Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research MisconductResearch MisconductThomas J. Inzana, Ph.D.Thomas J. Inzana, Ph.D.
Associate Vice-President for Associate Vice-President for Research ProgramsResearch Programs
and and
Research Integrity OfficerResearch Integrity Officer
Federal Laws on Research Federal Laws on Research MisconductMisconduct
Public concern over research misconduct Public concern over research misconduct initially arose in the early 1980’s.initially arose in the early 1980’s.
At the time, research institutions sometimes At the time, research institutions sometimes ignored or covered up potential misconduct ignored or covered up potential misconduct problems rather than investigate them.problems rather than investigate them.
In December 2000 the Office of Science and In December 2000 the Office of Science and Technology Policy adopted a federal policy on Technology Policy adopted a federal policy on research misconduct.research misconduct.
DHHS enacted regulation effective DHHS enacted regulation effective 6/15/056/15/05 ““Public Health Service Policies on Research Public Health Service Policies on Research
Misconduct”Misconduct” Implements legislative and policy changes Implements legislative and policy changes
applicable to research misconduct that applicable to research misconduct that occurred over last several years.occurred over last several years.
Covers any entity that applies for a research, Covers any entity that applies for a research, research-training or research-related grant or research-training or research-related grant or cooperative agreement with the Public cooperative agreement with the Public Health Service (PHS)Health Service (PHS)
Purpose of Research Misconduct Purpose of Research Misconduct PoliciesPolicies
►Establish definitions for research Establish definitions for research misconductmisconduct
►Outline procedures for reporting and Outline procedures for reporting and investigating misconductinvestigating misconduct
►Provide protection for whistleblowers Provide protection for whistleblowers and persons accused of misconductand persons accused of misconduct
Research MisconductResearch Misconduct► What is it?:What is it?:
The Department of Health and Human Services The Department of Health and Human Services defines research misconduct as:defines research misconduct as:
Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarismFabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in in proposingproposing, performing, or , performing, or reviewingreviewing research research results.results.
► FabricationFabrication:: making up resultsmaking up results and recording or and recording or reporting themreporting them
► FalsificationFalsification:: manipulationmanipulation of research materials, of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting results equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting results such that the research is such that the research is not accurately represented in not accurately represented in the record.the record.
► PlagiarismPlagiarism:: the the appropriation of another’sappropriation of another’s ideas, ideas, processes, results, or words without processes, results, or words without giving proper creditgiving proper credit..
Criteria for Research Criteria for Research MisconductMisconduct
Represents a Represents a significant departuresignificant departure from from accepted practicesaccepted practices
Has been committed Has been committed intentionallyintentionally, or , or knowinglyknowingly, or , or recklesslyrecklessly; and ; and
Can be proven by a preponderance of Can be proven by a preponderance of evidenceevidence
What is What is NOT MISCONDUCTNOT MISCONDUCT: : honest, honest, unintentional errorunintentional error
+ = Research Misconduct
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: How Prevalent Is Fraud? SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: How Prevalent Is Fraud? That's a million-Dollar QuestionThat's a million-Dollar Question
ScienceScience 1 December 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5497, pp. 1662 - 1663 1 December 2000: Vol. 290. no. 5497, pp. 1662 - 1663 How often does scientific misconduct occur? How often does scientific misconduct occur?
There seems to be no consensus on the There seems to be no consensus on the answer, although a range of estimates were answer, although a range of estimates were presented at a conference called last month presented at a conference called last month by a key federal watchdog agency to by a key federal watchdog agency to announce announce a $1 million grants program to a $1 million grants program to investigate the prevalence of fraud, data investigate the prevalence of fraud, data fabrication, plagiarism, and other questionable fabrication, plagiarism, and other questionable practices in sciencepractices in science. The 9-year-old Office of . The 9-year-old Office of Research Integrity hopes to support studies Research Integrity hopes to support studies gauging the frequency of misconduct and gauging the frequency of misconduct and assessing efforts to raise ethical standards. assessing efforts to raise ethical standards.
