1. Birgit Schwenzer, SSMC and MRSEC/DMR
ETHICS
Birgit Schwenzer, SSMC and MRSEC/DMR
Young Investigator Workshop 2017
June 8th, 2017

2. Jan-Hendrik Schön
(Bell Labs)
Patrick G. Harran
(UCLA)

3. Why do we Need Ethics?
Honesty and integrity are requirements for the sane practice of science
Represent accepted practices and norms
Good citizenship
It is the law: If you submit proposals to the Federal Government, strict set of rules determine acceptable conduct.

4. Two Aspects of Ethics in Research
Ethical considerations when submitting proposals and doing research
The ethical proposal review

5. What is the Problem? Reprimanded Fired/losing tenure Fined Ignorance
Recklessness
Malice
Barred from submitting proposals
Reprimanded
Fired/losing tenure
Fined

6. NSF Office of Inspector General
Provides independent oversight of the agency’s programs and operations (audits/investigations)
Prevents and detects fraud, waste, and abuse
Submits semiannual summary report of its activities to the Congress

7. (Research) Misconduct
An instance of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing/performing/reviewing research, or in reporting research results
Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them
Falsification: manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Plagiarism: the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit
Retaliation against a person who in good faith reported or provided information about misconduct

8. False/Inappropriate Charges
Padding travel expenses
Commingling funds
Mixing business and pleasure expenses
Mixing grant funds and personal business expenses
Charging for time not spent on a grant
Charging for work already done
Billing for inappropriate items
Billing for alcohol or entertainment

9. Misconduct Investigation Examples (from OIG Report to Congress)

10. Misconduct Investigation Examples (from OIG Report to Congress)

11. 2. Proposal Review Ethics
Confidentiality
Conflict of Interest
Intentional or implicit bias
We know you share our desire to ensure that proposals receive a fair and thoughtful review
Confidentiality and Impartiality are important to maintaining the integrity of the review process

12. Confidentiality The contents of proposals are confidential
Reviews and reviewers are confidential
Ratings and recommendations are confidential
Panel membership is confidential
Do not discuss proposals, reviews, or any related business with others without the presence of an NSF official
You are welcome to share general information about the NSF reviewer/panel experience and process with colleagues

13. Confidentiality
Principal Investigators will receive anonymous copies of reviews
NSF protects reviews from public disclosure to the extent allowed by law (NSF does not usually disclose reviews in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.)
Copies of reviews may be shared with NSF funding partners, if any

14. Conflict of Interest Institutional Individual Family/Household
Financial
Other
WHAT TO DO: If you think you have a COI or other circumstance that could lead to questions about your impartiality, contact the managing program director before you submit a review.

15. Conflict of Interest
You have an institutional conflict with a proposal when, for any institution involved in the proposed project, you:
Hold a current position at the institution, such as a professor, adjunct professor, visiting scientist, or similar position
Have a financial arrangement with the institution (such as consulting or a paid advisory arrangement)
Were employed by an institution within the last 12 months
Are seeking employment at the institution
Have a formal or informal reemployment arrangement with the institution

16. Conflict of Interest
You have an institutional conflict with a proposal when, for any institution involved in the proposed project, you:
Serve on a Visiting Committee or similar body (Conflict is with the part of the organization advised by the committee)
Serve as an Officer, Councilor, Trustee, or on a Governing Board (a position with a fiduciary responsibility)
Received and retained money from the organization within the last 12 months – e.g. an honorarium or travel expenses
Own stock or other security in the organization that is worth more than the de minimus level (currently $15,000)

17. You have an individual conflict with a proposal which involves a:
Conflict of Interest
You have an individual conflict with a proposal which involves a:
Spouse or family member
Business or professional partner
Former employer (within one year)
Present or past Ph.D. advisor or student (for M.Sc. or post-doc, see collaborator)
A collaborator within the past 48 months
A co-editor within the past 24 months

18. You may have a conflict of interest with a proposal which involves:
The employer or school of a spouse or child
A person living in your household
The employer of a person living in your household
Your parent’s employer (but not if only financial connection was receipt of honoraria)

19. Catch All – You May Have a Conflict of Interest
If there are any other circumstances that could cause your impartiality to be questioned
Would a reasonable person, with all the relevant facts, question your impartiality?
For example, do you share a close personal friendship or strong professional rivalry with one of the principals involved in the proposal?
When in doubt, ask the program director!

