Presentation on theme: "SCIENCE INTEGRITY IN THE FWS"— Presentation transcript:
1SCIENCE INTEGRITY IN THE FWS Office of the Science AdvisorWebinarJune 20, 2013U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceSCIENCE INTEGRITY IN THE FWSRick ColemanFWS Senior Science Advisor and Science Integrity Officer
2Where do you work? A. Field station B. Regional Office C. Headquarters D. Other
3What Service Program do you work in? A. Ecological ServicesB. Migratory BirdsC. Refuges/Partners for Fish and WildlifeD. FisheriesE. Law EnforcementF. Science Applications/LCCsG. Administration
4If you had a concern about scientific misconduct, how likely would you be to report it? A. Very unlikelyB. Somewhat unlikelyC. NeitherD. Somewhat likelyE. Very likely
5Ethics Ethics Program Professional & Personal Ethics Scientific and Scholarly IntegrityPresidential 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 EthicsExecutive Order 1267418 U.S.C. 201 – 2095 C.F.R. 2635FWS Policy, 212 FW 1-11Donations, Fundraising and SolicitationDOI Policy, 374 DM 6Draft FWS Policy, 212 FW 8Scientific Integrity
6Scientific Integrity 305 DM 3 and 212 FW 7 Inquiry ProcessStatus of complaintsSome examplesPolicy update
7Decision making factors may include: EconomicBudgetInstitutionalSocialCulturalLegalEnvironmentalScientific and scholarly information
8Scientific Integrity applies to: All DOI employees and volunteersAll DOI Political appointeesAll DOI contractors dealing with science or scholarship activitiesAll participants in Agreements, MOUs, Grants with DOI bureaus dealing with science or scholarship activitiesVolunteers 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.
9OIG Referrals Allegations of: Reprisal for making a scientific misconduct allegationWaste, fraud, abuseReferred to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
10Scientific Misconduct defined: Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing science or scholarly activities; orIntentionally circumventing policy that ensures the integrity of science or scholarship, orActions that compromise scientific or scholarly integrity, that is not an honest error or difference of opinionAlso see next slide, for additional thresholds/conditions for finding misconduct.
11A finding of scientific misconduct requires: There is a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant scientific community, andThe misconduct is committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, andThe 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.
12Based on my current understanding, are you aware of a scientific integrity concern? YesNo
13Allegations of Science Misconduct or Loss of Scientific Integrity Regarding DOI Employees and VolunteersAllegation of scientific misconduct received byOffice of the Executive Secretariat (OES)Closed case, resolution memo to subject and complainantEvaluation: Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) initial review of allegationNo meritMemo to subjectInquiry: SIO will convene Scientific Integrity Review Panel, or panel of experts to conduct further inquiry, reports to SIONo misconductCorrective Action: working with SIO and HR, Coordinating Manager will determine corrective action, if necessaryAppeal?To OESMisconductMemo to subject & complainant
14DOI Political Appointees? Inquiry process the same as for Employees,Except process is performed by:Department Scientific Integrity Officer (DSIO)
15Allegations of Science Misconduct or Loss of Scientific Integrity Regarding DOI Contractors, Cooperators, Partners, Permittees, Lessees, and GranteesAllegation of scientific misconduct received byOffice of the Executive Secretariat (OES)Closed case, resolution memo to subject’s organization and complainantEvaluation: Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) initial review of allegationNo meritMemo to subject’s organizationInquiry: Subject’s organization will investigate and certify results to appropriate DOI official and SIO, who will reviewNo misconductCorrective Action: Subject’s organization will take action according to their policy. DOI will take appropriate action too.Appeal?To OESMisconductMemo to subject’s organization& complainant
16If I did have a scientific integrity concern I would feel most comfortable first talking with: My co-workersMy supervisorc. Ombudsmand. Scientific Integrity Officere. Office of the Inspector Generalf. None of the above
17SI allegations – FY 12 7 Formal allegations filed with the Department Office of the Executive Secretariat,status tracked by Department10 Informal allegations(calls and referrals to Scientific Integrity officer directly)Referrals from OIG, Ethics Officer, employeesSome informal complaints become formalIt 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.
18Resolution of allegations FY 12 ComplaintsClosedNearly closedReview PanelOpen7 Formal5210 Informal91Formal – 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.
19Resolution of allegations FY 13 ComplaintsClosedNearly closedReview PanelOpen1 Formal12 InformalFormal – 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.
20Scientific Integrity Allegation Examples Omission of relevant data in decision document or court testimonyMisuse of modeling in Sec. 7 mapsInterference with data collectionPlagiarismContractor fabricated field data/invoicesThe 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.
21SI Observations/Trends Ombudsman role important“no surprises” vs. “no bad news”Adequate peer reviewCommunicationModeling, everyone’s doing itStructured Decision Making“Prior statements”/”promises”
22Scientific Integrity Policy Update Department SIO : Suzette Kimball, USGSNew DOI on-line training Fall 2013One hour course, focus: Code of ConductWho should take this course in FWS?Closer working with Office of Inspector General and DOI Solicitor Office.Reprisal actions could be a concernNew 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.
23Which 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 complainb. I am not sure if I will be protected if I complainc. I don’t believe that I will be protected
24Proposed 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.
25Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct, 305 DM 3.7 3 SectionsAll 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
26Proposed Revisions to 305 DM 3 Add “self-plagiarism”Add Ombudsman role to BSIOParse out scientific concern from other issuesAdd appeals process
27Proposed 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
29FWS 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) ,
30Ethics Contacts Donations, Fundraising and Solicitations: Contact while policy in draft: Rebecca Halbe, Refuges (703) ,Contact after policy final: Laury Parramore, External Affairs, (703) ,
31Regional/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)
32If you had a concern about scientific misconduct, how likely would you be to report it? A. Very unlikelyB. Somewhat unlikelyC. NeitherD. Somewhat likelyE. Very likely