We recognize an open Academy as a precious public good. Our pursuit of our academic mission depends upon upholding academic norms, including utmost discretion in handling unpublished matter and transparency regarding commitments and sources of material support.
Over the past few years, both universities and federal agencies have raised serious concerns about efforts by foreign governments to co-opt or capture academic intellectual and creative capacities. This has taken forms such as:
- Recruiting of researchers into talent recruitment programs, including provision of compensation, research funding, facilities, and institutional positions, with individuals withholding knowledge of commitments, compensation, and material support from their home universities, colleagues, and the public.
- Transmission of unpublished matter, such as content of grant applications under review, to foreign governments or their agents.
- Usurpation of ideas, for example by providing information from grant applications in review to others who make private use of the information or seek patent rights based on it. Federal officials tend to use theft of intellectual property to describe such practices.
See, for example
- NIH Director Francis Collins’ Dear Colleague letter describing disclosure by peer reviewers of confidential information from grant applications to other entities including other countries, as well as failure of NIH-funded researchers to disclose sources of support.
- Cases at the Moffitt Cancer Center and Harvard University of prominent scientists withholding knowledge of outside compensation, appointments, and commitments from their home universities.
- National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Director Córdova’s Dear Colleague letter describing NSF’s describing concerns about failures to report sources of support, and emphasizing investigators’ obligations to disclose all sources of support.
We recognize practices such as violations of trust in handling of unpublished information, involvement in usurpation or false attribution of ideas, and lack of transparency regarding affiliations or commitments as undermining the function of an open Academy. We are joined in this view by federal agencies that are concerned about integrity of peer review and proper use of federal funds, and also are invested in the healthy functioning of the Academy.
Maintaining trust, including discretion in handling unpublished matter and other resources. The functioning of the Academy depends upon members’ ability to generate, share, and test ideas, and to develop documents, data, samples, etc. prior to their general dissemination. Violation of trust in peer review, or in other settings in which unpublished ideas are shared in confidence, is a clear violation of expectations of all members of the Academy. Peer review of manuscripts, grant applications, academic programs, etc., require utmost discretion, lest the review process become injurious to those who originate and develop ideas or become compromised by lack of confidence in confidentiality. Similarly, researchers must be free to exchange, develop, and debate ideas, and share materials within research groups, departments, labs, etc. with confidence that these will be held in confidence. Such discretion with unpublished work is complemented by our equal commitment to open and unbiased publication of findings.
Transparency regarding commitments and sources of material support. Colleagues and stakeholders who rely upon the results of our work to inform their own endeavors and decisions have a right to know how our work is supported, and also a right to know of any personal or professional commitments and financial holdings that are relevant to our work. Good stewardship of university, public, and sponsor’s resources similarly requires such transparency. Therefore, full transparency regarding sources of support as well as relevant personal and professional commitments is expected of everyone involved in conception, planning, and conduct of research or in dissemination of results.
Communal and individual obligations
Individual actions have communal effects. In relationships with research sponsors in general and Federal sponsors in particular, a grant or contract involves a legally binding relationship between the university and the sponsor. Failure of any investigator to abide by principles of trust and transparency described here put at risk the university’s relationship with the sponsor and can therefore have effects on the entirety of the faculty, staff, student body, and university community.
Transparency. Anyone involved in the conception, planning, conduct, or reporting of research should disclose all of their sources of support and their professional activities and commitments. Federal agencies specifically require disclosure of all professional appointments and commitments, and all sources of support for professional activities whether monetary or otherwise. When submitting proposals and accepting awards, your Contract and Grant Specialist in ORSP will provide guidance on the various proposal sections (“current and pending,” “other support,” “research environment and resources,” the biosketch, etc.) where such items need to be included.
Roles, commitments, and financial interests outside the university can present real or apparent conflicts of interest. Significant financial interests related to any research activity must be disclosed and must be managed as determined by the Conflict of Interest Review Committee.
Managing commitments. In addition to transparency with regard to the identity and nature of professional commitments, sources of support, and external financial interests, it is important that professional commitments outside the university not interfere with your commitments to your university work. The Rules and Procedures of the Faculty, Section 2.5, limits outside professional activity to those that are complementary to and noncompetitive with university duties. Within specified time limits, such complementary and noncompetitive activities do not detract from one’s ability to devote full-time effort to academic work at the university. In other cases, such as a case of having multiple academic appointments, it must be clear that the commitments are not in conflict, whether in terms of time commitments or otherwise. Federal agencies may require inspection of any contracts that an investigator has with other entities.