Debra Schaller-Demers, MSOM
Director, Research Outreach and Compliance
RCR Course Director
Administrative Member, Tri-SCI ESCRO
IBC and Export Control Administration

Research and Technology Management

SRA International Distinguished Faculty and Education & Professional Development Committee (EPDC) Co-chair

 

 

 

There is no cost to attend the conference; registration is free. For more information and to register, please visit the Indiana University Research Integrity Office website, here.

 Day 1: Introduction to Conference/Topic-Specific Presentation: The goal of Day 1 is to clarify and enhance the sequestration process in academia. This process includes all the steps, roles and responsibilities of involved parties, and the federal and legal requirements leading to the actual sequestration.

The Legality of Sequestration

Who owns the equipment? Who gives permission to sequester? What do institutions need to know? The goal of this session is to highlight the legal aspects in sequestration as it pertains to federal and state law. The presentation will address the specific rights of individuals and the institutions as well as the roles & responsibilities of each party including the handling of the respondent’s computer(s) and file(s). ORI has identified an unwillingness to sequester without the PI’s permission which has resulted in significant problems, which will be addressed during this session.

Kate Gallin Heffernan, Partner and Chair of the Academic and Clinical Research Group, Verrill Dana, LLP

Legal Critical Issues in Sequestration

This session takes the legal knowledge gained from the opening session and gleans the most critical elements for the institution itself during the sequestration process. Such an analysis enables the sequestration process to more accurately frame concerns, needs, goals, and focus resources for the remainder of the conference.  The analysis will utilize 42 C.F.R. §93-305 as a starting point.

             An Unsuccessful Sequestration: Examples and Examination

The Office of Research Integrity will present on what creates a poor sequestration with examples of unsuccessful processes through the use of hypothetical fact patterns. ORI will identify problems in sequestration at the institutional level resulting in issues making federal findings.

 Day 2: Panel Presentations/Break-Out Sessions/Mock Debate: The goal for Day 2 is to delve into the specifics involved in the sequestration process through panel discussions with experts on several key components of the process. This will be followed up with specific break-out sessions relating to the key components. Finally, a mock debate involving the legal arguments on both sides of a research misconduct litigation will take place to highlight how both good and bad sequestration practices can be essential to a case.

What Constitutes a Successful Sequestration?

The panel including experienced Research Integrity Officers will discuss the specific steps crucial to managing a successful sequestration and lessons learned along the way.

            David Hudson, Senior Associate Vice President for Research, Office of the Vice President for Research, University of Virginia

General Counsel: How the General Counsel’s office plays a critical role in sequestration.

Thomas Gannon, Senior Associate General Counsel, Vice President and General Counsel, Indiana University

 Information Technology: What do IT staff members need to know and do during the sequestration process to ensure a successful sequestration of electronic data? This session will also be available via Adobe Connect for IT professionals who are not able to travel to the conference. For more information, please contact Sofia McDowell at xxxxxx@indiana.edu.

Keith Lehigh, Principal Security Engineer, University Information Security Office, Indiana University

Research Integrity Officers: How can RIOs make the sequestration process more efficient and effective? Considering the juxtaposition of poor sequestration and successful sequestration, what do RIOs need to communicate to the parties involved in the sequestration process?

Mock Debate

This debate will revolve around a fictional research misconduct case and involve legal arguments from the institutional perspective of a general counsel attorney who must argue the merits of the institutional sequestration process vs. opposing counsel who will attack the weaknesses of an institutional sequestration on behalf of his client, a respondent in a research misconduct case

Michael Terrell, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP