C. Institutional Review and Decision
D. Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report to ORI
E. Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report

IX. Requirements for Reporting to ORI

X. Institutional Administrative Actions

XI. Other Considerations
A. Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation
B. The Respondent's Reputation
C. Protection of the Whistleblower and Others
D. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith
E. Interim Administrative Actions

XII. Record Retention

I. Introduction

A. General Policy

Scientific misconduct: Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that 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.

Participation in scientific research acknowledges the responsibility of the researcher to implement
systematic, careful, honest procedures which will contribute valid findings to the body of knowledge
being developed within a particular field, be it to support earlier findings, to extend them or to refute
them. To the extent that society depends on the outcomes of research to understand principals of
phenomena and to develop inventions from the principals, researchers have a responsibility to uphold
the highest standards of scientific conduct. When such conduct is not followed and violations of such
expectations are observed, it is incumbent upon the institution to have in place and to implement
procedures which will protect those who observe and report such violations. Such procedures when
they are made known to the research community within the institution will themselves act as a
deterrent to scientific misconduct. When accusations of misconduct are made it is crucial that the
institution have in place procedures which will provide a fair, systematic process for reviewing the
charges and determining their merit. Additionally, it is incumbent upon the institution to provide the
research community of the institution regular information that will help prevent misconduct from
occurring.

B. Scope

This policy and the associated procedures apply to all individuals at the University of New Orleans
(UNO) engaged in research. This group includes but is not limited to individuals engaged in research
that is supported by or for which support is requested from the United States Public Health Service
(PHS). The PHS regulation at 42 C.F.R. Part 50, Subpart A applies to any research, research-training
or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with PHS. This policy applies to any person paid
by, under the control of, or affiliated with the institution, such as scientists, trainees, technicians and
other staff members, students, fellows, guest researchers, or collaborators at UNO.

The policy and associated procedures will normally be followed when an allegation of possible
misconduct in science is received by an institutional official. Particular circumstances in an individual
case may dictate variation from the normal procedure deemed in the best interests of UNO and PHS.
Any change from normal procedures also must ensure fair treatment to the subject of the inquiry or
investigation. Any significant variation must be approved in advance by the Chancellor.

II. Definitions

A. Allegation means any written or oral statement or other indication of possible scientific misconduct
made to an institutional official.

B. Conflict of interest means the real or apparent interference of one person's interests with the
interests of another person, where potential bias may occur due to prior or existing personal or
professional relationships.

C. Deciding Official means the institutional official who makes final determinations on allegations of
scientific misconduct and any responsive institutional actions.

D. Good faith allegation means an allegation made with the honest belief that scientific misconduct
may have occurred. An allegation is not in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or willful
ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.

E. Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding to determine whether an allegation or
apparent instance of scientific misconduct warrants an investigation.

F. Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of all relevant facts to determine if
misconduct has occurred, and, if so, to determine the responsible person and the seriousness of the
misconduct.

G. ORI means the Office of Research Integrity, the office within the U. S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) that is responsible for the scientific misconduct and research integrity
activities of the U.S. Public Health Service.

H. PHS means the U.S. Public Health Service, an operating division of the DHHS.

I. PHS regulation means the Public Health Service regulation establishing standards for institutional
inquiries and investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct, which is set forth at 42 C.F.R.
Part 50, Subpart A, entitled "Responsibility of PHS Awardee and Applicant Institutions for Dealing
With and Reporting Possible Misconduct in Science."

J. PHS support means PHS grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements or applications therefor.

K. Research Integrity Officer means the institutional official responsible for assessing allegations of
scientific misconduct and determining when such allegations warrant inquiries and for overseeing
inquiries and investigations.

L. Research record means any data, document, computer file, computer diskette, or any other written
or non-written account or object that reasonably may be expected to provide evidence or information
regarding the proposed, conducted, or reported research that constitutes the subject of an allegation of
scientific misconduct. A research record includes, but is not limited to, grant or contract applications,
whether funded or unfunded; grant or contract progress and other reports; laboratory notebooks;
notes; correspondence; videos; photographs; X-ray
film; slides; biological materials; computer files and printouts; manuscripts and publications; equipment
use logs; laboratory procurement records; animal facility records; human and animal subject protocols;
consent forms; medical charts; and patient research files.

