A12b:9: Main page
Policy and procedure for inquiring into allegations of scientific malpractice
1. Introduction
1.1 General Policy
1.1.1 BBSRC expects the highest standards of integrity to be observed in the pursuit of the research we support. To facilitate this, BBSRC has issued a Statement on Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice ( appendix A12b:3). We also require individual establishments to draw up their own guidelines, to be discussed at NCC level, which incorporate the standards defined by BBSRC and take account of particular local working contexts. These guidelines provide the framework within which individual scientists take responsibility for the conduct of their research.
1.1.2 BBSRC takes allegations of scientific malpractice very seriously. As part of our responsibility to Parliament, the public and the scientific community, any allegations will be investigated fully and the outcome of the investigation reported. Where allegations are upheld following a hearing, the matter will normally be considered to constitute gross misconduct under the Disciplinary Code ( appendix A12b:4i).
1.1.3 BBSRC is also committed to protecting employees from malicious accusations and will take action against any individual(s) responsible for such allegations.
1.1.4 These procedures reflect the need for expert knowledge to resolve complaints of scientific malpractice and have been agreed with the Trade Union Side of the JNCC.
1.1.5 BBSRC will consider how to deal with any accusations of scientific malpractice where research projects are undertaken with external collaborators. Where a JNCC employer is the lead collaborator, any matters will be dealt with in accordance with this procedure.
1.1.6 The timescales set out should be followed as far as possible. However, we accept that in exceptional circumstances (for example, where it is difficult to make arrangements to interview witnesses) these may be exceeded. The reasons for any delays should be clearly documented.
1.1.7 This guidance supplements the disciplinary procedure set out in ( appendix A12b:4).
1.2 Scope
1.2.1 This policy and procedure apply to all employees, students, and visiting workers present at the time the malpractice is alleged to have occurred within a BBSRC establishment. Where an external organisation or individual makes allegations of malpractice, BBSRC will make them aware of BBSRC’s procedure and that BBSRC expect them to comply with the requirements.
1.2.2 It is important that any accusations of scientific malpractice are dealt with promptly and in accordance with the agreed procedures. Therefore, all matters should be channelled through one point at the establishment, usually the Head of Operations, but establishments may nominate another person where they believe this to be appropriate. In all cases, the name and contact details of the nominated person must be made available to internal employees and external collaborators, and published in the establishment’s Annual Report and via their website.
1.2.3 Depending on the nature of the allegations, it may be necessary to appoint external persons to investigate the issues arising and to sit on the Preliminary Investigatory Committee (paragraph 3.2, appendix A12b:9), Disciplinary Panel (paragraph 4.1, appendix A12b:9) or Appeal Panel (paragraph 5.2, appendix A12b:9). Whether the persons chosen are internal or external, they will be independent of the area under investigation and of senior status (pay band G or above, or equivalent).
1.3 Principles and definitions
These are set out in ( appendix A12b:9i).
Throughout this document, reference is made to the Head of Operations. Some establishments will nominate another person to act in this role. Where this is the case, the name of the nominated person should be made clear and the NCC notified.
2. Stage 1: Preliminary action
2.1 The Head of Operations will consider the allegation immediately to determine whether it falls within the scope of this procedure, and whether a full investigation is warranted. As necessary, a suitable specialist should be consulted before reaching a decision. The Head of Operations will decide within five working days of the matter being brought to his/her attention.
2.2 Where an investigation is warranted the Head of Operations will arrange immediate sequestration of all relevant research records and materials (including computer discs, etc.).
2.3 Where further investigation is warranted, the Head of Operations will immediately inform in writing, the individual(s) against whom the allegation is made (the Respondent(s)). They will notify the Respondent of the substance of the allegation and that an investigation will be undertaken. The Head of Operations will ensure that all relevant materials which have been secured are copied to the Respondent.
2.4 If the Head of Operations decides that an investigation is not warranted he/she will record his/her justification for that decision and inform the complainant and Respondent(s) of the outcome. In such circumstances, there will be no record on the Respondent’s personal file.
2.5 Where an allegation relates to scientific malpractice which may place others at risk (e.g. employees, collaborators), the Head of Operations will seek to remove the risk, if necessary by suspending the Respondent on full pay pending the outcome of the investigation.