• Department of Health & Human Services Department of Health & Human Services received received
267 reports of research misconduct (2004) 267 reports of research misconduct (2004) • 50% increase from 200350% increase from 2003• 35% of closed cases involve research 35% of closed cases involve research
misconductmisconduct
►What is it notWhat is it not:: Honest error or differences of opinionHonest error or differences of opinion
ORI 2007 Annual ReportORI 2007 Annual Report► In 2007, ORI opened 14 new cases and closed 28
cases.► Of the 28 cases closed by ORI, 10 cases resulted in
sustained findings of research misconduct and/or PHS administrative actions against the respondents.
► Debarments were imposed in 7 of the 10 cases that resulted in research misconduct findings: 1 for life, 2 for 5 years, and 4 for 3 years. PHS administrative actions imposed in the remaining cases were one 4-year supervisory period, two 3-year supervisory periods, and a 3-year certification period.
► Thirty-five percent of ORI’s closed cases in 2007 resulted in PHS misconduct. There is an historical average of about 33 percent of cases are found to be misconduct.
NatureNature 453453, 980-982 (19 June , 980-982 (19 June 2008) 2008)
► SURVEY of 2,212 ResearchersSURVEY of 2,212 Researchers Observed 201 instances of misconductObserved 201 instances of misconduct E.G.E.G.
► "A post doc changed the numbers in assays in order to "A post doc changed the numbers in assays in order to 'improve' the data."'improve' the data."
► "A colleague duplicated results between three different "A colleague duplicated results between three different papers but differently labeled data in each paper."papers but differently labeled data in each paper."
► "A co-investigator on a large, interdisciplinary grant "A co-investigator on a large, interdisciplinary grant application reported that a postdoctoral fellow in his application reported that a postdoctoral fellow in his laboratory falsified data submitted as preliminary data laboratory falsified data submitted as preliminary data in the grant. As principal investigator of the grant, I in the grant. As principal investigator of the grant, I submitted supplementary data to correct the submitted supplementary data to correct the application."application."
► "A colleague used Photoshop to eliminate background "A colleague used Photoshop to eliminate background bands on a western blot to make the data look more bands on a western blot to make the data look more specific than they were."specific than they were."
ORI RecommendationsORI Recommendations
►Adopt zero toleranceAdopt zero tolerance►Protect whistleblowersProtect whistleblowers►Clarify how to reportClarify how to report►Train the mentorsTrain the mentors►Model ethical behaviorModel ethical behavior
Top ten “POOR” behaviors► 1. Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data► 2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject
requirements► 3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based on one‘s own research► 4. Relationships with students, research subjects or
clients that may be interpreted as questionable► 5. Using another’s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit (plagiarism)► 6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one’s own research► 7. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research ????► 8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-
subject requirements
Top ten behaviors(continued)
► 9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data► 10. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source (falsification)► Other behaviors► 11. Publishing the same data or results in two or more publications► 12. Inappropriately assigning authorship credit► 13. Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or proposals► 14. Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs► 15. Dropping observations or data points from analyses based
on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate► 16. Inadequate record keeping related to research projects
Why does misconduct Why does misconduct happen?happen?
Publish or Perish Publish or Perish PressurePressure
Desire to “get ahead”Desire to “get ahead” Personal problemsPersonal problems Character issuesCharacter issues Cultural DifferencesCultural Differences ??????
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT:SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT:Scandals Shake Chinese ScienceScandals Shake Chinese Science
►"Too many "Too many incentivesincentives have blurred the have blurred the reasons for doing science in some reasons for doing science in some people's minds“people's minds“ Lu Yongxiang, president of the Chinese Lu Yongxiang, president of the Chinese
Academy of Sciences Academy of Sciences ►"Though it is difficult to ascertain the "Though it is difficult to ascertain the
number of misconduct cases, the number of misconduct cases, the negative impact of these cases should negative impact of these cases should not be underestimated“not be underestimated“ Ministry of Education spokesperson Wang Ministry of Education spokesperson Wang
Xuming Xuming
How is misconduct identifiedHow is misconduct identified
►Suspected and reported by a colleagueSuspected and reported by a colleague►Failure to confirm research results Failure to confirm research results
by own lab or othersby own lab or others
Institutional Procedures Required to Institutional Procedures Required to Qualify for PHS FundingQualify for PHS Funding
► The designation of an individual authorized to receive The designation of an individual authorized to receive and investigate allegations of misconduct (RIO)and investigate allegations of misconduct (RIO)
► Provisions for an initial inquiry to determine if Provisions for an initial inquiry to determine if allegations have meritallegations have merit
► Provisions for a formal investigation to determine the Provisions for a formal investigation to determine the truth of the allegationstruth of the allegations
► The designation of an individual authorized to The designation of an individual authorized to adjudicate the conclusions of the investigation and adjudicate the conclusions of the investigation and impose administrative actions to redress the impose administrative actions to redress the misconduct or to vindicate the person charged (DO)misconduct or to vindicate the person charged (DO)
► Provisions for reporting findings to ORIProvisions for reporting findings to ORI
Investigation ProcessInvestigation Process
► Allegations reported to and assessed by RIOAllegations reported to and assessed by RIO► RIO reviews allegations, sequesters research RIO reviews allegations, sequesters research
records, and if credible forwards to inquiry records, and if credible forwards to inquiry committeecommittee
► Inquiry report is made and if investigation is Inquiry report is made and if investigation is substantiated records are forwarded to the substantiated records are forwarded to the investigation committeeinvestigation committee
► Initial draft reviewed by RIO and DO Initial draft reviewed by RIO and DO (Provost), and final report sent to all parties (Provost), and final report sent to all parties (respondent, complainent, RIO, DO)(respondent, complainent, RIO, DO)
► Institutional decision and administrative Institutional decision and administrative actionaction
Consequences (if misconduct is Consequences (if misconduct is substantiated)substantiated)
►Withdrawal or correction of all pending Withdrawal or correction of all pending and published papers and abstracts and published papers and abstracts affected by the misconductaffected by the misconduct
►Reprimand, removal from project, rank Reprimand, removal from project, rank and salary reduction, dismissaland salary reduction, dismissal
►Restitution of funds to the granting Restitution of funds to the granting agencyagency
► Ineligibility to apply for Federal grants for Ineligibility to apply for Federal grants for yearsyears
►I.E. the end of your research career!I.E. the end of your research career!
Case Example - Pat J. Case Example - Pat J. PalmerPalmer
Fabricated 6 interview Fabricated 6 interview recordsrecords
Fabricated claim of Fabricated claim of Ph.D.Ph.D.
(B.S. and M.S. also)(B.S. and M.S. also)
Falsified that she was Falsified that she was
co-author on 10 articlesco-author on 10 articles
Did I say I have a Ph.D. in
Epidemiology?
ExampleExample
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: Truth and SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: Truth and ConsequencesConsequences
ScienceScience 1 September 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5791, pp. 1222 - 1226 1 September 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5791, pp. 1222 - 1226 MADISON, WISCONSIN--MADISON, WISCONSIN--After making the After making the
difficult decision to turn in their adviser for difficult decision to turn in their adviser for scientific misconduct, a group of graduate scientific misconduct, a group of graduate students is trying to recover from the students is trying to recover from the resulting damage to their careers. resulting damage to their careers.
One afternoon, in the conference room down One afternoon, in the conference room down the hall from the lab, Ly told Goodwin she was the hall from the lab, Ly told Goodwin she was concerned about her progress: The project concerned about her progress: The project she'd been working on, Ly felt, wasn't yielding she'd been working on, Ly felt, wasn't yielding usable results. Despite months of effort, Ly usable results. Despite months of effort, Ly was unable to replicate earlier observations was unable to replicate earlier observations from the lab. from the lab.
Misconduct as an Excuse?Misconduct as an Excuse?Chronicle of Higher EducationChronicle of Higher Education
► Colorado Regents Vote to fire Ward Churchill (Prof. Colorado Regents Vote to fire Ward Churchill (Prof. of ethic studies at Univ. Col. Boulder)of ethic studies at Univ. Col. Boulder) Research misconduct cited, but Professor says decision Research misconduct cited, but Professor says decision
was political and sueswas political and sues
► Six years ago Ward Churchill compared the Six years ago Ward Churchill compared the American victims of 9/11 to Nazi bureaucratsAmerican victims of 9/11 to Nazi bureaucrats
► The BOR says that the firing was due to “repeated The BOR says that the firing was due to “repeated and deliberate research misconduct that fell below and deliberate research misconduct that fell below the minimum standard of professional integrity, the minimum standard of professional integrity, involving fabrication, improper citation, and involving fabrication, improper citation, and plagiarism”.plagiarism”.
Nursing Professor at Tennessee State Nursing Professor at Tennessee State UniversityUniversity
► James Linn – admitted research misconduct by James Linn – admitted research misconduct by "knowingly and intentionally falsifying and/or "knowingly and intentionally falsifying and/or fabricating the data and results of a study in which fabricating the data and results of a study in which he purportedly tested the effects of an intervention he purportedly tested the effects of an intervention to reduce sexual risk behaviors in high risk, to reduce sexual risk behaviors in high risk, impaired populations of homeless men with mental impaired populations of homeless men with mental illness by reporting false values for variables" illness by reporting false values for variables"
► Published in Published in Cellular and Molecular BiologyCellular and Molecular Biology► Funded by National Institute of General Medical Funded by National Institute of General Medical
SciencesSciences Debarred for 3 years from contracting/subcontracting with Debarred for 3 years from contracting/subcontracting with
any agency of the U.S. Governmentany agency of the U.S. Government Serving in an advisory capacity to the PHSServing in an advisory capacity to the PHS
Researcher Faces Prison for Fraud in NIH Grant Researcher Faces Prison for Fraud in NIH Grant Applications and PapersApplications and Papers
ScienceScience 25 March 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5717, p. 1851 25 March 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5717, p. 1851 A researcher formerly at the University of Vermont College of A researcher formerly at the University of Vermont College of
Medicine has Medicine has admitted in court documents to falsifying data admitted in court documents to falsifying data in 15 federal grant applications and numerous published in 15 federal grant applications and numerous published articlesarticles. .
Eric Poehlman, an expert on menopause, aging, and Eric Poehlman, an expert on menopause, aging, and metabolism, faces up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine metabolism, faces up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine and has been and has been barred for life from receiving any U.S. research barred for life from receiving any U.S. research fundingfunding. .
The number and scope of falsifications discovered, along with The number and scope of falsifications discovered, along with the stature of the investigator, are quite remarkable. "the stature of the investigator, are quite remarkable. "This is This is probably one of the biggest misconduct cases everprobably one of the biggest misconduct cases ever," ,"
Poehlman, 49, first Poehlman, 49, first came under suspicioncame under suspicion in 2000 when in 2000 when Walter Walter DeNino, then a 24-year-old research assistant, found DeNino, then a 24-year-old research assistant, found inconsistencies in spreadsheetsinconsistencies in spreadsheets used in a longitudinal study used in a longitudinal study on aging. on aging.
In an effort to portray worsening health in the subjects, DeNino In an effort to portray worsening health in the subjects, DeNino tells tells ScienceScience, ", "Dr. Poehlman would just switch the data Dr. Poehlman would just switch the data pointspoints." ."
Who is investigated and who is Who is investigated and who is held accountable?held accountable?
