1. SCIENCE INTEGRITY IN THE FWS
Office of the Science Advisor
Webinar
June 20, 2013
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
SCIENCE INTEGRITY IN THE FWS
Rick Coleman
FWS Senior Science Advisor and Science Integrity Officer

2. Where do you work? A. Field station B. Regional Office C. Headquarters
D. Other

3. What Service Program do you work in?
A. Ecological Services
B. Migratory Birds
C. Refuges/Partners for Fish and Wildlife
D. Fisheries
E. Law Enforcement
F. Science Applications/LCCs
G. Administration

4. If you had a concern about scientific misconduct, how likely would you be to report it?
A. Very unlikely
B. Somewhat unlikely
C. Neither
D. Somewhat likely
E. Very likely

5. Ethics Ethics Program Professional & Personal Ethics
Scientific and Scholarly Integrity
Presidential Memo on Scientific Integrity, 3/9/09;
Sec. Order No. 3305, 9/9/10;
DOI policy, 305 DM 3;
FWS policy, 212 FW 7 
Professional & Personal Ethics
Executive Order 12674
18 U.S.C. 201 – 209
5 C.F.R. 2635
FWS Policy, 212 FW 1-11
Donations, Fundraising and Solicitation
DOI Policy, 374 DM 6
Draft FWS Policy, 212 FW 8
Scientific Integrity

6. Scientific Integrity 305 DM 3 and 212 FW 7
Inquiry Process
Status of complaints
Some examples
Policy update

7. Decision making factors may include:
Economic
Budget
Institutional
Social
Cultural
Legal
Environmental
Scientific and scholarly information

8. Scientific Integrity applies to:
All DOI employees and volunteers
All DOI Political appointees
All DOI contractors dealing with science or scholarship activities
All participants in Agreements, MOUs, Grants with DOI bureaus dealing with science or scholarship activities
Volunteers affected are those working on scientific or scholarly activities.
Some employees report that they still feel “political pressure” for a specific outcome.
Contracts and Agreements need to have the boilerplate language about scientific integrity. FWS has that language in 212 FW 7, although DOI has a draft boilerplate language in review right now, could replace FWS boilerplate.

9. OIG Referrals Allegations of:
Reprisal for making a scientific misconduct allegation
Waste, fraud, abuse
Referred to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

10. Scientific Misconduct defined:
Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing science or scholarly activities; or
Intentionally circumventing policy that ensures the integrity of science or scholarship, or
Actions that compromise scientific or scholarly integrity, that is not an honest error or difference of opinion
Also see next slide, for additional thresholds/conditions for finding misconduct.

11. A finding of scientific misconduct requires:
There is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant scientific community, and
The misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and
The allegation is proven by a preponderance of evidence.
SIO compares the normal FWS conduct in similar circumstances with the subject’s conduct in the allegation. Review panels of subject matter experts included experts in what is normal conduct in these matters.

12. Based on my current understanding, are you aware of a scientific integrity concern?
Yes No

13. Allegations of Science Misconduct or Loss of Scientific Integrity Regarding DOI Employees and Volunteers
Allegation of scientific misconduct received by
Office of the Executive Secretariat (OES)
Closed case, resolution memo to subject and complainant
Evaluation: Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) initial review of allegation
No merit
Memo to subject
Inquiry: SIO will convene Scientific Integrity Review Panel, or panel of experts to conduct further inquiry, reports to SIO
No misconduct
Corrective Action: working with SIO and HR, Coordinating Manager will determine corrective action, if necessary
Appeal?
To OES
Misconduct
Memo to subject & complainant

14. DOI Political Appointees?
Inquiry process the same as for Employees,
Except process is performed by:
Department Scientific Integrity Officer (DSIO)

15. Allegations of Science Misconduct or Loss of Scientific Integrity Regarding DOI Contractors, Cooperators, Partners, Permittees, Lessees, and Grantees
Allegation of scientific misconduct received by
Office of the Executive Secretariat (OES)
Closed case, resolution memo to subject’s organization and complainant
Evaluation: Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) initial review of allegation
No merit
Memo to subject’s organization
Inquiry: Subject’s organization will investigate and certify results to appropriate DOI official and SIO, who will review
No misconduct
Corrective Action: Subject’s organization will take action according to their policy. DOI will take appropriate action too.
Appeal?
To OES
Misconduct
Memo to subject’s organization
& complainant

16. If I did have a scientific integrity concern I would feel most comfortable first talking with:
My co-workers
My supervisor
c. Ombudsman
d. Scientific Integrity Officer
e. Office of the Inspector General
f. None of the above

17. SI allegations – FY 12 7 Formal allegations
filed with the Department Office of the Executive Secretariat,
status tracked by Department
10 Informal allegations(calls and referrals to Scientific Integrity officer directly)
Referrals from OIG, Ethics Officer, employees
Some informal complaints become formal
It is not unusual for the SIO to discover the OIG is also on the same case, or related case. I expect it now with the formals. OIG and SIO decide how to proceed, so as to not interfere with the inquires and outcomes. So far, SIO can be more timely in the inquiries than OIG processes.
Normally the Department SIO will ask the bureau SIOs for status about every 6 months.
The Informal complaints are important, and can be usually solved with some ombudsmanship. That is an informal role of the SIO as well.