3. Stage 2: Investigation
3.1 Purpose
The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether there is evidence of scientific malpractice, not to reach a final conclusion as to whether malpractice occurred or who was responsible.
3.2 Appointment of committee to carry out the investigation
3.2.1 If the Head of Operations decides that an investigation is required, he/she will appoint a Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) consisting of three independent individuals who have appropriate expertise to evaluate the scientific issues. The PIC will decide on the Chair.
3.2.2 Exceptionally, where it is not possible to appoint committee members internally due to conflicts of interest, the Head of Operations may appoint someone from another BBSRC establishment or external to the establishment.
3.2.3 The Head of Operations will notify the Respondent in writing, of the allegations against them and their right to be accompanied at any interview/hearing by a workplace colleague or accredited trade union representative.
3.3 PIC Terms of reference
The PIC will investigate and evaluate the facts in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of scientific malpractice to warrant a disciplinary hearing.
3.4 Investigation process
3.4.1 The PIC will interview the complainant, the Respondent, key witnesses and any other relevant parties. They will also examine relevant research records and materials.
3.4.2 The PIC will complete its investigation and send a written report to the Head of Operations normally within 20 working days of the Respondent being notified of the investigation. The deadline may be extended where members of the investigating body are external to the establishment or in order to ensure a full and thorough investigation.
3.4.3 The report will state the evidence reviewed, summarise relevant interviews, and include the Respondent’s comments. It will recommend whether a full disciplinary hearing is warranted.
3.5 Comments by respondents
The Head of Operations will give a copy of the report to the Respondent.
The Respondent must submit any comments to the Head of Operations within 5 working days of receipt of the report. These will be attached as an addendum to the report.
3.6 Decision by Head of Operations
3.6.1 On receipt of the report and any written comments from the Respondent, the Head of Operations will decide whether a disciplinary hearing is required or no further action will be taken.
3.6.2 Where the Head of Operations decides that no further action is warranted, s/he will inform the Respondent in writing immediately.
3.6.3 The Head of Operations will identify who else should be informed of the outcome and how much information should be made available to them.
3.6.4 Where no further action is taken all documentation relating to the issue will be destroyed and there will be no record on the Respondent’s file.
4. Stage 3: Full disciplinary proceedings
4.1 Procedure
4.1.1 A hearing will be arranged within 10 working days following the notification to Respondent. The Respondent will be provided with a copy of all evidence collected in relation to the alleged offence, including the PIC’s report. The Respondent can be accompanied at any disciplinary hearing.
4.1.2 A Panel of three persons, none of whom served on the PIC, will consider the case. The Panel members will not have any conflicts of interest with the Respondent or the case in question, and will have the necessary expertise to examine the evidence and interview any witnesses called to the hearing.
4.1.3 The Secretary to the Panel will normally be a member of the Human Resources Group and will also provide assistance on any procedural queries. This person will not have any conflicts of interest with the Respondent or the case in question.
4.1.4 The Head of Operations will notify the Respondent of the proposed Panel membership. If the Respondent objects in writing to any of the persons appointed, the Head of Operations may decide to replace them with a qualified substitute. If the Head of Operations does not replace them, the reasons will be recorded in writing and copied to the Respondent and Panel.
4.1.5 As far as possible, all information should be presented to the Panel in writing. However, if the Panel feel it necessary, or if the Respondent requests, witnesses should be asked to attend in person.
4.1.6 The Panel may ask questions of both the Respondent and any witnesses where they feel that this would clarify any issues.
4.1.7 The Respondent will be offered the opportunity to make a statement in relation to the case and can raise points about any information provided by witnesses.
4.1.8 The Panel will adjourn to consider whether malpractice has occurred and, if so, what, if any, sanction is to be imposed.
4.1.9 The Secretary to the Panel will make a management record of the meeting including the factors taken into account and reason for the Panel’s decision.
The Respondent will have an opportunity to comment but this will not delay a decision. Any comments must be submitted within 5 working days of receiving the note of the hearing. All disagreements will be recorded and attached to the report.
