ML20034C630

Forwards Completed Questionnaire Re Scientific Misconduct at Nrc.No Reported Alleged Cases of Scientific Misconduct in NRC History Exists

ML20034C630
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/05/1990
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Roe R HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY
Shared Package
ML20034C631	List: ML20034C630 ML20034C632
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9005040241
Download: ML20034C630 (12)

Text

.,

e-

.c f ***vq'of j,,'

• UNITED STATES

.[g 9,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,

t WASHINGTON, D, C. 20656

k..... p March 5, 1990 The Honorable Robert A. Roe, Chairman Comittee on Science, Space, and Technology United States House of Representatives Washington, DC-20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed is the' completed questionnaire you requested on Scientific Misconduct at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC).

In the history of the NRC:

there have never been reported alleged cases of scientific misconduct (i.e.,)_

fabrication, falsification, or gross misrepresentation of data'or plagiarism in any of the Agency's applied.or basic research programs.

TheNRCemploysseveralcategoriesofinterna1L(NRCtechnicalstaff)andexternal (independent personnel from the outside)-peer reviews.- Additional--reviews come from various advisory comittees chartered to provide detailed reviews of NRC research activity to assure that quality' work is being conducted. 'The I

advisory committees include the Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee (NSRRC), Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Advisory Comittee onNuclearWaste-(ACNW),AdvisoryCommitteeontheMedical=UsesofIsotopes (ACMUI), just to name a few, NRC is fully aware that peer reviews are not designed specifically to detect scientific misconduct and that no_ allegation of such an act does not-necessarily.

prove that none have occurred. On the other hand, we do expect peer review to-measure the quality of the scientific work under review, and,.further, that= the process of peer review will disclose variance with prior work in the field.

Where we find variance, it is our practice to pursue and resolve the question.

With the amount of review, international.as well as domestic, that the results a

in the field of nuclear safety receives, we-think it is very likely that scientific misconduct as well as error will come to light.

If you or members of your Committee need additional information on this.

subject, please contact Eric S; Beckjord, Director,' Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.

Please keep the NRC informed of the Committee's future activities on scientific misconduct.

Sincerely,

/

\\

g s. Tay r E ecutive Director for Operations-

)

1 Enclosure-As stated MTET ASM SCAN l

cc W/ enclosure:

M. Littlejohn, CRS p

[:j '

\\\\\\

f; 9005040241 900303

\\

PDR ORG NE ED g

ll10C ma.

3

CRS 2

,1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONGRESSIONAL REPORT QN SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT i

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Please, provide an orief overview of the agency's organizational structure, (basic and applied) research activities, and funding level for basic and applied research, respectively, for FY88, FY89, FY90 (estimate),

Program Support Dollars (All Extramural Research).

FY88 FY89 FY90

$89.2

$95.2

$87.9 h

2. What percent of the research the agency funds is conducted in house?

None jj

3. Which omce in the organization is responsible for policies pertaining to i

scientific misconduct?

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l

l

4. Which omce in the organization is responsible for policies pertaining to the.

i responsible conduct of research' i

dffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research i

5. Has the issue of scientific misconduct been formally eddressed by the' administration of the agency? If so, how?

l

.No

[

.t i

6. Does the agency espect to deal with the lesue of scientific misconduct?

If bny questions of scientific misconduct.should arise, the Agency will pursue the y.estion through the Office of the inspector General, which has tb responsiDility for sunn matters.and is prepared to pursue the qw,cion to a conclusion.

't 5

CRS 3 B. HISTORY -

1. In the history of the agency have there ever been alleged cases of scientific -

misconduct (i.e., fabrication, falsification, or gross misrepresentation of data or plagiarism) in applied or basic research? If so:

NO.

a. How 'many per type of research? When was the most recent case?

b. How many were formally investigated per type of research?

4

.i.

c. Describe the way the investigations were handled.

i k.

h i

i i

i

+

CRS 4 C. EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH - HANDLING ALLEGATIONS 1.

Does the agency have 'in place written guidelines specifying the i

responsibilities of awardee institutions in the handling of ~ allegations of scientine misconduct?

N0.

i

a. If so, what are the procedures?

