|
| Robert V. Smith, Editor |
|
|
A Survey of Ethics-Based Policies at the University of Arkansas “Wonk if you love policy.” —Bumper sticker spotted in the Washington, DC Last summer, I was asked to organize a higher education graduate seminar on “Ethics Across the Higher Education Policy Landscape” for Professor Lyle Gohn’s graduate class in the College of Education and Health Professions. During the preparation of that presentation, it occurred to me that many colleagues in the UA academic community might appreciate a “view across the ethics-based policy landscape.” Thus, this article was born with the reminder that a separate and extensive treatment of conflict of interest and commitment has been offered previously (Smith, 2004). So, let’s move on to our policy tour, beginning with a general framework for ethical obligations and policy development. Ethical Standards and Obligations in Higher Education Reading the title of this section, the critic might quip: “There aren’t many!” But, the overwhelming majority of academic professionals I have known understood and respected the covenants of fairness, honesty, justice, fiduciary responsibility, and public trust that undergird our institutions’ daily operations and actions. Our colleagues also know and recognize that if the public trust is abused, governmental agencies will assume the responsibility of dictating our policies. Indeed, those of us who have been around for decades, remember abuses that led to federal statutes or regulations related to animal and human research, employment discrimination, student privacy, and misconduct in research, to name just a few. Academic professionals who serve public institutions such as the U of A also understand obligations to state and municipal authorities. Thus, the development, implementation, and enforcement of university-policies are time-consuming but necessary features of academic professional life. Developing policies occurs at different levels of an institution or institutional system such as the University of Arkansas System. For the U of A, akin to other public higher education institutions, policy approvals are the responsibility of a governing board and in our case, the UA Board of Trustees (BOT). And, as we should all understand, BOT policies have system-wide impact—taking precedent over institutionally specific policies in a parallel manner to the functioning of federal versus state statutes. Accordingly, when crafting policies specific to a given unit of a university system—such as the U of A—one must take care not to trump or contradict policies with the broader authority. To insure policy coherence and validation, therefore, UA general counsel professionals are essential players in policy-making efforts. But, it is also important to take into account input from faculty, staff, and student governance groups. And, while the BOT has the final say, seeking accord among institutional constituents goes a long way in ultimately affecting compliance with implemented policies. In an earlier article on administrative support professionals (Smith, 2005), we considered the role of a chief research officer in enforcing policies related to research and particularly those research-related policies emanating from federal statutes (e.g., misconduct in research). Thus, it makes sense that the chief research officer (i.e., the UA Vice Provost for Research) should have a leading role in the development of relevant policies, seeking reviews through appropriate Faculty Senate committees. In the end, however, policy adoption and enforcement becomes the primary purview of the UA administration, as sanctioned by the BOT. Our policy tour now continues with specific ethics-based policy matters. To begin, we’ll consider federally mandated privacy policies that have a significant impact on UA students and their academic lives. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA, 2005), sets forth requirements regarding the privacy of school records. FERPA governs both the release of and access to educational records maintained by and educational institution. The law requires each postsecondary institution to notify student annually of their rights under the law, to ensure that third parties do not redisclose personally identifiable information except under certain circumstances, and to keep records of disclosures. It also protects students’ rights to inspect, review, and request amendment to the educational record, and to limit disclosure of personally identifiable information. The law applies to K-12 in addition to postsecondary education; however, once a student is in attendance at a postsecondary institution, the student controls access to the educational record except in certain circumstances. Thus, at the U of A, students must grant access to their records by a parent or another third party through signed release forms. Alternatively, if it can be proven by a parent or parents that progeny are financially dependent—typically by sharing a copy of a most recent federal income tax filing—the parent or parents are entitled to access to records of postsecondary students regardless of the latter’s approval ( Rainsberger and Weese, 2001). Besides the access options noted above, an institution may—without specific permission—release specific educational records to:
Under FERPA (2005), institutions “may disclose, without consent, ‘directory’ information such as a student’s name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. The law specifically identifies what items may be defined as directory information; however, each institution may designate items from this list to be directory information at that school. Directory information items for the University of Arkansas are listed in our catalog. At the U of A, the Registrar (in Silas Hunt Hall) has the responsibility for compliance with FERPA regulations and FERPA-related institutional policies and procedures. Let’s now move on to another critical student-centered policy matter involving students with disabilities. Americans with Disabilities Act Passed by the U.S. Congress in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—under Title II specifically—affirms rights to educational access and reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. The ADA builds on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and collectively, the two pieces of legislation are designed to prevent discrimination in public accommodations provided by entities receiving federal funding (Grossman, 2001). In higher education, the ADA and its antecedent legislation guarantee equal access to educational information and reasonable accommodations to students possessing certifiable disabilities. As noted by Grossman (2001), accommodations are subject to measures of reasonableness and students benefiting from the ADA must meet the “essential” (e.g., course requirements), “academic” (e.g., grade point average requirements), and “technical” (e.g., physical dexterity necessary for certain fields such as dentistry or surgery) requirements of academic programs. Relative to academic accommodations for students, the UA’s Center for Students with Disabilities (CSD), based in the Arkansas Union, is staffed with professionals who are conversant with ADA provisions and these staff members have the background, skills, and experience to assess students needs and make recommendations on reasonable accommodations. The Director of the CSD, Anne Jannarone, has also directed me to a web-based resource maintained at the University of Washington—called the “The Faculty Room” (2006)—that contains a wealth of information on services for disabled students, including strategies to maximize the accessibility of course content, program offerings, and classroom resources. There are many other federally mandated policies that impact the delivery of services to students, but the ones noted thus far are probably of greatest interest to our academic community. We now move on to other significant compliance related policy areas that impact principally faculty and staff members, sand students who conduct research. Human Subjects Research Few topics facing our academic community present any greater challenges than potential violations of policies pertaining to the use of human subjects in research. Thus, it behooves our academic community members to be conversant with the background and administration of relevant policies. The common body of federal regulations pertaining to human subjects research (Code of Federal Regulations, The Common Rule, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005) are applicable only to federally sponsored research. Under the "principle of preemption," states, municipalities, and other bodies may not pass laws that lesson the impact of federal statutes. Lower legislative bodies, and universities through institutional policy may, however, augment federal laws with their own policies. Indeed, many institutions—including the U of A—apply federal regulations uniformly to research, regardless of sources of funding. Questions about human subjects regulations or the relevant Federal-wide Assurance can be directed to the staff of the Office of Research Support and Sponsored Programs (RSSP) in Ozark Hall or to the chair of the University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) (see below). The RSSP website (http://www.uark.edu/admin/rsspinfo/) contains a listing of the membership of the IRB and meeting times for the committee, along with information on the University’s Federal-wide Assurance (i.e., to the federal government) that commits the U of A to policy and procedures to insure that subjects do not engage in research without being properly informed and protected. It is in these areas of informed consent and protection where the IRB plays major roles, as noted—just below. Institutional Review Boards. Society recognizes the importance of human subjects research. It also strives to protect the powerless. Subjects enlisted in studies are generally naive about the research process. Their participation may be the first activity of its type in their lives. These individuals deserve the protection of informed consent and peer review. The peer review process is accomplished through an IRB. IRBs contain no fewer than five members whose experiences and backgrounds qualify them to review human subjects research protocols. The UA IRB consists of faculty representatives from several colleges along with the Director of the Student Health Service and is appointed by the Provost but oversight of the committee's actions is delegated to the Vice Provost for Research who coordinates the necessary review and approval functions through the Director of the Office of RSSP. The IRB's chief responsibility is to decide whether research projects place subjects at risk, and if so, will:
Certain low-risk studies may call for review and approval by only one or two members of the IRB (so-called expedited review) or may be exempt from review. Thus, UA researchers contemplating or planning human subjects research should review thoroughly relevant UA policies and procedures, which are available through the RSSP website (http://www.uark.edu/admin/rsspinfo/). One further note: When conducting administrative surveys that may lead to publishable data and data-related conclusions (e.g., diversity climate surveys), it is well to seek IRB-review and approval of the efforts. Indeed, the principal of “erring on the cautious side” is clearly apropos regarding human subjects research. This advice is also apropos for animal research, which will be considered next. Animal Research After World War II, biomedical research involving animals increased markedly in the United States, however, not without some abuses by researchers and animal suppliers. Coincident animal rightists' activities and a heightened awareness of animal welfare issues by the public elicited responses from the federal government. A series of surveys of animal research performed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the sixties led to the passage of the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (and amendments in 1970, 1976 and 1985) and publication of a guide for laboratory care (Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals , 1996). The Guide, plus regulations of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (Code of Federal Regulations, U. S, Department of Agriculture, 1996), contain minimum requirements for the handling, maintenance, and transportation of live vertebrate animals. Institutions receiving NIH funds for research with animals must obtain approval of an assurance document from the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (National Institutes of Health, 2005) committing these institutions to the principles in the Guide (1996). The same institutions must also submit to yearly inspections of facilities by APHIS professionals. A university's animal assurance requires establishment of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC; pronounced "I, a cook") to approve and review animal research and teaching activities (including the field study of wild animals) on campus, and at most controlled facilities. At the U of A, the IACUC is appointed by the Provost but oversight of the committee's actions is delegated to the Vice Provost for Research who coordinates relevant efforts through the Director and staff of the Office of RSSP. The IACUC must have at least five members with backgrounds and experiences relevant to the Committee's responsibilities. At least one member of the committee must be a veterinarian and the committee must also have at least one non-scientist member (e.g., ethicist, lawyer) and a member who is unaffiliated with the institution and who is not an immediate family member of an institutional employee. Information on the composition and meeting times for the UA IACUC can be found on the RSSP website (http://www.uark.edu/admin/rsspinfo/). The IACUC’s primary responsibilities are to insure that the following principles are adhered to in animal research at the U of A: Personnel
Research
UA researchers who anticipate or plan research or teaching efforts with animals should review carefully relevant UA policies and procedures, which are available through the RSSP website (http://www.uark.edu/admin/rsspinfo/). Beyond the ethical issues associated with the protection of human subjects and animals in research, few issues are as emotionally and politically charged. But, research and policies pertaining to the use of biohazards and radioactive and hazardous materials, and scheduled drugs come in collectively as a close second. We’ll continue our survey then with these topic areas—beginning with biohazards. Biohazards Potential or real biohazards include recombinant DNA molecules, etiologic agents (e.g., viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasitic agents), oncogenic viruses, human and non-human primate blood, tissues and bodily fluids, and toxins of biological origin (e.g., those produced by bacteria or fungi such as Clostridium perifringes epsilon toxin). A variety of federal guidelines or standards exist for the use and disposal of these agents, including the Laboratory Registration and Select Agents Transfer Tracking Program, which was established through “The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” and is regulated through the Centers for Disease Control (Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). We’ll consider regulations and policies pertaining to these agents in two sections that follow. Recombinant DNA Molecules . The initial significant research efforts with recombinant DNA material occurred in the early seventies. As noted by Fredrickson (1979), the first few years of recombinant DNA research were marked by controversy. The potential hazards of inserting foreign genetic material into common gut bacteria such as Escherichiacoli were either overstated or misunderstood. Progress in this field of research has given scientists and federal officials more realistic perspectives that have been used to prepare the most recently adopted guidelines (National Institutes of Health, 2002). The guidelines require the formation of an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), which reviews and approves the construction and handling of recombinant DNA molecules, and animals, plants, and microorganisms (including viruses) containing recombinant DNA molecules. In the context of the guidelines, recombinant DNA molecules are: 1, molecules constructed outside living cells by joining natural or synthetic DNA segments to DNA molecules which are subsequently replicated in a living cell or 2, DNA molecules replicated as a result of the steps in 1. If a synthetic DNA segment is not expressed “in vivo” yielding a biologically active polynucleotide or polypeptide, then it is exempt from the guidelines. Akin to the membership of the IRB and IACUC, IBC members are appointed by the Provost. The UA Biological Safety Officer (BSO), who is also the UA Director of Environmental Health and Safety (http://www.phpl.uark.edu/ehs/) in the Office of Facilities Management ( 521 South Razorback Road), serves as liaison with the IBC and provides day-to-day oversight and control of biohazards. The BSO is also available to provide advice and assistance to researchers on the maintenance and compliance in biological laboratories. The IBC consists of no fewer than five members who collectively have expertise in recombinant DNA technology. They must also be capable of assessing the safety of recombinant DNA research and the risks of this research to public health and the environment. At least two members of the IBC must not be affiliated with the university and should represent public health and environmental interests of the surrounding community. The IBC's responsibility in recombinant DNA research is to evaluate proposals for potential hazards and to insure that suitable precautions are adopted. And, in parallel fashion to many other universities, the UA IBC is responsible for all biohazards, not just those associated with recombinant DNA molecules, as will be noted next. Microbiological Hazards. Etiologic agents and oncogenic viruses are two biohazards that require special handling. Under the federal Laboratory Registration and Select Agents Transfer Tracking Program (Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Health and Human Services, 1996) and typical institutional policies, the use of such agents in teaching and research requires prior approval of the IBC. Important components of biohazards policies include monitoring of relevant research efforts including yearly reviews among researchers and supervisors. UA researchers who anticipate or plan work with biohazards need to consult UA policies and procedures, which can be found on the Office of Environmenta Health and Safety (EH&S) website (http://www.phpl.uark.edu/ehs/BiologicalSafety01.htm). Beyond biohazards, academic administrators should be aware of policies pertaining to the use of radiation and radioactive materials, toxic and otherwise hazardous chemicals, and scheduled drugs in teaching and research. Let’s consider briefly these areas next. Radiation Hazards, Hazardous Chemicals, and Scheduled Drugs The use of devices emitting ionizing radiation, radioactive materials, hazardous chemicals (including carcinogens), and scheduled drugs in teaching and research are regulated through policies enforced by safety officers who report through the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration or the Vice Provost for Research as indicated below. Let’s consider each domain separately. Radiation Hazards. Institutional radiation safety policies and programs emanate from laws and regulations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2005), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005), and the U. S. Department of Homeland Security (2005) along with the Arkansas Departments of Health and Human Services and and Environmental Quality (2006). All activities involving ionizing radiation and the use of radioactive materials at the U of A is governed by one or more licenses issued to the institution by the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, the agency having direct oversight responsibilities for all such activities and materials in Arkansas. UA policies and procedures on radiation hazards are available through the EH&S website (http://www.phpl.uark.edu/ehs/) and contain requirements for specific training and authorization of users of radioactive substances and equipment emitting ionizing radiation. The day-to-day oversight and control of radiation hazards is the responsibility of the UA Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) who reports to the UA Director of Environmental Health and Safety (http://www.phpl.uark.edu/ehs/RadiationSafety01.htm). The RSO is also the chief liaison official on the UA Radiation Safety Committee, whose members are appointed by the Provost. The composition of the UA Radiation Safety Committee can be found on the RSSP website (http://www.uark.edu/admin/rsspinfo/). Meeting times vary and are, at a minimum, scheduled monthly. Meeting information can be obtained from the Office of RSSP. Hazardous Chemicals. Institutional hazardous chemical policies and programs emanate from laws and regulations of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) and the U. S. Department of Homeland Security (2005) along with Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (2006). At the U of A, oversight of chemicals that are hazardous to human health or the environment is the responsibility of the UA Office of Environmental Health and Safety in the Office of Facilities Management Department, with specific oversight for hazardous chemicals coming under the purview of the Chemical Hygiene Officer (CHO). The CHO is also responsible for coordinating his or her efforts with the Toxic Substances Committee, which is appointed by the Provost. Faculty members, students, and staff who plan or anticipate using hazardous chemicals in research, must become familiar with appropriate policies and procedures, which are detailed in the University’s Campus Safety Chemical Hygiene Plan (2005) found on the Environmental Health and Safety website (http://www.phpl.uark.edu/ehs/ChemicalSafety01.htm). In recent years, several universities around the country have experienced critical reviews by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and cognizant state agencies for misuse and inappropriate disposal of hazardous chemicals. Resulting sanctions caused significant embarrassment to the cited institutions and fines in the millions of dollars—funds that must be diverted from needed academic and other institutional support. Thus, the use of hazardous chemicals and for that matter, radioactive materials as well, deserve special attention to insure safety, protect our environment, and secure the good reputation of the University. Scheduled Drugs. Various potent drugs are useful tools in biological teaching and research. When required drugs have a high abuse potential they may be categorized as “Scheduled Drugs” by the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2005) of the Department of Justice under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The procurement, use and disposal of such drugs are regulated through University policies that come under the purview of the Chair of the UA Department of Chemistry (currently, Dr. Bill Durham). Questions about the use and disposal of scheduled drugs in teaching and research should be directed to Dr. Durham or the Office of RSSP. At this point, we move from research modalities, techniques, and substances to a final set of ethics-based topics including research misconduct and sexual harassment. Research and Scholarly Misconduct Under recently revised regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Health and Human Services, 2005a), academic institutions have had to update policies on the handling of misconduct in research and scholarship. And, while compliance is necessary only for federally sponsored research, the U of A applies relevant policies to all research and scholarship regardless of whether it is federally funded or not. The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (2006) is the federal government’s contact for research misconduct, which is defined as the fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism of information during the proposing, conducting, or reporting of research and its results. At the U of A, research misconduct extends to the violation of policies related to critical compliance areas (e.g., research involving human subjects and animals). The Office of Research Integrity has produced and posted on its website, two documents that all scholars and researchers should be familiar with: Model Policy for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct (1997) and Model Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct (1997). Additionally, researchers should understand UA policies and procedures regarding research misconduct (see RSSP website, http://www.uark.edu/admin/rsspinfo/compliance/conduct/index.html), including the rights and responsibilities of the institution, whistleblowers (i.e., persons making allegations of misconduct), and respondents (i.e., persons accused of misconduct), along with instructions on the conduct of inquiries (i.e., determining if there is sufficient evidence for a formal investigation) and investigations (i.e., determining guilt through a preponderance of evidence). The above-noted documents also define the roles of the institution’s Research Integrity Officer (i.e., the Vice Provost for Research) and Deciding Official (i.e., the Provost) in research misconduct inquiries and investigations. The prosecution of research misconduct is serious business and in my experience, is accompanied by gut wrenching sessions with respondents and others associated with any given case. But compliance with policies and procedures for research misconduct—along with the resolve to follow-through with allegations—has a moral force that is only matched by cases of sexual harassment, policies for which are considered next. Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment is sexual discrimination, which is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act’s tenets are enforced through the U.S. Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 2005). According to the EEOC, sexual harassment involves, “ unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.” Language on the EEOC website (2005) also indicates that 1) the victim may be of any gender, 2) the victim may be a direct report or supervisor or any other agent of the firm, institution, or organization, or indeed, a non-employee permitted into the workplace, 3) harassment does not have to cause economic or bodily harm, and 4) the conduct of the harasser must be unwelcome. Also, according to the EEOC (2005), sexual harassment may be categorized as occurring under quid pro quo (i.e., where exchange of favors is implied either implicitly or explicitly) arrangements or as a result of a hostile or abusive environment. The latter is typically judged seriously if it is pervasive and severe and may include sexual innuendos, sexually suggestive or offensive signs, graffiti or pictures, discriminatory intimidation, insults, or ridicule. UA policies for dealing with sexual harassment explicitly address the following areas:
Besides interactions among faculty members and staff, the University has the obligation to protect its students from sexual harassment under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A recently published study (Drawing the Line—Sexual Harassment on Campus, 2005) conducted by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, contained some disturbing statistics:
Clearly, it behooves all members of the University community to be aware of and abide by the institution’s sexual harassment policies (UA Faculty Handbook, 2005), and indeed take steps to insure attendance at orientation and “reminder sessions” regularly organized through the Human Resources Division and units within the Division of Academic Affairs. Readers who have not been through one of these sessions should seek enrollments through their supervisor. Besides this article and the one developed earlier on conflict of interest and commitment (Smith, 2004), you may now be wondering: What about other policies that might be deemed “ethics based” such as those involved in anti-discrimination in hiring and promotion and affirmative action (social justice), occupational health and safety (physical well-being), and extramural contracting (fiduciary integrity)? Actually, the list goes on and on—but I have chosen those policy domains that impact most frequently faculty members, students, and staff associated with academically-related activities. It is my hope that this paper may serve several purposes: 1, offer information on ethics-based policies and relevant procedures, 2, provide references to relevant documents, and 3, reflect the University’s resolve to rigorously insure compliance with its policies and procedures in the areas enumerated. Questions or suggestions on any of the material covered are welcome and should be directed to Bob Smith (bobsmith@uark.edu). Bibliography Campus Safety Chemical Hygiene Plan, University of Arkansas Office of Environmental Health and Safety, 2005: http://www.phpl.uark.edu/ehs/ChemicalSafety01.htm (February 6, 2006). Drawing the Line—Sexual Harassment on Campus, American Association of University Women Foundation, Washington, DC, 2005: http://www.aauw.org/research/dtl.cfm (February 8, 2006). Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Little Rock, AR: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ (February 8, 2006). Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services, Little Rock, AR: http://www.healthyarkansas.com/ (February 8, 2006). Code of Federal Regulations , U.S. Department of Agriculture, Title 9 (Animals and Animal Products) Chapter 1, Parts 1 to 3 (Animal Welfare), 1996: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/9cfrv1_99.html (27 Dec. 2005). Code of Federal Regulations , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Title 42 (Public Health) Part 72 (Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or Receiving Select Agents), 1996: http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/lrsat/42cfr72.htm (28 Dec. 2005). Code of Federal Regulations , The Common Rule, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Title 45 (Public Welfare), Part 46 (Protection of Human Subjects), 2005: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#subparta (27 Dec. 2005). Code of Federal Regulations , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Title 42 (Public Health), Part 93 (Research Misconduct), 2005a: http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/regulations.shtml (30 Dec. 2005). Family Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), U.S. Department of Education, Washington , DC: http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html (21 Dec. 2005). Fredrickson, Donald S. “A history of the recombinant DNA guidelines in the United States,” in Recombinant DNA and Genetic Experimentation. J. Morgan and W. J. Whelan, eds. New York: Pergamon Press, 1979. Grossman, Paul D. “Making Accommodations: The Legal World of Students with Disabilities.” Academe (American Association of University Professors Publications), 2001: http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2001/01nd/01ndgro.htm (4 Jan. 2006). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals . Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1996: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/ (27 Dec. 2005). Model Policy for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct , Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997: http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/model_policy.shtml (30 Dec. 2005). Model Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct , Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997: http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/model_policy.shtml (30 Dec. 2005). National Institutes of Health, Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, Bethesda, MD, 2002: http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/guidelines/guidelines.html (28 Dec. 2005). National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htm#gen (27 Dec. 2005). Rainsberger, Richard A. and Faith A. Weese. AACRAO 2001 Guide to FERPA. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 2001. Smith, Bob. “No conflict—No interest or commitments . . . ” All Things Academic, 5 number 4 (December 2004);http://libinfo.uark.edu/ata/. Smith, Bob. “Why administrative support professionals?” All Things Academic, 6 number 4 (December 2005); http://libinfo.uark.edu/ata/. The Faculty Room — Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology . University of Washington, Seattle, 2006: http://www.washington.edu/doit/Faculty/ (4 Jan. 2006). UA Faculty Handbook , Sexual Harassment Policy, 2005-2006; http://www.uark.edu/admin/vcacsey/facultyhandbook/Contents.html (6 Feb. 2006). U. S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/ (28 Dec. 2005). U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ (28 Dec. 2005). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: http://www.epa.gov/ (28 Dec. 2005). U. S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Facts About Sexual Harassment: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html (30 Dec. 2005). U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC: http://www.eeoc.gov/ (22 Jan. 2006). U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC: http://www.nrc.gov/ (28 Dec. 2005). U. S. Office of Research Integrity, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD: http://ori.dhhs.gov/ (22 Jan. 2006).
*Bob Smith is Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at The University of Arkansas
|
|
Last updated: March 10, 2006 |