M. Respondent means the person against whom an allegation of scientific misconduct is directed or
the person whose actions are the subject of the inquiry or investigation. There can be more than one
respondent in any inquiry or investigation.

N. Retaliation means any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of
an individual that is taken by an institution or an employee because the individual has in good faith,
made an allegation of scientific misconduct or of inadequate institutional response thereto or has
cooperated in good faith with an investigation of such allegation.

O. Scientific misconduct or misconduct in science means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other
practices that 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.

P. Whistleblower means a person who makes an allegation of scientific misconduct.

III. Rights and Responsibilities

A. Research Integrity Officer

The Chancellor will appoint the Research Integrity Officer who will have primary responsibility for
implementation of the procedures set forth in this document. The Research Integrity Officer will be an
institutional official who is well qualified to handle the procedural requirements involved and is
sensitive to the varied demands made on those who conduct research, those who are accused of
misconduct, and those who report apparent misconduct in good faith.

The Research Integrity Officer will appoint the inquiry and investigation committees and ensure that
necessary and appropriate expertise is secured to carry out a thorough and authoritative evaluation of
the relevant evidence in an inquiry or investigation. The Research Integrity Officer will attempt to
ensure that confidentiality is maintained.

The Research Integrity Officer will assist inquiry and investigation committees and all institutional
personnel in complying with these procedures and with applicable standards imposed by government
or external funding sources. The Research Integrity Officer is also responsible for maintaining files of
all documents and evidence and for the confidentiality and the security of the files.

The Research Integrity Officer will report to ORI as required by regulation and keep ORI apprized of
any developments during the course of the inquiry or investigation that may affect current or potential
DHHS funding for the individual(s) under investigation or that PHS needs to know to ensure
appropriate use of Federal funds and otherwise protect the public interest.

B. Whistleblower

The whistleblower will have an opportunity to testify before the inquiry and investigation committees,
to review those portions of the inquiry and investigation reports pertinent to his/her testimony, to be
informed of the results of the inquiry and investigation, and to be protected from retaliation. Also, if
the Research Integrity Officer has determined that the whistleblower may be able to provide pertinent
information on any portions of the draft report, these portions may given to the whistleblower for
comment. The whistleblower is responsible for making allegations in good faith, maintaining
confidentiality, and cooperating with an inquiry or investigation.

C. Respondent

The respondent will be informed of the allegations when an inquiry is opened and notified in writing
of the final determinations and resulting actions. The respondent will also have the opportunity to be
interviewed by and present evidence to the inquiry and investigation committees, to review the draft
inquiry and investigation reports, and to have the advice of counsel. However, the counsel/advisor is
limited to an advisory role only. The cost of the counsel must be paid by the respondent.

The respondent is responsible for maintaining confidentiality and cooperating with the conduct of an
inquiry or investigation. If the respondent is not found guilty of scientific misconduct, he or she has
the right to receive institutional assistance in restoring his or her reputation.

D. Deciding Official

The Deciding Official will receive the inquiry and/or investigation report and any written comments
made by the respondent or the whistleblower on the draft report. The Deciding Official will consult
with the Research Integrity Officer or other appropriate officials and will determine whether to
conduct an investigation, whether misconduct occurred, whether to impose sanctions, or whether to
take other appropriate administrative actions [see section X].

IV. General Policies and Principles

A. Responsibility to Report Misconduct

All employees or individuals associated with UNO must report observed, suspected, or apparent
misconduct in science directly to the Research Integrity Officer or to another administrator (a vice
chancellor, dean or by a chair or director through a dean) who should in return report the accusation
to the Research Integrity Officer. If an individual is unsure whether a suspected incident falls within
the definition of scientific misconduct, he or she may call the Research Integrity Officer to discuss the
suspected misconduct informally. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the
definition of scientific misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will refer the individual or allegation
to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem as necessary

At any time, an employee may have confidential discussions and consultations about concerns of
possible misconduct with the Research Integrity Officer, the Provost or deans and will be counseled
about appropriate procedures for reporting allegations. A charge which is brought to the attention of a
chair or director must be report to his/her dean.