20. Implicit Bias In a test of implicit bias, most people
associate science and math fields with “male”

21. Ethics Training
It is highly recommended that you give your student researchers training in ethics
this protects you in an event of their indiscretion
Do it with all your students/postdocs
Do it before they have a chance to do something bad
Ask them to sign a letter of recognition that you have provided ethics training, that it covers specific elements of ethics, and that they know that you expect appropriate behavior
When you discover misconduct
Contact your institution’s ethics official
Report it to the Office of Inspector General if it involves NSF-related activities

22. Resources Office of Research Integrity NSF Office of Inspector General
NSF Office of Inspector General
National Center for Professional & Research Ethics
APS guidelines for professional conduct

24. Misconduct Investigation Examples (from OIG Reports to Congress)
Debarment recommended for researcher who used NSF-funded supercomputers to mine bitcoins [PI debarred for 3 years, costs recovered]
Two Florida scientists (husband and wife) sentenced to 15 and 13 years in federal prison following convictions for fraudulently obtaining $10.6M SBIR awards [ordered to pay $10.6M, in addition to an order of forfeiture of the same amount]
Executive director of non-profit debarred for five years for false certification
NSF debars PI for 3 months for falsely certifying 100% effort on NSF awards for summer months while teaching at a foreign institution
Texas PI and company employee sentenced to prison for making false statements to SBIR program [5 months in prison, $100K paid in restitution]
PI sentenced to 41 months in prison for applying for and accepting an ARPA-E grant for work already funded by NSF
Same scrutiny for NSF employees/rotators

25. Misconduct investigation examples (from OIG reports to Congress)
Plagiarism
A PI from a NY university copied a portion of another scholar’s research goal into a declined NSF proposal and copied a substantial portion of the methodology into a second declined NSF proposal. The university’s investigation concluded that, although the PI’s act was a significant departure from accepted practices, the PI did not commit research misconduct because he acted with careless intent.
OIG’s review of the university’s report found that the university incorrectly interpreted the reckless standard of intent, determining erroneously that recklessness requires a conscious or purposeful element. OIG’s investigation concluded that the PI acted recklessly and thus committed research misconduct.

26. Misconduct investigation examples (from OIG reports to Congress)
Plagiarism (cont.)
A PI at a Michigan university submitted an NSF proposal containing three pages of apparently copied text in the proposal’s five-page literature review. The PI asserted that he had used the American Psychological Association (APA) citation style, that common language use was coincidence, and that he used the author’s words to avoid misinterpretation. OIG determined the PI’s citation practices did not meet APA standards, found his other responses contradictory, and referred the investigation to his institution.
The PI asserted that: 1) NSF policies are nuanced and in conflict with his own literal interpretation; 2) NSF’s requirements for quotation are in conflict with other disciplines’ standards; 3) his field is eclectic and not addressed by NSF policy; and 4) the research proposal is not really research. The university refuted all of these assertions and concluded that the PI committed plagiarism, at least recklessly, which was a significant departure from accepted practices. The university required the PI to participate in a supervisory meeting to discuss the seriousness of his actions, identify steps to prevent future occurrences; take training about plagiarism prevention; and submit all grant proposals to a university official for review for two years.
OIG’s investigation determined that the PI knew his actions constituted plagiarism, knew NSF proposals required attention to citation, and was not unfamiliar with the grant writing process. Consequently, OIG determined he acted knowingly. OIG recommended that NSF require the PI submit certifications and assurances for two years, and certify compliance with university-imposed requirements.