Celia Walker <xxxxxx@VINES.COLOSTATE.EDU> writes:

>The Misconduct-in-Science regulations stipulate a two-step process for
>exploration of an allegation and a decision about it.  The first step is
>"inquiry;"  the second is "investigation."
>        "Inquiry" is defined in PHS regs as information gathering and initial
>factfinding to determine whether an allegation or apparent intance of
>misconduct in science warrants an investigation.
>        "Investigation" is defined as the formal examination and evaluation of
>all relevant facts to determine if misconduct has occurred.
>
>Seems clear on the surface of it, doesn't it?  But in actuality, and
>especially in light of the career implications of an investigation, our
>faculty struggle with what is inquiry and what is investigation.  Could any of
>your campuses provide me with more distinct definitions, lists of tasks for
>each, "clinical signs" of each, or other nuts-and-bolts ways you distinguish
>inquiry from investigation?  Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Although I suspect that every research institution will have its own working
definitions and task lists for the various phases of this process, I'll take a
stab at reviewing our experience at UCHC.

First, we have a 3 stage process, the first is a rather informal weeding out of
frivilous allegations, which is done by the Chair of the Misconduct Committee,
and 1 or 2 members.  What constitutes frivilous is difficult to explain, and
can vary from Chair to Chair, but generally it involves the examination of the
charge with the allegant, a review of the requirements for the initiation of
an inquiry, and a determination if there is sufficient basis upon which to
start the inquiry.  Basically it is used to differentiate between a substantive
allegation and one which may have been brought in a pique of anger or frus-
tration.

The actual inquiries we have conducted have involved the following processes:

1.  Review of the written allegation (this is a requirement in our policy) by
the Committee, with the objective of identifying what questions and information
would be needed for further steps in this process.

2.  Interview of the allegant, if possible.

3.  Interview of the individual(s) alleged to have conducted the misconduct.

4.  Review and discussion of the information gathered through steps 1-3, and
evaluation of whether additional information gathering is necessary.

5.  Preliminary review of data or proposals which are involved in the
allegation.

6.  Discussion to decide whether substantive rationale exists for initiation
of a full investigation.

7.  Development of interim or remedial actions necessary to terminate the
inquiry process.

8.  Development and submission of the Inquiry report.

Fortunately, UCHC has never had to initiate a full-blown investigation.  Our
activities have all ended at the inquiry stage.

Len

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard P. Paplauskas    Assistant Vice President for Research     |
203-679-3173             University of Connecticut Health Center   |
FAX 679-2670             Farmington, CT   06030-5355               |
                                                                   |
xxxxxx@sun.uchc.edu                                            |
xxxxxx@neuron.uchc.edu                                           |
--------------------------------------------------------------------