4.2 Sanctions
4.2.1 Where the Panel decide that there is no case to answer, the Chair of the Panel will notify the Respondent and confirm this in writing. The BBSRC Statement says that the outcome must be made clear to all involved and be made public if the allegation was public.
4.2.2 The investigators must also indicate whether they believe the allegation to have been malicious; if so, see (paragraph 7.2, appendix A12b:9). In these circumstances no further action will be taken against the employee and no record of the incident will be held on the Respondent’s personal file. The Chair of the Panel must ensure that all documentation relating to the case is destroyed.
4.2.3 If the Panel decide that the alleged malpractice is substantiated, it will normally be considered as gross misconduct resulting in a recommendation to the Director for summary dismissal. In some circumstances demotion to a lower graded post, with commensurate loss of pay and responsibility, may be considered as an alternative to dismissal.
4.2.4 The Chair of the Panel will notify the Respondent in person as soon as possible but not more than five working days after the date of the hearing. The decision will be confirmed in writing and include the factors taken into account and reasons for the decision.
4.2.5 If the Panel recommends dismissal, this must be confirmed (or an alternative decision substituted) by the Director within two working days of receiving the recommendation of the Panel.
5. Stage 4: Appeal
5.1 The Respondent may appeal in writing against the decision and/or resulting sanction. The appeal should set out the basis for the appeal and be sent to the Director within 5 working days of receiving notification of the outcome of the investigation.
5.2 Appointment of the Appeal Board
5.2.1 The Director will set up an Appeal Board comprising him/her and two other suitably qualified persons. None of these persons should have any conflicts of interests with the Respondent or the case in question.
5.2.2 Where the appeal is against dismissal, the Director will not sit on the Appeal Board and will be replaced by the Director of another BBSRC establishment.
5.2.3 The Director will notify the Respondent(s) of the Appeal Board, arrangements and membership.
5.3 Appeal Process
5.3.1 Appeals will be heard within 20 calendar days of receipt of an appeal. The appeal will include examination of all documentation called into question by the Respondent. The Respondent may submit any relevant additional supplementary material in support of his/her appeal and will be invited to attend to give oral evidence.
5.3.2 A management note will be taken of the appeal hearing and include the factors taken into account and reasons for the decision. It will also record if and from whom any further information was obtained relevant to the appeal.
5.3.3 The Appeal Board can opt for one of the following courses of action:
- set aside the decision
- confirm the decision and penalty
- confirm the decision but decrease the penalty
- confirm the decision but impose a greater penalty
5.3.4 The Appeal Board will make a recommendation to the BBSRC Chief Executive whose decision will be final. The Chair of the Appeal Board will notify the Respondent in writing within five working days of the outcome of the appeal.
6. Notification and reporting requirements
When a final decision has been reached on the case, the Director will notify the Chief Executive of the outcome and outline proposals for notifying others. This might include professional societies, editors of journals in which falsified reports have been published, collaborators of the Respondent in the work, funding or sponsoring agencies, the press, or other concerned parties.
6.1 Restoration of reputations
Where allegations are found to have no substance, the Head of Operations will ensure that there is no reference to the matter on the Respondent's Personnel file. All those interviewed or otherwise informed of the allegations will be notified in writing that they have no substance. We will consult with the Respondent about taking reasonable actions to restore the reputation of the Respondent including, where appropriate (paragraph 4.2.1, appendix A12b:9), making public the outcome of the investigation. Where investigation of any allegation has significantly disrupted a BBSRC research programme this will be taken into account at the subsequent review of that work.
7. Other considerations
7.1 Resignation or termination of BBSRC employment or attachment prior to completion of investigation and/or hearing
If the Respondent resigns or otherwise leaves BBSRC employment before or after an allegation of possible scientific malpractice has been reported, or at any time during the implementation of the procedure, this will not stop the process from continuing.
7.2 Malicious accusations
Where the outcome of the investigation, disciplinary procedure or appeal indicates that an allegation has not been made in good faith, BBSRC will pursue disciplinary action against the complainant where he/she is employed by the BBSRC, and action as appropriate against an external complainant.
Last updated 15/10/08
Amendment 51 - October 2008
Contact
Employment code team
hrcsg@bbsrc.ac.uk