Framework for Ethics in Research

Framework for Ethics in Research

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PREAMBLE
2. INTRODUCTION
3. DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT
4. GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL STANDARD IN RESEARCH
4.1 Responsibilities of Investigators/Supervisors
4.1.1 Handling of Data
4.1.2 Monitoring the work of students and support staff
4.1.3 Peer review of research programs
4.2 Responsibilities of Students, Research Trainees and Research Support Staff
4.3 Student Awareness
4.4 Responsibilities of Department/Divisional Chairs and Directors of Institutes
4.5 Responsibilities of the Dean
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPENDIX A
University Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research
APPENDIX B
Procedures to Address Misconduct
B.1 Inquiry
B.1.1 Structure of Inquiry
B.1.2 Initiation of an Inquiry

B.2 Investigation
B.2.1 Initiation and Purpose of Investigation
B.2.2 Structure of Investigation
B.2.3 Process of Investigation
B.2.4 Report of Investigation
B.2.5 Disposition of Investigation
B.2.6 Appeal/Final Review

APPENDIX C
Listing of University of Toronto Policy Documentation

1. PREAMBLE
The successful conduct of science and engineering rests upon a reverence for truth, which is also one of its major objectives. Academic research is made possible, directly or indirectly, by the public whose support is predicated on confidence in the integrity of scientists/engineers and their institutions. Universities, research granting agencies and scientific journals correctly argue that the public interest is best served when they are permitted to be self-governing and self-regulating. However, society will accept this argument only to the extent that these institutions are able and prepared to maintain a climate of research integrity and to police themselves effectively. This includes dealing appropriately with misconduct in research. The public trust requires that academic institutions, such as the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, have in place effective policies to deal with them.
In March 1991 the Governing Council of the University of Toronto approved the University Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research which is included in this document as Appendix A. Because of the great diversity in research disciplines among the university divisions, each Faculty has developed a specific framework to address ethics in research. This document Framework for Ethics in Research provides the guidelines within the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering consistent with the University Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research.
The Framework for Ethics in Research was prepared by the Standing Committee on Research and Advanced Studies. This policy document was approved by the Executive Committee on April 20th, 1995 and the Faculty Council on May 31st, 1995.
It is to be noted the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering is currently developing separate companion documents to Framework for Ethics in Research. These companion documents will outline the key policies and procedures within the Faculty on matters of intellectual property, research, consulting, and spin-off companies in the context of the University Policy on Conflict of Interest, approved by Governing Council in June 1994.
2. INTRODUCTION
Researchers in the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering are engaged in investigations which, directly or indirectly, can have a profound effect on society and socio-economic developments. The generally accepted tenets of scientific inquiry and the highest standards of ethical conduct must guide our researchers; the practice of peer review is an important mechanism for the promotion of ethical conduct in research. Every investigator has a duty to ensure objective and accurate reporting of research data and verification of research findings. To assure the credibility and integrity of our research community and retain public trust, we must insist on nothing less.
It is a major responsibility of our institution to create an environment that promotes integrity and to have in place procedures to deal with cases of suspected misconduct in research. At the same time, openness and creativity must flourish in the research environment for innovative science and engineering to occur. Therefore, policies and procedures intended to prevent and deal with misconduct must never discourage creativity and innovation, but rather serve to promote best practices. It is also important to distinguish misconduct from honest errors and from ambiguities of interpretation. Nevertheless it is important that all researchers be ever cognizant of the conditions associated with grants, contracts and related agreements.
Faculty and departmental policies and procedures developed to cover misconduct in research must be consistent with relevant University policies and procedures, including the Policies on Ethical Conduct in Research and Conflict of Interest. The University has in place several policies which touch on ethics in research. These include policies on the use of human subjects and animals; on inventions and patents; on suspected financial impropriety; on supplementary income and on codes of behaviour on academic matters. The framework described here are supplementary to these policies, which are listed in Appendix C.
All research personnel must be informed of these policies and procedures. An environment of honesty and integrity must be fostered by training junior members of the research community and by reinforcing the commitment and diligence of senior members through guidelines developed for these purposes.
Misunderstandings or differences of opinion ideally are resolved by open discussion between members of research teams. Potential misconduct can often be averted when open discussion within research teams is the norm.
The following principles set the framework for the development of policies and procedures to prevent and deal with scientific/engineering misconduct:

The primary objective is the creation of a research climate which fosters scientific integrity.
The process used to resolve allegations of misconduct must not damage the scientific/engineering enterprise.
Charges of misconduct must be taken seriously and vigorous leadership must be exercised in their investigation and resolution.
All parties must be treated with respect, fairness and with due sensitivity to their scientific, professional and personal reputations.
Strict confidentiality must be maintained.
In the investigation of charges, conflicts of interest must be avoided where possible and openly declared where they cannot be avoided.
All proceedings must be conducted in a timely manner.
At each stage of the proceedings there must be appropriate documentation.
Once the allegations are resolved, prompt appropriate action must be taken by the responsible Departmental, Faculty and/or University administrators.

Research integrity must always take into consideration the potential for real or perceived exploitation which may occur between individuals who possess unequal levels of authority or power. Authority dimensions of research integrity may be reflected, for example, in the supervision of graduate and undergraduate students; activities with pre-tenure faculty; service on peer-review committees for grants selection, publication or promotion and tenure; activities with staff; allocation of resources in support of research; or recognition of contributions to research and publications, among others. Sensitivity to the potential for abuse, real or perceived, of "power relationships" is a pre-requisite to good practices. Care will be taken to ensure that institutional practice reflects a high degree of integrity with respect to the management of authority. A number of institutional mechanisms exist to handle abuses of power relationships as well as to prevent such abuses from happening. These include mentoring and advising programmes, the equity office, educational activities and the ombudsperson, among others.
3. DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT IN RESEARCH
A list of acts generally considered to be instances of serious misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

Falsification of data and/or research results (fraud);
Use by one person of another's work without permission and/or without due acknowledgment (plagiarism).
Use by one person of confidential information, supplied by another, in an unauthorized manner (breach of confidentiality);
Issue of a misleading publication or the fraudulent filing of a patent application;
for example:

giving or receiving honorary authorship or inventorship
denying legitimate authorship/inventorship
allowing publication with coauthorship without reviewing the work.
publication of research results for a second time without reference to the first.

Misuse of research funds acquired for research; misuse of funds as dictated by the grant and or contract conditions; and misuse of university resources, facilities and equipment.

4. GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL STANDARD IN RESEARCH
The Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering must create and maintain an environment in which high ethical standards are pervasive.
The primary objective of these guidelines is to foster a research climate that will promote both scientific/engineering creativity and integrity resulting in the prevention of research/development misconduct. A secondary objective is to assist the Faculty to deal promptly, fairly and effectively with allegations of misconduct. These procedures are outlined in Appendix B.

4.1 Responsibilities of Principal Investigators/Supervisors
It is the responsibility of principal investigators to ensure that all the research performed in their laboratories or other research settings is of the highest possible quality and meets ethical standards. It is their responsibility to establish expectations and processes that promote honesty. Currently there are no formal rules for doing this and none are proposed here. However the following are examples of guidelines that have been found helpful by other institutions:
4.1.1 Handling of data and research results
Important foci for attention are the organized collection and storage of data and important research results and cross-checking the work of collaborators. The principal investigator should be aware of all data or results generated by researchers of the research team for which he/she is responsible. Significant research results, data or designs should be checked for reproducibility as appropriate and kept for at least five years.
4.1.2 Monitoring of the work of students and support staff
The principal investigators are responsible for monitoring work performed by students, research fellows, research associates, technicians, junior faculty who may report to them as part of the research team and other support staff. They should also clearly transmit the relevant expectations, obligations and responsibilities to all persons under their supervision.
4.1.3 Peer review of research programs
While the onus of scientific honesty rests with the principal investigator, external periodic reviews can be helpful such as Departmental reviews which coincide with the appointment of a new chair. If the investigator is funded by a career award from a national or provincial granting agency, the work is usually closely scrutinized at intervals by a peer group. It is important that all investigators adhere to high scientific and ethical standards whether or not they are funded by agencies that provide peer review.

4.2 Responsibilities of Students, Research Trainees and Research Support Staff
Students, research fellows, research associates, technicians and all research support staff, where applicable, have a responsibility for the ethical conduct of research by becoming knowledgeable about the norms of good science/engineering and by acting in accordance with them. These norms should be understood as applied to research in the applied sciences and engineering.
4.3 Student Awareness
Emphasis on high ethical standards is important at the beginning of a research career when learning the methods and techniques of science and the practice of engineering. Role models are important, and the supervisor must set an example of high quality and honest scholarship. It is the supervisor's responsibility to provide close supervision and to scrutinize carefully the student's work throughout his/her term in the research setting. In many cases, errors in judgement are made due to inexperience or impatience and good supervision will not only correct these but will give the student a sound model for the conduct of science throughout his/her career.
To provide students and all members of our research teams with a greater sensitivity to these issues will require analysis and discussion of ethical and unethical research issues, including illustrative examples of fraud and the potential consequences to the individual and the institution. In this context, it will be mandatory for all graduate students and new research personnel to attend a two hour seminar on Ethics in Research. Such seminars will be made available within the Faculty and all graduate students will be required to obtain a formal credit which should also appear on their transcript.
4.4 Responsibilities of Department/Divisional Chairs and Directors of Institutes
It is the primary responsibility of the department/divisional Chair and/or the Director of an Institute where appropriate, to create a climate in which the Department's principal investigators accept high ethical standards as the norm.
Chairs and Directors, where appropriate, have responsibility for setting and enforcing the standards for ethical behaviour in the research setting, consistent with Faculty and University guidelines. This occurs through careful recruitment of academic and research support staff; dissemination of information regarding ethical standards; identification and use of mentors to encourage and maintain ethical standards; appropriate and public delegation of responsibility within the unit; prompt notification of the Dean of alleged misconduct.
4.5 Responsibilities of the Dean
The Dean (or by delegation the Vice Dean)1 has responsibility for fostering a climate for high ethical standards in research within the Faculty. As research is an academic matter, the Dean is ultimately responsible for pursuing all allegations of misconduct in the Faculty, both on the University campus as well as off-campus research for which members of the Faculty are responsible.
Therefore, the Dean through consultation with relevant Faculty officers/members, promulgates and enforces relevant guidelines and policies, encourages ethical conduct, and establishes mechanisms to ensure members of the Faculty are informed about the contents of this Framework and to counteract unethical practice. The Dean is also responsible for the prompt, effective and fair investigation of allegations of scientific/engineering misconduct. The procedures are clearly detailed in Appendix B of Framework for Ethics in Research.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document is based extensively upon the publication Framework for Ethical Conduct of Research and Guidelines to Address Research Misconduct developed within the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. Approval was secured from the Faculty of Medicine to restructure their Guidelines document to be consistent with the requirements of the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering.

APPENDIX A
UNIVERSITY POLICY ON ETHICAL CONDUCT IN RESEARCH
The official University Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research is included here in its entirety, as Appendix A. It should be considered as the umbrella document to the Framework for Ethics in Research.

The University expects of its members (which include faculty, students and anyone holding a university post or any office that gives university status, such as that of a fellow or a research associate), the highest standards of ethical conduct in every aspect of research including applications, proposals, the research itself, reports and publications. The term "research" is broadly defined and is intended to include both scientific and non-scientific research and research that is not grant-supported.
It is neither possible nor desirable to foresee or to define what constitutes ethical conduct in all circumstances. This policy leaves many such matters untouched: it does not, for example, apply to the question of whether a certain kind or line of research is itself ethical.
The University considers that the highest ethical standards in research would entail (although not exclusively);

The accurate presentation and interpretation of experimental data and other factual information;
Due acknowledgement to author's work;
The maintaining of confidentiality with respect to information supplied by another when requested and appropriate use of that information in a manner authorized by the supplier of the information, and in accordance with scholarly practice;
The appropriate use and allocation of money or other resources supplied for research purposes.

Proper ethical procedures can be encouraged by increasing awareness of ethical issues and by administrative measures such as review of research proposals, progress reports, rules for the preservation of data, and audits. Room for misunderstanding may be reduced by precision in the terms of an award. Since practices and procedures on such matters necessarily vary in different divisions of the University, divisions are encouraged to develop their own guidelines in furtherance of the University policy. Such guidelines must conform to the University's policies and procedures, and copies must be sent to the Vice-President, Research and the Provost. The object of such guidelines will be to create an atmosphere that encourages ethical conduct, without interfering with freedom of inquiry, and without causing unnecessary administrative burdens.
Allegations of misconduct will be taken seriously by the University following the established practices and procedures of the University and all enquiries and proceedings will be conducted expeditiously.

APPENDIX B
PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS MISCONDUCT

The pursuit of all allegations of misconduct must be carried out carefully, thoroughly and as promptly as possible, to resolve all questions regarding the integrity of the research and those individuals that may be involved in an allegation. It is thus based on the following general principles:

The reputations of the Faculty and its investigators and students, and their responsibility for the ethical conduct of research, require that any scientific/engineering misconduct that occurs be promptly detected and effectively dealt with.
To this end, allegations of misconduct should be taken seriously and vigorous leadership should be exercised in their inquiry and resolution.
All persons involved, those making allegations, those accused of misconduct, and those who assist in the inquiry, should be treated with respect, fairness and with due sensitivity.
All proceedings should be conducted in a timely manner and be documented appropriately.
The highest possible degree of confidentiality should be maintained regarding all allegations and inquiries. Once the allegations are resolved, prompt action should be taken by departmental, Faculty and/or University officials, as appropriate.

To be effective, it is desirable that, initially, allegations be dealt with, at the local level, by the Chair or Director of the unit involved.
There are two steps in the procedures to address and manage scientific/engineering misconduct: an Inquiry step to determine if an investigation of the allegation is warranted, and an Investigation step to determine if suspected misconduct has in fact been committed.
B.1 Inquiry
B.1.1 Structure of Inquiry
In the inquiry stage, factual information is gathered and expeditiously reviewed by the Chair2, to determine if an investigation of the charge is warranted. It is designed to separate allegations that require further investigation from frivolous, unjustified or clearly mistaken allegations.
Thus the pursuit of allegations should be carried out carefully, impartially and thoroughly, as appropriate, to resolve all questions regarding the ethics of the research. The Chair will pursue all allegations to resolution as appropriate. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent, the case should be referred to the Dean who may allocate the task to an alternate senior official.
The Chair must be prepared to consult confidentially with anyone who comes forward with information regarding the complaint. If the concerns do not fall within the scope of these guidelines and procedures developed to deal with misconduct, the Chair will assist the complainant by referring to the University procedures appropriate for the situation. If the Chair determines that the complaint is more properly addressed through these guidelines, he/she will discuss the process of inquiry and possible investigation with the complainant.
B.1.2 Initiation of an Inquiry

B.1.2.1   Allegations and suspicions of scientific/engineering misconduct should be reported by any University member (including students, research and post doctoral fellows, research associates, technicians, faculty members and other University staff) to the academic supervisor of the individual suspected of misconduct. If the complainant wishes to further pursue the complaint, then the complainant must provide the supervisor with the allegations in writing. No anonymous complaints are to be considered.

B.1.2.2   Written allegations should be forwarded to the Departmental Chair, unless the chair is implicated, in which case they should be forwarded to the Dean.

B.1.2.3   Where a written allegation is made, it is the responsibility of the Chair to contact the person against whom the allegation has been made for the purpose of discussing the allegation and to determine whether or not the allegation is frivolous, vexatious, or unfounded.

B.1.2.4   Unless the Chair is able to resolve the matter more or less immediately or the Chair is convinced the allegation is frivolous, vexatious, or unfounded, the Chair shall refer the matter to the Dean3 by letter, outlining the nature of the allegation and all action taken to date. The letter shall be copied to the person against whom the allegation has been made.

B.1.2.5   The inquiry will ordinarily be completed within 10 working days of its initiation. Every reasonable attempt is to be made to comply to this time limit. However, should this be impossible, the inquiry must take place as quickly as possible.

B.1.2.6   If the allegations can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties (the complainant, the accused and the supervisor), the Chair will formally document this in a letter co-signed by all parties. This letter will only be kept in a confidential file on Ethics in Research in the Dean's Office.

B.2 Investigation
If any allegations of misconduct have not been resolved at the end of the inquiry process, then an investigation must be held. Allegations of misconduct against graduate students should be referred to the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, who will follow the investigation procedures set out in the School's Guidelines. Allegations of misconduct against faculty members, undergraduate students, administrative staff, research associates and postdoctoral fellows should be referred to the Dean of the Faculty. Cases where there are cross-allegations between graduate students and faculty members or others will be referred immediately to the Provost for investigation. With respect to allegations of misconduct against a faculty member, where a faculty member holds a cross-appointment, the allegations of misconduct will be investigated following procedures set out in the guidelines of the designated academic division of primary appointment.
B.2.1 Initiation and Purpose of Investigation
The purpose of the investigation is to explore further the allegations and determine whether suspected misconduct has in fact been committed and to take the appropriate action. The Dean is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of misconduct brought to the attention of the Faculty which will be reported in writing to Dean by the departmental chair. The Dean will immediately appoint a committee to perform the investigation in an appropriate manner consistent with the guidelines as described below.
In the course of the investigation, additional information may emerge that broadens the scope of the investigation beyond that of the inquiry. The accused will be informed whenever significant new directions are taken. However the investigation will focus on the alleged misconduct and, where appropriate, will restrict its examination to the factual material of each case.
Thus the pursuit of allegations should be carried out carefully and thoroughly, as appropriate, to resolve all questions regarding the integrity of the research. In the investigation, the members of the committee charged with the task should be vigilant not to permit personal conflicts between colleagues to obscure the facts and divert attention from the substance of the allegation. The reputations of those who have made allegations and those accused of misconduct must be protected during the investigation.
The chair of the investigating committee will ensure that all allegations are pursued to resolution as appropriate. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent, the case should be referred back to the Dean who may, appropriately change the structure of the committee.
The members of the investigating committee must be prepared to consult confidentially with anyone who comes forward with information regarding the complaint. If the concerns do not fall within the scope of these guidelines and procedures developed to deal with misconduct, the chair of the investigating committee will assist the complainant by referring to the University procedures appropriate for the situation. If the chair determines that the complaint is more properly addressed through these guidelines, he/she will discuss the process of investigation with the complainant.
B.2.2 Structure of Investigation
The investigating committee may take the following forms, at the discretion of the Dean:

an ad hoc committee to deal with the specific case;
a Faculty advisory committee;
a combination of a Faculty advisory committee and other appointed members who may be chosen both from within and outside the Faculty and/or the University.

The chair of the investigating committee will be a senior member of the University or another academic institution. The chair and members of the investigating committee should have no conflict of interest, should be and be seen to be unbiased, and jointly should have appropriate scientific/engineering and administrative background to evaluate the accusation and the response to it. The accused will be given an opportunity to review the membership of the investigating committee and to express any concerns in writing to the Dean; the final decision on the composition of the committee will be made by the Dean.
Administrative support for the function of the investigating committee will be assigned by the Dean as appropriate.
B.2.3 Process of Investigation

B.2.3.1   Upon receipt of a recommendation, from the chair, for a formal investigation, the Dean will establish an investigating committee which should convene within 10 working days of receipt of the recommendation.
If it is not possible to meet the above time limit, a reasonable number of additional working days may be added keeping in mind that it is important to begin the investigation without undue delay. A memorandum citing the reasons for the delay and progress to-date will be submitted to the Dean, to the accused and to the complainant and other appropriate individuals.

B.2.3.2   The chair of the investigating committee will notify the accused of the allegation and the process that has been established for the particular investigation and will provide an opportunity for response to the allegations of misconduct.

B.2.3.3   In addition the complainant will be notified of the investigation.

B.2.3.4   The investigation will ordinarily be completed within 60 working days of the first meeting of the investigating committee.
If this deadline cannot be met, a report citing the reasons for the delay and progress to date will be submitted to the Dean, to the accused and to the complainant and other appropriate individuals.

B.2.3.5   During the entire course of the investigation, confidentiality will be maintained in order to protect the rights of all parties involved. Committee meetings will be in camera.
Although the conduct of the investigation will be kept strictly confidential, it must be understood that the identity of the complainant must be made known to the accused.

B.2.3.6   The chair of the investigating committee will gather and review, with the committee as appropriate, information relevant to the accusation.

B.2.3.7   If at this time the complainant decides not to proceed with the allegations, the investigating committee may decide to proceed with the investigation even without the further participation of the complainant.

B.2.3.8   The investigating committee will provide access to supporting documents to the accused regarding the investigation.

B.2.3.9   All involved parties will be informed that, when necessary, they will be required to cooperate with the proceedings of the investigation in a timely manner. This includes the provision of information to conduct the investigation.

B.2.3.10   The investigating committee will have authority to interview persons whose evidence is thought to be helpful, to examine relevant documents and data records, and to consult with experts both within and outside the Faculty, as required.

B.2.3.11   The accused may have legal counsel present when he/she meets with the investigating committee, and the legal counsel may participate in accordance with the reasonable directions of the chair of the committee.

B.2.3.12   The investigating committee will meet with the accused and any individual(s) relevant to the investigation at least once or more, according to need.

B.2.3.13   The accused has the right to be present, accompanied by legal counsel, during the presentation of evidence to the investigating committee; legal counsel has the right to cross examine witnesses in accordance with the reasonable directions of the chair of the committee.

B.2.3.14   The chair of the investigating committee will assume the responsibility of restricting the dissemination of the emerging facts of the case to the appropriate persons. Normally, notification of these to the committee and the accused will be made in writing and copies filed in a confidential and secure manner in an office designated within the Faculty.

B.2.3.15   The Dean, on the advice of the investigating committee, will consider and take appropriate action, if the misconduct should impact on the safety of and/or the interest of students, staff and faculty colleagues.
Restrictions of activity or suspension of the respondent pending the results of the investigation may be recommended to the Dean.

B.2.3.16   The Dean shall inform the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations, and the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies as appropriate, that an investigation of allegation of scientific misconduct has been initiated.

B.2.3.17   The Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations may initiate contact with the University's legal counsel at the Dean's request, to minimize the risk of liability for actions taken in the conduct of the investigation.

B.2.3.18   With the concurrence of the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations, as appropriate, the Dean may, if necessary, inform the relevant funding agencies, scientific journals and other professional bodies that an investigation will take or is taking place.

B.2.3.19   Where appropriate the investigating committee will notify the Dean of interim findings which may be passed on to the sponsor of the research funding. This will depend on the nature of the case and the guidelines of the sponsor.

B.2.4 Report of the Investigation

B.2.4.1   The chair of the investigating committee will submit a written report to the Dean summarizing the process, findings and conclusions of the investigation. The investigation may result in the following:

a finding of misconduct;
a finding that no fraud, misconduct or serious scientific/engineering error was committed.

B.2.4.2   The accused and the complainant will receive a full report of the investigation. If there is more than one respondent each will receive a report of those parts of the investigation that are pertinent to his/her role.

B.2.4.3   The Dean shall inform the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations, and the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies as appropriate, of the findings and conclusions of the investigation and the administrative action proposed.

B.2.4.4   The findings will be filed in a confidential and secure manner, for a period of three years, in the office of the Dean. All other copies will be destroyed except for a report that the Dean will submit to the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations and, where applicable, the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.
At the end of the investigation, all members of the investigating committee will return all documentation to the Office of the Dean for appropriate disposal/shredding.
At the end of the investigation, all members of the investigating committee will return all documentation to the Office of the Dean for appropriate disposal/shredding. One complete copy of the documentation should be maintained pending the final resolution of the issue under investigation, including potential appeals.

B.2.4.5   The investigation may disclose evidence that requires further action, even in those cases where no fraud or misconduct is found. This could include retraction of published findings.

B.2.4.6   If the investigation has been launched on the basis of a complaint, and no fraud, misconduct or serious scientific error has been found, the Dean will take no disciplinary measures against the complainant if the allegations are found to have been made in good faith: moreover every effort will be made to ensure that no retaliatory action is taken against the complainant by anyone. The proceedings of the investigation, will be held in the strictest confidence. However, if the allegations are found to have been maliciously motivated, the Dean may take disciplinary action against those responsible, consistent with University policy. Similar appropriate disciplinary action, consistent with the University policy, will be taken against individuals who engage in acts of retaliation or intimidation against complainants and/or accused persons.

B.2.4.7   Should the person accused instigate an appeal, the Dean shall delay the above actions (items B.2.4.3 - B.2.4.6) for the interval of time provided by the applicable University Policy for the accused to file an appeal or grievance, and if such appeal or grievance should be filed, pending its final disposition.

B.2.5 Disposition of Investigation

B.2.5.1   When the Dean is advised that an investigation determines that there has been misconduct, the nature and severity of the disciplinary action will be consistent with the established policy of the Faculty and University as appropriate. Reference the University of Toronto Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.

B.2.5.2   When an investigation determines that no fraud, misconduct or serious scientific/engineering error was committed, the Dean shall ensure that a letter confirming full exoneration is sent to the accused, with a copy to the complainant and to all other persons with knowledge of the accusation.

B.2.5.3   Regardless of the findings, the report of the investigation will be maintained in a confidential and secure manner, with limited access, in the Office of the Dean for a period of three years.

B.2.5.4   Consideration will be given by the Dean and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations to formal notification, where appropriate, of other concerned parties such as:

Sponsoring agencies and funding sources
Co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators
Editors of journals in which fraudulent research or erroneous findings were published
Professional licensing boards
Editors of journals or other publications, other institutions, sponsoring agencies and funding sources with which the individual has been affiliated in the past
Professional societies
The police

B.2.5.5   If during the course of the investigation, the respondent resigns from the University, the investigation will nevertheless be continued to its full conclusion.

B.2.5.6   The outcome of each investigation will be communicated at the discretion of the Dean, to all parties who need to know the results. The Dean will use his/her discretion to provide appropriate information within or external to the University.

B.2.5.7   Neither the disciplinary action specified in Section B.2.5.1 nor the communication of the finding as specified in B.2.5.4 shall be undertaken during the interval of time provided by the applicable University Policy for the accused to file an appeal or grievance, and if such appeal or grievance should be filed, prior to its final disposition.

B.2.6 Appeal/Final Review
Appeals may be made to the Dean who will transfer the appeal process to the Office of the Provost for enactment of University policy as appropriate.
APPENDIX C
LISTING OF POLICY DOCUMENTATION
C.1 University Policy on Conflict of Interest, June 1994.
C.2 University Policy on Ethical Conduct in Research, March, 1991.
C.3 University Policy on Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters
C.4 University Policy Statement on Human Rights, June, 1992.
C.5 University Policy Statement of Institutional Purpose, October, 1992.
C.6 University Policy on Employment Equity, March, 1991.
C.7 University Policy and Procedures for Academic Appointments,
C.8 University Policy Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment, March, 1994.
C.9 University Policy and Procedures on Sexual Harassment, April, 1993.
C.10 University of Toronto Inventions Policy, May, 1990.