18. Resolution of allegations FY 12
Complaints
Closed
Nearly closed
Review Panel
Open
7 Formal 5 2
10 Informal 9 1
Formal – open case has a proposed “settlement” using a combined independent peer review to consider both perspectives on the data/information, peer review not yet contracted, so case remains “open”. Nearly closed case is the Mexican wolf recovery team activities, draft reply still pending SOL comments.
Review panel cases are both in Oklahoma – ES. Panel inquires are scheduled for late August.
Informal – one open case is waiting for the DOI SIO to assign it to another bureau SIO, as it deals with Rocky Flats NWR EA and information in the EA about plutonium contamination (former DOE site). That concern is also before the Fed. Court in Denver on the adequacy of NEPA. I recused myself from this matter, since I was ARD-RF during the NEPA activity.
The second informal that is open is the OIG embezzlement case that includes financial matters, federal contracts and falsified field data collected under the contracts, multiple federal agencies/contracts. I will wait until OIG has completed their work. Still coordinate with OIG on this.

19. Resolution of allegations FY 13
Complaints
Closed
Nearly closed
Review Panel
Open
1 Formal 1
2 Informal
Formal – open case has a proposed “settlement” using a combined independent peer review to consider both perspectives on the data/information, peer review not yet contracted, so case remains “open”. Nearly closed case is the Mexican wolf recovery team activities, draft reply still pending SOL comments.
Review panel cases are both in Oklahoma – ES. Panel inquires are scheduled for late August.
Informal – one open case is waiting for the DOI SIO to assign it to another bureau SIO, as it deals with Rocky Flats NWR EA and information in the EA about plutonium contamination (former DOE site). That concern is also before the Fed. Court in Denver on the adequacy of NEPA. I recused myself from this matter, since I was ARD-RF during the NEPA activity.
The second informal that is open is the OIG embezzlement case that includes financial matters, federal contracts and falsified field data collected under the contracts, multiple federal agencies/contracts. I will wait until OIG has completed their work. Still coordinate with OIG on this.

20. Scientific Integrity Allegation Examples
Omission of relevant data in decision document or court testimony
Misuse of modeling in Sec. 7 maps
Interference with data collection
Plagiarism
Contractor fabricated field data/invoices
The first example: omission of relevant data has many cases: actual removal of data, revision of the summary of the what the data indicates, failure to consider new data on the matter, etc. Just wanted to give you a range of the kinds of complaints.

21. SI Observations/Trends
Ombudsman role important
“no surprises” vs. “no bad news”
Adequate peer review
Communication
Modeling, everyone’s doing it
Structured Decision Making
“Prior statements”/”promises”

22. Scientific Integrity Policy Update
Department SIO : Suzette Kimball, USGS
New DOI on-line training Fall 2013
One hour course, focus: Code of Conduct
Who should take this course in FWS?
Closer working with Office of Inspector General and DOI Solicitor Office.
Reprisal actions could be a concern
New DOI SIO has not contacted me yet, or replied to my s.
New DOI on-line training appears to be good. I tested an early version and added an example of misconduct of a supervisor over a scientist, actual case.
See earlier notes on OIG. SOL is beginning to engage more.
Reprisal and whistle-blower protection is a big deal. Two active cases on-going reprisal alleged. This needs Directorate attention and support.
Cost of further inquiry needs to be discussed with Directorate, not covered in policy per se, similar to safety investigations, station pays.

23. Which of the following statements best represents your perception of protection afforded under “Whistleblower protection”?
a. I am confident that I will be protected if I complain
b. I am not sure if I will be protected if I complain
c. I don’t believe that I will be protected

24. Proposed Revisions to 305 DM 3
Add “Loss of Scientific Integrity” per DOI Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct in addition to “Scientific Misconduct”
Failure to abide by code “may” lead to a loss of scientific integrity.

25. Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct, 305 DM 3.7
3 Sections
All DOI employees, volunteers, contractors, Cooperators, Partners, Permittees, Leasees, and Grantees must abide by:…… I will…..
All Scientists and Scholars must abide by: ….I will…..
All decision-makers must abide by: …I will

26. Proposed Revisions to 305 DM 3
Add “self-plagiarism”
Add Ombudsman role to BSIO
Parse out scientific concern from other issues
Add appeals process

27. Proposed Revisions to 305 DM 3
Assignment of “Coordinating manager” and “Servicing Human Resource Officer”
Add Boilerplate language to all science-related contracts, grants, agreements, MOU, etc.
Appendices become DOI website “Scientific Integrity Handbook”
Strengthen Whistleblower protection

28. FWS Ethics Presentation
Scientific Integrity:
FWS Scientific Integrity Officer: Rick Coleman,
(303) ,
Department Scientific Integrity Officer: Suzette Kimball
(703) ,

29. FWS Ethics Presentation
Office of Government Ethics:
DOI Ethics Office (part of Solicitor’s office): 1849 C St., N.W. MS 4251, Washington, D.C ; (202) ,
FWS Ethics Program:
Deputy Ethics Counselor/National Ethics Program Director, Anne Badgley, (503) ,
Requests to serve in official capacity as officer/board member of non-profit organization: Temporary contact: Cathey Willis, (303) ,

30. Ethics Contacts Donations, Fundraising and Solicitations:
Contact while policy in draft: Rebecca Halbe, Refuges (703) ,
Contact after policy final: Laury Parramore, External Affairs, (703) ,

31. Regional/Headquarters Assistant Ethics Counselors
Headquarters - Nicole Hall (703) ; Marion Campbell (703)
R1/8 -Jeff Hardgrove/Michelle Bowden (503)
R2 - Anna Vargas (505) ; Duane Padilla (505) ;
R3 - Karen Schul (612) ; Katie Eull (612) ;
R4 - Fred Thomas (404) ; Ben Livingston (404) ;
R5 -Sheri Kania (413) ; Louise Barry (413) ;
R6 - Kathy Bevan (303) ;
R7 – Mildred Riley (907) ; Helen Stewart (907)

32. If you had a concern about scientific misconduct, how likely would you be to report it?
A. Very unlikely
B. Somewhat unlikely
C. Neither
D. Somewhat likely
E. Very likely

33. Thank you!
Questions?
Discussion?