B. Protecting the Whistleblower

The Research Integrity Officer in cooperation with the Chancellor will monitor the treatment of
individuals who bring, in good faith, allegations of misconduct or of inadequate institutional response
thereto, and those who cooperate in inquiries or investigations. The Research Integrity Officer and the
Chancellor will ensure that these persons will not be retaliated against in the terms and conditions of
their employment or other status at the institution and will review instances of alleged retaliation for
appropriate action.

Employees should immediately report any alleged or apparent retaliation to the Research Integrity
Officer.

Also the institution will protect the privacy of those who report misconduct in good faith to the
maximum extent possible. For example, if the whistleblower requests anonymity, the institution will
make an effort to honor the request during the allegation assessment or inquiry within applicable
policies and regulations and state and local laws, if any. The whistleblower will be advised that if the
matter is referred to an investigation committee and the whistleblower's testimony is required,
anonymity may no longer be guaranteed. Institutions are required to undertake diligent efforts to
protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations.

C. Protecting the Respondent

Inquiries and investigations will be conducted in a manner that will ensure fair treatment to the
respondent(s) in the inquiry or investigation and confidentiality to the extent possible without
compromising public health and safety or thoroughly carrying out the inquiry or investigation.

Institutional employees accused of scientific misconduct may consult at their expense with legal
counsel or a non-lawyer personal adviser (who is not a principal or witness in the case) to seek advice
and may bring the counsel or personal adviser to interviews or meetings on the case if necessary.
However, the counsel/advisor is limited to an advisory role only.

D. Cooperation with Inquiries and Investigations

Institutional employees will cooperate with the Research Integrity Officer and other institutional
officials in the review of allegations and the conduct of inquiries and investigations. Employees have
an obligation to provide relevant evidence to the Research Integrity Officer or other institutional
officials on misconduct allegations.

E. Preliminary Assessment of Allegations

Upon receiving an allegation of scientific misconduct, the Research Integrity Officer will immediately
assess the allegation to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry under the
university's definition of scientific misconduct, whether PHS support or PHS applications for funding
are involved, and whether the allegation falls under the PHS definition of scientific misconduct.

V. Conducting the Inquiry

A. Initiation and Purpose of the Inquiry

Following the preliminary assessment, if the Research Integrity Officer determines that the allegation
provides sufficient information to allow specific follow-up, involves PHS support, and falls under the
PHS definition of scientific misconduct, he or she will immediately initiate the inquiry process. In
initiating the inquiry, the Research Integrity Officer should identify clearly the original allegation and
any related issues that should be evaluated. The purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary
evaluation of the available evidence and testimony of the respondent, whistleblower, and key
witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to
warrant an investigation. The purpose of the inquiry is not to reach a final conclusion about whether
misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible. The findings of the inquiry must be set forth
in a written inquiry report.

B. Sequestration of the Research Records

After determining that an allegation falls within the definition of misconduct in science and involves
PHS funding, the Research Integrity Officer must ensure that all original research records and
materials relevant to the allegation are immediately secured. The Research Integrity Officer may
consult with ORI for advice and assistance in this regard.

C. Appointment of the Inquiry Committee

The Research Integrity Officer, in consultation with other institutional officials as appropriate, will
appoint an inquiry committee and committee chair within 10 working days of the initiation of the
inquiry. The committee will be a subcommittee selected from the University Research Council. The
subcommittee of four members is selected based on members' seniority on the Research Council
except where members of the Council less senior may have more expertise in the area of the
misconduct charge. A member selected for the committee should recuse him/herself if s/he is/was a
research collaborator with the respondent or otherwise professionally close to him/her in order to
avoid any real or apparent conflict of interest. At the first convening of the inquiry committee, a chair
will be selected. The Vice Chancellor for Research attends the meetings of the inquiry committee ex
officio. If the charge has been brought against a graduate student, the Dean of the Graduate School
will also attend the meetings ex officio.

The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership in 5
working days of the selection of the inquiry committee. If the respondent submits within 5 working
days a written objection to any appointed member of the inquiry committee or expert based on bias or
conflict of interest, the Research Integrity Officer will determine whether to replace the challenged
member or expert with a qualified substitute. The RIO will notify the respondent in writing of the
decision about membership within 5 working days of receipt of the written objection.

D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting

The Research Integrity Officer will prepare a charge for the inquiry committee that describes the
allegations and any related issues identified during the allegation assessment and states that the
purpose of the inquiry is to make a preliminary evaluation of the evidence and testimony of the
respondent, whistleblower, and key witnesses to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of
possible scientific misconduct to warrant an investigation as required by the PHS regulation. The
purpose is not to determine whether scientific misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible.

At the committee's first meeting, the Research Integrity Officer will review the charge with the
committee, discuss the allegations, any related issues, and the appropriate procedures for conducting
the inquiry, assist the committee with organizing plans for the inquiry, and answer any questions
raised by the committee. The Research Integrity Officer and institutional counsel, if necessary, will be
present or available throughout the inquiry to advise the committee as needed.

E. Inquiry Process

The inquiry committee will normally interview the whistleblower, the respondent, and key witnesses
as well as examining relevant research records and materials. Then the inquiry committee will evaluate
the evidence and testimony obtained during the inquiry. After consultation with the Research Integrity
Officer and institutional counsel, if necessary, the committee members will decide whether there is
sufficient evidence of possible scientific misconduct to recommend further investigation. The scope of
the inquiry does not include deciding whether misconduct occurred or conducting exhaustive
interviews and analyses.

VI. The Inquiry Report

A. Elements of the Inquiry Report

A written inquiry report must be prepared that states the name and title of the committee members
and experts, if any; the allegations; the PHS support; a summary of the inquiry process used; a list of
the research records and any other evidence reviewed; summaries of any interviews; a description of
the evidence in sufficient detail to demonstrate whether an investigation is warranted or not; and the
committee's determination as to whether an investigation is recommended and whether any other
actions should be taken if an investigation is not recommended. Institutional counsel may review the
report for legal sufficiency.

B. Comments on the Draft Report by the Respondent and the Whistleblower

The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft inquiry report for
comment and rebuttal. The RIO will provide the whistleblower, if he or she is identifiable, with a
summary of the inquiry findings for comment.

1. Confidentiality

The Research Integrity Officer shall establish reasonable conditions for review to protect the
confidentiality of the draft report.

2. Receipt of Comments

Within 10 working days of their receipt of the draft report, the whistleblower and respondent will
provide their comments, if any, to the inquiry committee. Any comments that the whistleblower or
respondent submits on the draft materials will become part of the final inquiry report and record.
Based on the comments, the inquiry committee may revise the report as appropriate. The revision
must be shared with the respondent.

C. Inquiry Decision and Notification

1. Decision by Deciding Official

The Research Integrity Officer will transmit the final report and any comments to the Deciding
Official, who will make the determination of whether findings from the inquiry provide sufficient
evidence of possible scientific misconduct to justify conducting an investigation. The inquiry is
completed when the Deciding Official makes this determination, which will be made within 10 days of
the receipt of the report from the inquiry committee. Any extension of this period will be based on
good cause and recorded in the inquiry file.

2. Notification

The Research Integrity Officer will notify both the respondent and the whistleblower in writing of the
Deciding Official's decision of whether to proceed to an investigation and will remind them of their
obligation to cooperate in the event an investigation is opened. The Research Integrity Officer will also
notify all appropriate institutional officials of the Deciding Official's decision.

D. Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry Report

The inquiry committee will normally complete the inquiry and submit its report in writing to the
Research Integrity Officer no more than 60 calendar days following its first meeting, unless the
Research Integrity Officer approves an extension for good cause. If the Research Integrity Officer
approves an extension, the reason for the extension will be entered into the records of the case and the
report. The respondent also will be notified of the extension.

VII. Conducting the Investigation

A. Purpose of the Investigation

The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine the evidence in
depth, and to determine specifically whether misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what
extent. The investigation will also determine whether there are additional instances of possible
misconduct that would justify broadening the scope beyond the initial allegations. This is particularly
important where the alleged misconduct involves clinical trials or potential harm to human subjects or
the general public or if it affects research that forms the basis for public policy, clinical practice, or
public health practice. The findings of the investigation will be set forth in an investigation report.

B. Sequestration of the Research Records

The Research Integrity Officer will immediately sequester any additional pertinent research records
that were not previously sequestered during the inquiry. This sequestration should occur before or at
the time the respondent is notified that an investigation has begun. The need for additional
sequestration of records may occur for any number of reasons, including the institution's decision to
investigate additional allegations not considered during the inquiry stage or the identification of records
during the inquiry process that had not been previously secured. The procedures to be followed for
sequestration during the investigation are the same procedures that apply during the inquiry.

C. Appointment of the Investigation Committee

If the respondent is a faculty member the Chancellor will oversee the creation of a normal faculty
hearings committee within 10 working days of the notification to the respondent that an investigation
is planned or as soon thereafter as practicable. See Appendix 3, of Appendix A of this document for a
description of the university's procedures for the imposition of a severe sanction against a faculty
member. The only deviation will be that the standing committee will be asked to consider the
disciplinary expertise of the hearings committee selected by the normal process. If other members of
the hearings committee pool might have more expertise relevant to the charge, the selection process
should result in their inclusion. Members selected for the committee must recuse themselves if they
are/or were a research collaborator with the respondent or otherwise professionally close to him/her.
To supplement the standing hearings committee pool with necessary expertise, consultants can be
asked to give expert information to the committee during the investigation.

If the respondent is a graduate student, the student misconduct procedures will be followed. Again,
the standing hearings committee will be asked to consider the complimentary expertise of the
members chosen for the hearings. Please see Appendix B of this document for the hearings
procedures for students accused of misconduct.

The Research Integrity Officer will notify the respondent of the proposed committee membership
within 5 working days of the selection of the investigations committee. If the respondent submits
within 5 working days a written objection to any appointed member of the investigation committee or
expert based on bias or conflict of interest, the Chancellor will determine whether to replace the
challenged member or expert with a qualified substitute and will notify the respondent within 5
working days of receipt of the written objection.

D. Charge to the Committee and the First Meeting

1. Charge to the Committee

The Research Integrity Officer will define the subject matter of the investigation in a written charge to
the committee that describes the allegations and related issues identified during the inquiry, defines
scientific misconduct, and identifies the name of the respondent. The charge will state that the
committee is to evaluate the evidence and testimony of the respondent, whistleblower, and key
witnesses to determine whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, scientific misconduct
occurred and, if so, to what extent, who was responsible, and its seriousness.

During the investigation, if additional information becomes available that substantially changes the
subject matter of the investigation or would suggest additional respondents, the committee will notify
the Research Integrity Officer, who will notify the respondent of the new subject matter or to provide
notice to additional respondents.

2. The First Meeting

The Research Integrity Officer, with the assistance of institutional counsel, if necessary will convene
the first meeting of the investigation committee to review the charge, the inquiry report, and the
prescribed procedures and standards for the conduct of the investigation, including the necessity for
confidentiality and for developing a specific investigation plan. The investigation committee will be
provided with a copy of these instructions and, where PHS funding is involved, the PHS regulation.

E. Investigation Process

The investigation committee will be appointed and the process initiated within 30 days of the
completion of the inquiry, if findings from that inquiry provide a sufficient basis for conducting an
investigation.

The investigation will normally involve examination of all documentation including, but not necessarily
limited to, relevant research records, computer files, proposals, manuscripts, publications,
correspondence, memoranda, and notes of telephone calls. Whenever possible, the committee should
interview the whistleblower(s), the respondents(s), and other individuals who might have information
regarding aspects of the allegations. Interviews of the respondent will be tape recorded. Written
summaries of the tape recorded interviews will be prepared, their portion provided to the interviewed
party for comment or revision, and included as part of the investigatory file.