1 b.- How does the agency monitor compliance? ' Issuance of a Statement of Work in accordance with appropriate NRC Manual Chapters and monitor compliance

2. Does the agency have in place written guidelines specifying procedures for through ac o of handling inquiries and investigations?' Yes, Ma"

a. If so, what are the procedures. NRC Manual Chapter 0702:

ct Notification & Investigation of Misconduct.

b. Who would conduct the inquiries / investigations and how-would the.

party be chosen?

The-0ffice of Inspector General with appropriate-tecnnical assistance from the Office of Research.

c. How long has the written policy been in place?

1975

3. What types of penalties and sanctions would be prescribed for those found i

guilty of misconduct? Please specify according to the type of misconduct (i.e.,

fabrication..or falsincation of data, gross misrepresentation of data, and L plagiarism).

Title 18 USC:

1001 (making False Statements); 1341 (mail Fraud);

641 (Theft); and 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud).

If action.is deemed willful:

Inspector General has responsibility.

If action is deemed negligence:

Research has responsibility.

4. How are individuals who report allegen :currences of scientific misconduct in good faith protected from retaliation?

As described by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Section 210.

i L

5. If a person accused of misconduct resigns his position before or during an inquiry cr investigation, will the investigation be completed?

l

. Willful Act (Yes);

negligence (probably not) l

6. Is or would the research community be notified that a person has been found guilty of scientific misconduct? If so, describe the process. If not, why?

If resolved, probably not. The intent is to aadress concerns relating-to the agency and nothing else.

I

4 CR$5' D. INTRAMURAL RESEARCH - HANDLING ALLEGATIONS

1. Does the agency have in place written guidelines specifying procedures for reporting allegations of scientific misconduct?

a. If so, what are the procedures?

s t1RC does not conduct intramural research.

l v

- b. How long has the written policy been in place?

2. Does the agency have in place written guidelines specifying procedures for han'dling inquiries and investigations?

i

a. If so, what are tne procedures.

l 1

d

b. Who would conduct the inquiries / investigations? How would the party -

I be chosen?

c. How long has the written policy been in place?

3. If there is no written policy, how would an allegation of misconduct be;

' handled if someone were to report one tomorrow? Begin with who a person l

- should make such a report.

i s

+

l s

1

4. What types of penalties and sanctions would be prescribed for those found guilty of misconduct? Please specify according to the type of misconduct (i.e.,

fabrication or falsification of data, gross misrepresentation of data, and

)

plagiarism).

-r-

?\\

y CRS 6 N/A y

5. How are individuals who report alleged occurrences of scientific misconduct in good faith protected from retallation?

3

\\.

6. If a person accused of misconduct resigns.his position before or during an.

inquiry or investigation, will the investigation be completed?

7. Is or wculd the research community be notified that a person has been fou6d guilty of scientific misconduct?' If so, describe the pcocess. If not, why?

r i

i k

9 4

k t

1

CRS>7 l,.

E. INTRAMURAL RESEARCH - INTERNAL CONTROLS TO INSURE ~

\\1 THE PROPER CONDUCT OF RESEARCH

1. What written policies does the agency have pertaining to the recording an'd retention of research data, the training and supervision of young scientists, and authorship and other publication practices? Please be specific about the policies.

NRC does not conduct intramural research.

i

\\

\\

]

a. How long have the above mentioned policies been in place?

i

b. How are the researchers informed of these policies?

c. If the agency has no written policies what is'the usual practice in the agency regarding these matters?

j 4

9 i

k b

-l s

CRS N/A

2. What checks are in place to insure the proper conduct of research by a senior researcher?

'l

-l t

i

^

a

!'I

3. Describe your peer review process.

.i f

a L

4. Describe any internal controls or mechanisms of the agency that serve to prevent misconduct or insure the proper conduct of research.

ed

i, CRS-9 ;

F.

EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH - STANDARDS FOR INTERNAL CONTROLS TO INSURE THE PROPER CONDUCT OF RESEARCH I

1.

What written policies does the agency have specifying the practices of awardees or contractors in the areas of recording and retention of research data, training and supervision of young scientists, and authorship and other publication practices? Please be specific about the policies.

No written policy.

e i

a i

-l

a. How long have the above mentioned policies been in place?

b. How are the awardees and contractors infonned of these policies?

i

c. If the agency has no written policies what is the usual practice in the

- agency regarding these matters?