B.1.2.1	Allegations and suspicions of scientific/engineering misconduct should be reported by any University member (including students, research and post doctoral fellows, research associates, technicians, faculty members and other University staff) to the academic supervisor of the individual suspected of misconduct. If the complainant wishes to further pursue the complaint, then the complainant must provide the supervisor with the allegations in writing. No anonymous complaints are to be considered.

B.1.2.2	Written allegations should be forwarded to the Departmental Chair, unless the chair is implicated, in which case they should be forwarded to the Dean.

B.1.2.3	Where a written allegation is made, it is the responsibility of the Chair to contact the person against whom the allegation has been made for the purpose of discussing the allegation and to determine whether or not the allegation is frivolous, vexatious, or unfounded.

B.1.2.4	Unless the Chair is able to resolve the matter more or less immediately or the Chair is convinced the allegation is frivolous, vexatious, or unfounded, the Chair shall refer the matter to the Dean3 by letter, outlining the nature of the allegation and all action taken to date. The letter shall be copied to the person against whom the allegation has been made.

B.1.2.5	The inquiry will ordinarily be completed within 10 working days of its initiation. Every reasonable attempt is to be made to comply to this time limit. However, should this be impossible, the inquiry must take place as quickly as possible.

B.1.2.6	If the allegations can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties (the complainant, the accused and the supervisor), the Chair will formally document this in a letter co-signed by all parties. This letter will only be kept in a confidential file on Ethics in Research in the Dean's Office.

B.2.3.1	Upon receipt of a recommendation, from the chair, for a formal investigation, the Dean will establish an investigating committee which should convene within 10 working days of receipt of the recommendation. If it is not possible to meet the above time limit, a reasonable number of additional working days may be added keeping in mind that it is important to begin the investigation without undue delay. A memorandum citing the reasons for the delay and progress to-date will be submitted to the Dean, to the accused and to the complainant and other appropriate individuals.

B.2.3.2	The chair of the investigating committee will notify the accused of the allegation and the process that has been established for the particular investigation and will provide an opportunity for response to the allegations of misconduct.

B.2.3.3	In addition the complainant will be notified of the investigation.

B.2.3.4	The investigation will ordinarily be completed within 60 working days of the first meeting of the investigating committee. If this deadline cannot be met, a report citing the reasons for the delay and progress to date will be submitted to the Dean, to the accused and to the complainant and other appropriate individuals.

B.2.3.5	During the entire course of the investigation, confidentiality will be maintained in order to protect the rights of all parties involved. Committee meetings will be in camera. Although the conduct of the investigation will be kept strictly confidential, it must be understood that the identity of the complainant must be made known to the accused.

B.2.3.6	The chair of the investigating committee will gather and review, with the committee as appropriate, information relevant to the accusation.

B.2.3.7	If at this time the complainant decides not to proceed with the allegations, the investigating committee may decide to proceed with the investigation even without the further participation of the complainant.

B.2.3.8	The investigating committee will provide access to supporting documents to the accused regarding the investigation.

B.2.3.9	All involved parties will be informed that, when necessary, they will be required to cooperate with the proceedings of the investigation in a timely manner. This includes the provision of information to conduct the investigation.

B.2.3.10	The investigating committee will have authority to interview persons whose evidence is thought to be helpful, to examine relevant documents and data records, and to consult with experts both within and outside the Faculty, as required.

B.2.3.11	The accused may have legal counsel present when he/she meets with the investigating committee, and the legal counsel may participate in accordance with the reasonable directions of the chair of the committee.

B.2.3.12	The investigating committee will meet with the accused and any individual(s) relevant to the investigation at least once or more, according to need.

B.2.3.13	The accused has the right to be present, accompanied by legal counsel, during the presentation of evidence to the investigating committee; legal counsel has the right to cross examine witnesses in accordance with the reasonable directions of the chair of the committee.

B.2.3.14	The chair of the investigating committee will assume the responsibility of restricting the dissemination of the emerging facts of the case to the appropriate persons. Normally, notification of these to the committee and the accused will be made in writing and copies filed in a confidential and secure manner in an office designated within the Faculty.

