Title : IG 96-3505 -- University of New Hampshire Inspection Report
Type : Report
NSF Org: OIG
Date : October 9, 1996
File : ig963505
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Institute for the Study of Earth, Ocean, and Space
Inspection Report
OIG 96-3505
July 1996
Office of Inspector General
National Science Foundation
CONTENTS
Introduction
Background
Purpose and Scope
Findings
Recommendations and Summary of Responses
ACRONYMS
Division of Atmospheric Sciences ATM
Association for Women in Science AWIS
College of Engineering and Physical Sciences CEPS
College of Life Sciences and Agriculture COLSA
Drug Advisory Committee DAC
Formal Investigation Committee FIC
Grant General Conditions GC-1
Grant Policy Manual GPM
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA
Office of Environmental Health and Safety OEHS
Office of Sponsored Research OSR
Office of Management and Budget OMB
Office of Sponsored Research OSR
Personnel Activity Reports PARs
Principal Investigator PI
Small Grants for Exploratory Research SGER
Society of Women Engineers SWE
University of New Hampshire at Manchester UNHM
University System of New Hampshire USNH
INTRODUCTION
The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Office of Inspector
General (OIG) conducts inspections, which are on-site reviews
that assess NSF-funded organizations' compliance and
effectiveness in three major areas: finance, administration, and
achievement of program goals in research as well as in science
and engineering education. Inspections supplement OIG's ongoing
audit and investigative activities by broadening accountability
beyond financial and administrative requirements to assess the
responsiveness of research activities to the goals of individual
programs. In addition, OIG inspection reports provide agency
managers with timely information to supplement program monitoring
activities.
Inspection teams use a variety of study methods and are usually
composed of two to four OIG staff members. The composition of
any team depends on the expertise required to understand the
research, education, or other activity to be inspected. Team
members may include scientists, engineers, auditors, computer
specialists, investigators, lawyers, or management and program
analysts. If the expertise required is not represented by OIG
staff, consultants from the private sector or other federal
agencies may be used to assist in the inspection. Inspections
highlight well-managed operations and help agency managers
intervene quickly when problems are identified. They also
promote an increased awareness by principal investigators (PIs)
and their sponsoring institutions of the importance of
accountability in the management of, and performance under, NSF
awards.
Conclusions and recommendations about conditions described in any
inspection report are generally limited to the NSF directorate or
the department, laboratory, or other sector of the sponsoring
institution described in the "Purpose and Scope" section.
Observations made during an inspection may, in some cases, apply
to the entire institution.
BACKGROUND
The University of New Hampshire (the University) is a federal
land grant institution established in 1866 as the New Hampshire
College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts (the College). In
1893, the College moved to its present location in Durham, a
small town about 70 miles north of Boston and about 15 miles west
of the Atlantic Coast. In 1923, enrollment had grown to 1,188
students, and the state legislature granted the College
university status. Initially, the University was comprised of
the Colleges of Agriculture, