SUBJECT:  Draft Revision of UCSD Integrity of Research Policy and
                     Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research
                     Misconduct

The UCSD Integrity of Research Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct apply to all persons engaged in the design, conduct, or reporting of research at or for UCSD, including faculty, other academic appointees, postdoctoral scholars, staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students.

UC San Diego is in the process of revising these policy and procedures. The draft revision is currently being considered by the Academic Senate, deans, department chairs, and research unit directors.

The current version and draft revision of the policy and procedures may
be found online at http://www-ogsr.ucsd.edu/ethics/index.htm

Comments on the draft policy revision may be submitted to Michael Kalichman, Director, Research Ethics Program (kalichman@ucsd.edu, Mail Code 0003, x22027), by May 1, 2003.

The draft revision incorporates a number of changes from the November 27, 1995 policy:

1. The policy and procedures have been reorganized and have undergone substantial editing to make them clearer and easier to follow.

2. Except for research funded by the Public Health Service, the definition of research misconduct has been modified to conform with the uniform Federal definition which includes only fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. For research funded by the Public Health Service, the definition also includes "other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research" because the Public Health Service has not yet adopted the uniform Federal definition.

The definition of research misconduct no longer makes a distinction between "serious" and "less serious" research misconduct.

3. A "Definitions" section has been added, and references have been updated.

4. Several procedural changes are proposed to improve the handling of research misconduct allegations. The most significant change relates to the process for Academic Senate faculty. If the Inquiry committee finds probable cause to believe that research misconduct has occurred and if the misconduct warrants discipline greater than written censure, then a complaint would be filed with the Senior Vice Chancellor-Academic Affairs, who would then file charges with the Academic Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure in accordance with Academic Senate Bylaw 230.

                                                Richard Attiyeh
                                                Vice Chancellor for Research
                                                Dean of Graduate Studies