Steve and all, Thank you for all the feedback. You've all confirmed my thinking on this and so I have met with the department chair. He indeed confirmed that the signature is not his, and he will be meeting with the dean to discuss the matter decide how to proceed. We have decided to send the protocol on for the expedited review and deal with the signature issue through institutional channels rather than having the IRB take it on. (Turns out this faculty member has had another professional ethics complaint lodged against her that is also being discussed with the dean.) Regarding Steve's question about even having a chair sign-off, I am definitely in favor of it. I can't imagine any conscientious chair wanting to be in the dark about the kinds of human research activities that are going on in his/her department. In our case, the department chair revealed to me that this faculty member had submitted some other protocols that the chair would not allow to be sent on to the IRB because they were so poorly prepared and offered little educational benefit for the students who would be involved in the projects. This chair definitely wants the opportunity to see these things! bg Stephen Erickson wrote: >I consur with others who have said this act of forgery cannot be >ignored. I don't know what your internal procedures are so it's >difficult to recommend specific actions. It seems to me that it's a hard >to make an ethical argument that some forgry is ok. > >I would like to add another question to the discussion. If this act of >forgery were to be passed off as not being important enough toworry >about, then I think we have to ask what added value is there in having >the Department Chair sign the protocols. Personally, I think there is >significant value added, but others may disagree. For those who think >there is value in a Chair signing, this act of forgery has both ethical >and practical implications. The Chair has a right to know that his/her >signature has been forged --- and he/she has a responsibility to take >disciplinary action against the forger. I'm not sure Spanky's solution >of decapitation is a punishment that fits the crime -- but if the Chair >is aching to use a guillotine, so be it. > >Stephen Erickson, Director >Office for Research Compliance and Intellectual Property Management >Boston College, LCOB 550 >Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 >Telephone: 617-552-3345 >Office Fax: 617-552-6981 >Fax to my computer: 413-895-8328 > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On >Behalf Of Barbara Gray >Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:31 AM >To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG >Subject: [RESADM-L] Forged Signature on IRB Application > > >Compliance/IRB staffers out there, how would you deal with this >situation? > >We require department chairs to sign off on human subject applications. >A faculty member is in a rush to have an human subject protocol approved >(under expedited criteria) for a very innocuous procedure--virtually no >risk at all except it is a phyical measurement that does not fit within >exemption criteria. (Note that the project involves students who will >be collecting the data as part of a class assignment.) She indicates >she'll just sign for her chair, we indicate that she can't do that, and, >lo and behold, the signature page comes in a couple of days later with >the chair's signature forged. > >Would you take this to her chair? Her dean? The provost? Would you >prohibit her from implementing the protocol (which will impact the >students in her class)? Would you bar her from doing human subject >research for a period of time? Is this "misconduct" that should be >referred for handling through ORI regs? (note that we've made our >misconduct policy applicable to all research and scholarship, not just >that funded externally or by the Feds.) Personally, I find the faculty >member's action offensive and unethical (if not downright illegal)--if >she will do this on an application, might she do the same someday on a >consent form?? But, in the big scheme of things, is this worth going to >the mat on? After all, it's only falsification of an internal >signature, not scientific data.... > >Thanks. > >-- ================================================================== >Barbara H. Gray, Director >Office of Research & Grants Administration >College of Charleston >66 George Street >Charleston, SC 29424 >Campus Location: 407-G Bell Bldg. >Office: 843.953.5673 Desk: 843.953.5885 Fax: 843.953.6577 >e-mail: xxxxxx@cofc.edu URL: http://www.orga.cofc.edu/ >================================================================== > > >====================================================================== > Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including >subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available >via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") >====================================================================== > > >====================================================================== > Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including > subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available > via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") >====================================================================== > > -- ================================================================== Barbara H. Gray, Director Office of Research & Grants Administration College of Charleston 66 George Street Charleston, SC 29424 Campus Location: 407-G Bell Bldg. Office: 843.953.5673 Desk: 843.953.5885 Fax: 843.953.6577 e-mail: xxxxxx@cofc.edu URL: http://www.orga.cofc.edu/ ================================================================== ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ======================================================================