B.2.3.15	The Dean, on the advice of the investigating committee, will consider and take appropriate action, if the misconduct should impact on the safety of and/or the interest of students, staff and faculty colleagues. Restrictions of activity or suspension of the respondent pending the results of the investigation may be recommended to the Dean.

B.2.3.16	The Dean shall inform the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations, and the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies as appropriate, that an investigation of allegation of scientific misconduct has been initiated.

B.2.3.17	The Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations may initiate contact with the University's legal counsel at the Dean's request, to minimize the risk of liability for actions taken in the conduct of the investigation.

B.2.3.18	With the concurrence of the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations, as appropriate, the Dean may, if necessary, inform the relevant funding agencies, scientific journals and other professional bodies that an investigation will take or is taking place.

B.2.3.19	Where appropriate the investigating committee will notify the Dean of interim findings which may be passed on to the sponsor of the research funding. This will depend on the nature of the case and the guidelines of the sponsor.

B.2.4.1	The chair of the investigating committee will submit a written report to the Dean summarizing the process, findings and conclusions of the investigation. The investigation may result in the following: a finding of misconduct; a finding that no fraud, misconduct or serious scientific/engineering error was committed.

B.2.4.2	The accused and the complainant will receive a full report of the investigation. If there is more than one respondent each will receive a report of those parts of the investigation that are pertinent to his/her role.

B.2.4.3	The Dean shall inform the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations, and the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies as appropriate, of the findings and conclusions of the investigation and the administrative action proposed.

B.2.4.4	The findings will be filed in a confidential and secure manner, for a period of three years, in the office of the Dean. All other copies will be destroyed except for a report that the Dean will submit to the Vice-President and Provost and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations and, where applicable, the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies. At the end of the investigation, all members of the investigating committee will return all documentation to the Office of the Dean for appropriate disposal/shredding. At the end of the investigation, all members of the investigating committee will return all documentation to the Office of the Dean for appropriate disposal/shredding. One complete copy of the documentation should be maintained pending the final resolution of the issue under investigation, including potential appeals.

B.2.4.5	The investigation may disclose evidence that requires further action, even in those cases where no fraud or misconduct is found. This could include retraction of published findings.

B.2.4.6	If the investigation has been launched on the basis of a complaint, and no fraud, misconduct or serious scientific error has been found, the Dean will take no disciplinary measures against the complainant if the allegations are found to have been made in good faith: moreover every effort will be made to ensure that no retaliatory action is taken against the complainant by anyone. The proceedings of the investigation, will be held in the strictest confidence. However, if the allegations are found to have been maliciously motivated, the Dean may take disciplinary action against those responsible, consistent with University policy. Similar appropriate disciplinary action, consistent with the University policy, will be taken against individuals who engage in acts of retaliation or intimidation against complainants and/or accused persons.

B.2.4.7	Should the person accused instigate an appeal, the Dean shall delay the above actions (items B.2.4.3 - B.2.4.6) for the interval of time provided by the applicable University Policy for the accused to file an appeal or grievance, and if such appeal or grievance should be filed, pending its final disposition.

B.2.5.1	When the Dean is advised that an investigation determines that there has been misconduct, the nature and severity of the disciplinary action will be consistent with the established policy of the Faculty and University as appropriate. Reference the University of Toronto Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.
B.2.5.2	When an investigation determines that no fraud, misconduct or serious scientific/engineering error was committed, the Dean shall ensure that a letter confirming full exoneration is sent to the accused, with a copy to the complainant and to all other persons with knowledge of the accusation.

B.2.5.3	Regardless of the findings, the report of the investigation will be maintained in a confidential and secure manner, with limited access, in the Office of the Dean for a period of three years.

B.2.5.4	Consideration will be given by the Dean and the Vice-President, Research and International Relations to formal notification, where appropriate, of other concerned parties such as: Sponsoring agencies and funding sources Co-authors, co-investigators, collaborators Editors of journals in which fraudulent research or erroneous findings were published Professional licensing boards Editors of journals or other publications, other institutions, sponsoring agencies and funding sources with which the individual has been affiliated in the past Professional societies The police

B.2.5.5	If during the course of the investigation, the respondent resigns from the University, the investigation will nevertheless be continued to its full conclusion.

B.2.5.6	The outcome of each investigation will be communicated at the discretion of the Dean, to all parties who need to know the results. The Dean will use his/her discretion to provide appropriate information within or external to the University.

B.2.5.7	Neither the disciplinary action specified in Section B.2.5.1 nor the communication of the finding as specified in B.2.5.4 shall be undertaken during the interval of time provided by the applicable University Policy for the accused to file an appeal or grievance, and if such appeal or grievance should be filed, prior to its final disposition.