The practice followed by the agency regarding extramural research consists of a statement of work.(50W) written in accordance with NRC Manual Chapters te.g. Manual Cnapter 1102: Standard Work Order with U0E Laboratories and Manual Chapter 5101: NRC-Acquisition of Supplies and Services)..The S0W describes in detail:

(1) the work to be performed;-(2) the expected completion date;

-(3) expected products; (4) number of technical meetings to be held; and (5) project close-out procedures. -The agency's project i

manager is responsible for the conduct of tne work as agreed upon in the S0W.

In-addition, peer-review, advisory committee review.

and tecnnical publications in referred Journals are part of the

)

internal practice to insure the proper conduct of research.

j i

i.

4 i

Q'#

CRS-10 2.

What written standards are in place to insure the proper conduct of extramural research by a senior researcher?

Nothing beyond what is described in item 1.C of this Section.

4 t.

k I

3. Describe your pe~er review process for extramural research.

[

SEE ATTACHED SHEET.

l t

l l

i t.

r

4. Describe any written guidelines regarding internal controls or mechanisms that serve to prevent misconduct or insure the proper conduct of research the agency makes available to awardees and contractors.

l NONt.

l l

l l

i 3.

DESCRIBE YOUR PEER REVIEW PROCESS FOR EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH.

The agency's peer review process for extramural research consists of three categories of reviews:

(1) Examination of beginning research activity.

This category addresses-the questions "what will be done" versus "what is needed to make the work complete." The results from this category peer review are used to determine if the research has taken off in the right direction, is it complete in scope, are there additional tasks that should be included now, etc. An example of this category of peer review was used when NRC initiated its Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) research and asked the American Physical Society to provide a full peer review of the proposed work. The product of the review was a written report whose recommendations were factored 4

into the ECCS research activity during the early. stages of the program.-

(2) Examination of end products.

This category of peer review addresses the issue of quality of work performed.

It addresses the questions "is the work scientifically sound and has enough been done?" An example of this category is the American Physical Society's peer review of NUREG-0956, " Reassessment of the. Technical Bases for Estimating Source Terms." The product of the review,which was published in Modern Physics Review, indicated that some areas needed additional researr.h tasks while other areas required more detailed analysis of completed work to support the conclusions of NUREG-0956.

(3) Examination of Special Topics This category of peer review addresses the issue of. application of research products in a regulatory framework. The major concern in.this category of review centers on the question "is the use or application of the research results technically correct?" The peer review of NUREG-1150, " Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," provides a good example of this category.

The agency's three categories of peer review can be either internal (NRC technical staff) or external (independent personnel from outside the agency).

The agency receives additional reviews from Advisory Committees chartered to provide detailed reviews of research activity to assure that quality work is being conducted (e.g., Nuclear Safety Research Review Committee, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, etc.)

While the agency is fully aware that peer reviews are not designed to detect.

scientific misconduct, the assumption is that when basic and applied scientific research is judged to be technically sound by experts in the scientific community and misconduct is not raised as'an issue by the reviewing oanel, then the agency presupposes that it does not have a problem.

In other words, the agency's experience has been that good science alleviates the need for scientific misconduct by competent investigators.

)

st>a-9 1.I g1 1"} ygg 3

I i

j i-

jii ipgis.i 9 1 13 jji tai; g 11_,]i. i, i

!! g '

g 5L -F 1

.1 ei.

i

!;.. il }'I

{l~j i

t!

i,

' 1' !!I _,F.,i d

i t; r

3 1

ji

.3 o

)

I"-l l

il li i.!i*I i

!;t $

i i

,t.

3 t lill

.i

,s 11 o

{i.

'{.

j!

~ ' l' l

e

[

i i

~

l l i}i Ih l;

!l:

_ i iQjd)' i It

l i

i i

P i l'i

!u a

y1 tin

/>

1 y

r i

i i

i y{'if;

}

i I j! i j! hkll O

l l

1 ';i ';i ' i 'a q

li 1

{}

l

'l

__1

}

j j

_j l

q I

?

il

l lt,

di)i tj

?

I.

i, it l

I 1

o!.

g

?,

i>i Il, t.11 lE;I j 11

}

t i

fjiI II ll ;j}I

!I

,j ~ i l! ;I l j

g i

ti li 11 11 1

its

.L

{4}'I ki ;

i}I j:

2 i

~t 3

't

$lli

}

il g!,

l l

j j

l

~i iii i ___l II i i, }, l.l 1. i. 3 ,I h ) "II, l[j,, I{li !, II, I!, I l ,1 i 1, 1 i i i 1 e }, iio o -}}