VIII. The Investigation Report

A. Elements of the Investigation Report

The final report submitted to ORI must describe the policies and procedures under which the
investigation was conducted, describe how and from whom information relevant to the investigation
was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for the findings. The report will include the
actual text or an accurate summary of the views of any individual(s) found to have engaged in
misconduct as well as a description of any sanctions imposed and administrative actions taken by the
institution.

B. Comments on the Draft Report

1. Respondent

The Research Integrity Officer will provide the respondent with a copy of the draft investigation
report for comment and rebuttal. The respondent will be allowed 10 working days to review and
comment on the draft report. The respondent's comments will be attached to the final report. The
findings of the final report should take into account the respondent's comments in addition to all the
other evidence.

2. Whistleblower

The Research Integrity Officer will provide the whistleblower, if he or she is identifiable, with only
those portions of the draft investigation report that address the whistleblower's role and
opinions/testimony in the investigation. The report should be modified, as appropriate, based on the
whistleblower's comments.

3. Institutional Counsel

The draft investigation report will be transmitted to the institutional counsel for a review of its legal
sufficiency. Comments should be incorporated into the report as appropriate.

4. Confidentiality

In distributing the draft report, or portions thereof, to the respondent and whistleblower, the Research
Integrity Officer will inform the recipient of the confidentiality under which the draft report is made
available and may establish reasonable conditions to ensure such confidentiality. To assure
confidentiality, the Research Integrity Officer may, for example, request the recipient to sign a
confidentiality statement or to come to his or her office to review the report.

C. Institutional Review and Decision

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Deciding Official will make 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 will 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 Deciding Official's 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 Deciding official will 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 Research Integrity Officer is
responsible for ensuring compliance with all notification requirements of funding or sponsoring
agencies.

D. Transmittal of the Final Investigation Report to ORI

After comments have been received and the necessary changes have been made to the draft report,
the investigation committee should transmit the final report with attachments, including the
respondent's and whistleblower's comments, to the Deciding Official, through the Research Integrity
Officer.

E. Time Limit for Completing the Investigation Report

An investigation should ordinarily be completed within 120 calendar days of its initiations with the
initiation being defined as the first meeting of the investigation committee. This includes conducting
the investigation, preparing the report of findings, making the draft report available to the subject of
the investigation for comment, submitting the report to the Deciding Official for approval, and
submitting the report to the ORI.

IX. Requirements for Reporting to ORI

A. The institution's decision to initiate an investigation must be reported by the RIO in writing to the
Director, ORI, on or before the date the 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 as it relates to the PHS definition of scientific misconduct, and the PHS applications or
grant number(s) involved. ORI must also be notified of the final outcome of the investigation and
must be provided with a copy of the investigation report. Any significant variations from the
provisions of the institutional policies and procedures should be explained in any reports submitted to
ORI.

B. The institution will promptly advise ORI of any developments during the course of the
investigation which disclose facts that may affect current or potential DHHS funding for individual(s)
under investigation or that the PHS needs to know to ensure appropriate use of Federal funds and
otherwise protect the public interest.

C. If the institution plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason without completing all
relevant requirements of the PHS regulation, the Research

Integrity Officer will submit a report of the planned termination to ORI, including a description of the
reasons for the proposed termination.

D. If the institution determines that it will not be able to complete the investigation in 120 days, the
Research Integrity Officer will submit to ORI a written request for an extension that explains the
delay, reports on the progress to date, estimates the date of completion of the report, and describes
other necessary steps to be taken. If the request is granted, the Research Integrity Officer will file
periodic progress
reports as requested by the ORI.

E. When PHS or DHHS funding or applications for funding are involved and an admission of
scientific misconduct is made, the Research Integrity Officer will contact ORI for consultation and
advice. Normally, the individual making the admission will be asked to sign a statement attesting to the
occurrence and extent of misconduct. When the case involves PHS funds, the institution cannot
accept an admission of scientific misconduct as a basis for closing a case or not undertaking an
investigation without prior approval from ORI.

F. The Research Integrity Officer will notify ORI at any stage of the inquiry or investigation if:

1.there is an immediate health hazard involved; or
2.there is an immediate need to protect Federal funds or equipment; or
3.there is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person(s) making the allegations or of
the individual(s) who is the subject of the allegations as well as his/her co-investigators and
associates, if any; or
4.it is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly; or
5.the allegation involves a public health sensitive issue, e.g., a clinical trial; or
6.there is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In this instance, the institution must
inform ORI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.

X. Institutional Administrative Actions

In accordance with the Faculty Handbook, the University of New Orleans will take appropriate
administrative actions against individuals when an allegation of misconduct has been
substantiated. Because this investigation has been conducted by the Faculty Hearings Committee
or the Judicial Committee in the case of a graduate student, these actions fulfill the university's
responsibilities under Appendix 3 of the Faculty Handbook (see Appendix A of this document)
for imposition of a severe sanction, if applicable, and similarly under the Student Misconduct
Policy.

If the Deciding Official determines that the alleged misconduct is substantiated by the findings,
he or she will decide on the appropriate actions to be taken, after consultation with the Research
Integrity Officer. The actions may include:

withdrawal or correction of all pending or published abstracts and papers emanating
from the research where scientific misconduct was found.

removal of the responsible person from the particular project, letter of reprimand,
special monitoring of future work, probation, suspension, salary reduction, or
initiation of steps leading to possible rank reduction or termination of employment;

restitution of funds as appropriate.

XI. Other Considerations

A. Termination of Institutional Employment or Resignation Prior to Completing Inquiry or Investigation

The termination of the respondent's institutional employment, by resignation or otherwise,
before or after an allegation of possible scientific misconduct has been reported, will not
preclude or terminate the misconduct procedures.

If the respondent, without admitting to the misconduct, elects to resign his or her position prior
to the initiation of an inquiry, but after an allegation has been reported, or during an inquiry or
investigation, the inquiry or investigation will proceed. If the respondent refuses to participate in
the process after resignation, the committee will use its best efforts to reach a conclusion
concerning the allegations, noting in its report the respondent's failure to cooperate and its effect
on the committee's review of all the evidence.

B. The Respondent's Reputation

If the institution finds no misconduct and ORI concurs, after consulting with the respondent, the
Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to clear the respondent's reputation.
Depending on the particular circumstances, the Research Integrity Officer should consider
notifying those individuals aware of or involved in the investigation of the final outcome,
publicizing the final outcome in any forums in which the allegation of scientific misconduct was
previously made known, and expunging all reference to the scientific misconduct allegation from
the respondent's personnel file. Any institutional actions to restore the respondent's reputation
must first be approved by the Deciding Official.

C. Protection of the Whistleblower and Others

Regardless of whether the institution or ORI determines that scientific misconduct occurred, the
Research Integrity Officer will undertake reasonable efforts to protect whistleblowers who made
allegations of scientific misconduct in good faith and others who cooperate in good faith with
inquiries and investigations of such allegations. Upon completion of an investigation, the
Deciding Official will determine, after consulting with the whistleblower, what steps, if any, are
needed to restore the position or reputation of the whistleblower. The Research Integrity Officer
is responsible for implementing any steps the Deciding Official approves. The Research Integrity
Officer will also take appropriate steps during the inquiry and investigation to prevent any
retaliation against the whistleblower.

D. Allegations Not Made in Good Faith

If relevant, the Deciding Official will determine whether the whistleblower's allegations of
scientific misconduct were made in good faith. If an allegation was not made in good faith, the
Deciding Official will determine whether any administrative action should be taken against the
whistleblower.

E. Interim Administrative Actions

Institutional officials will take interim administrative actions, as appropriate, to protect Federal
funds and ensure that the purposes of the Federal financial assistance are carried out.

XII. Record Retention

After completion of a case and all ensuing related actions, the Research Integrity Officer
will prepare a complete file, including the records of any inquiry or investigation and copies
of all documents and other materials furnished to the Research Integrity Officer or
committees. The Research Integrity Officer will keep the file for three years after
completion of the case to permit later assessment of the case and to substantiate the
investigation's findings. ORI or other authorized DHHS personnel will be given access to
the records upon request.