► InvestigatedInvestigated All authors that are involved in the All authors that are involved in the
specific data in questionspecific data in question
►Held accountableHeld accountable Primary authorPrimary author Other authors whose results are found Other authors whose results are found
culpableculpable The PIThe PI
Mentor ResponsibilitiesMentor Responsibilities
MentorsMentors have the have the responsibilityresponsibility to to ensure that all trainees (post-docs, grad ensure that all trainees (post-docs, grad students, undergrads) are students, undergrads) are awareaware of the of the responsible conduct of researchresponsible conduct of research Define the RelationshipDefine the Relationship
Role of TraineeRole of Trainee Publication/Authorship Publication/Authorship Serving as PI or Co-PIServing as PI or Co-PI
Obligation to reportObligation to report Good faith reportGood faith report
VT RequirementsVT Requirements Establish policies and proceduresEstablish policies and procedures
for for investigating and reportinginvestigating and reporting instances of alleged instances of alleged research research misconductmisconduct
Respond to allegationsRespond to allegations Promote responsible conduct of Promote responsible conduct of
researchresearch Provide assurances necessary to Provide assurances necessary to
permit VT to participate in permit VT to participate in Federally supported researchFederally supported research
Provide annual reportProvide annual report
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research
Submit Allegations to RIO(Falsification, Fabrication, Plagiarism in Research)
Is allegation within definition of
Misconduct in Research?
Not sufficiently credible and specific
Potential Evidence of Misconduct Identified
Review with standing members of Inquiry
Committee
Complainant
VT Official
Anonymous
HHS or Other Sponsor
Referrals of Research Misconduct
Non-sponsored research and Respondent is either:Classified staffGraduate studentsUndergraduate students
Dismiss Allegation
Refer to appropriate University
unit
Undergraduate Honor System
Graduate Honor System
Committee on Faculty Ethics
Within 7 days RIO performs assessment of allegation
No
Does allegation warrant inquiry
Yes
No No
YesNo
Yes
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research (continued)
RIO Convenes Inquiry Committee· 1 standing member· 1 CFE member· Members and experts as
appointed by RIO for the case
Inquiry CommitteeInitiates Inquiry Process
60 calendar days for completion
· Resolve conflicts of interest within committee
Within 10 days
Prepare Initial Inquiry Report
· Interviews· Examine research records· Evaluate evidence
· Review by RIO for compliance with policy
· Modification as appropriate in consultation with RIO
RIOInitiates Inquiry
Process
RespondentResearch Records Obtain Custody Provide written notification
RespondentProvide written notification
objection to members (within 10 days)
RIO charge to committee
· Brief on Allegation· Plan on Inquiry
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research (continued)
Revise Initial Inquiry Report(if required)
Respondent Review
Prepare Final Inquiry ReportIs Investigation Warranted?
(Majority vote of Inquiry Committee)· Retain records for 7 years· Provide notices· Provide guidance to
Respondent if needed
No
Complainant Review
10 days for comments10 days for comments
Discuss comments on report(Inquiry Committee, the RIO, and DO)
Report to Include· Name and position of Respondent· Description of allegations· Contract/ funding source information· Basis for recommendation including list
of research records reviewed· Attach Respondent’s and
Complainant’s comments· Name and titles of committee members · Whether any action should be taken if
investigation not recommended
(Within 60 days of start of Inquiry Process unless
documented extension.)
No Investigation
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research (continued)
Secure Additional Records & EvidenceORI
Respondent
· Decision to begin· Copy of report· Other information as
requested
· Allegations to be investigated as a result of inquiry
· New allegations to be investigated within scope of initial allegations
RIO Convenes Investigation Committee· 2 standing member· 1 CFE member· Members and experts as appointed
by RIO for the case
Investigation Committee Initiates Investigation Process
Pursue Investigation
· Interviews· Examination of research records and evidence· Pursue new issues and leads discovered that are relevant
Provide Written Notification
Begin InvestigationWithin 30 calendar days
Respondent
Provide written notification
objection to members (within 10 days)
· Resolve conflicts of interest within committee
RIO charge to committee
· Brief on Allegation· Discuss procedures
and requirements
Yes
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research (continued)
Draft Investigation Report
Respondent ReviewComplainant Review
Discuss Comments on Report(Investigation Committee, RIO
and DO)
· Describes allegations· Identifies respondent· Identifies & summarize
research records & evidence
· Describe and document any federal support
· Describe policy and procedures used
· Statement of findings for each allegation
+ copy of (or supervised access to) evidence
Provide comments within 30 daysProvide comments within 30 days
+ copy of (or supervised access to) evidence
Prepare Final Investigation Report
Is there Misconduct in Research?
Committee findings (Positive or Negative)
(majority vote)
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research (continued)
DO Final Determination(Findings and administrative actions)
Notice to Respondent and Complainant
File Appeal Process
Final Decision
No Appeal
RIO ReviewDeciding Official
review
Procedural NoncomplianceFindings
Within 120 days start of Investigation
Within 10 days
Within 120 days of start of appeal
Recommendations to Investigation Committee and DO
DO Determination
Faculty Review Committee or Appropriate Grievance
Procedure
Appeal
Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research (continued)
Final Decision (continued)
Institutional Administrative Action
Appropriate administrative
actions
· Final Investigation Report with attachments
· Statement of whether institution accepts findings (or outcomes of appeal)
· Statement of Whether institution found misconduct
· Description of any pending or completed administrative action
RIO ProvidesWritten Notifications
RespondentComplainant
Others as appropriate
(paper, magazine)
DO Determination
Protections of Complainants, witnesses, and committee members
Restoration of Respondent Reputation
Notice to ORI(Within 120 days start of
investigation or appeal process)
No Misconduct
· Withdrawal or correction of publications
· Removal of person from project
· Restitution to sponsor· Other internal institutional
actions
Misconduct
Notice to other sponsors
SCIENCE: Vol 435|9, p.737 June 2005 COMMENTARY
Scientists behaving badly “To protect the integrity of science, we
must look beyond falsification, fabrication and
plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices”
Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries.
Responsible Research Responsible Research ConductConduct
• The Office of Research The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) defines Integrity (ORI) defines research integrityresearch integrity as as “adherence to rules, “adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted commonly accepted professional codes or professional codes or norms.”norms.”
• Research integrity is Research integrity is essential to ensure the essential to ensure the reliability of research reliability of research results and to preserve results and to preserve public support for research.public support for research.
Information SourcesInformation Sources DHHS 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93; Federal Register/Vol 70, No. DHHS 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93; Federal Register/Vol 70, No.
94, 2005.94, 2005. ““Fraud and the Role of Intensions” On Being A Scientist, Fraud and the Role of Intensions” On Being A Scientist,
Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989, Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989, page 15, ISBN 0-309-04091-4 page 15, ISBN 0-309-04091-4
Martinson, B., Anderson, M.,& de Vries, R., “Scientists Martinson, B., Anderson, M.,& de Vries, R., “Scientists behaving badly”. Journal of Nature 435, 737-738, June 2005.behaving badly”. Journal of Nature 435, 737-738, June 2005.
Office of Research Integrity Office of Research Integrity http://ori.dhhs.gov/ Office of Research Integrity: Case Summary-Pat J. Palmer. Office of Research Integrity: Case Summary-Pat J. Palmer.
Federal Register: February 17, 2004, 69:31, 7488-7489.Federal Register: February 17, 2004, 69:31, 7488-7489. Steneck, Nicholas H. (2004) ORI: Introduction to the Steneck, Nicholas H. (2004) ORI: Introduction to the
Responsible Conduct of Research.Responsible Conduct of Research. WEBSITE FOR THIS POWER POINT FILE:WEBSITE FOR THIS POWER POINT FILE:
http://www.research.vt.edu/reports/Research_Misconduct.ppt
Contact UsContact Us Dr. Thomas Inzana, Associate Vice President for Research Programs, Office of Dr. Thomas Inzana, Associate Vice President for Research Programs, Office of
the Vice President for Researchthe Vice President for [email protected]
http://www.research.vt.edu/announcement/misconduct.html
https://www.fdi.vt.edu/public/modules/selfenroll/_viewevent.php?eventPk1=5885
231-5188231-5188 Linda Bucy, Interim Assistant Vice PresidentLinda Bucy, Interim Assistant Vice President
Office of Sponsored ProgramsOffice of Sponsored [email protected]
Carol Roberson, Special Assistant for Research Contract Affairs Carol Roberson, Special Assistant for Research Contract Affairs Office of the Vice President for ResearchOffice of the Vice President for [email protected]
Questions?Questions?
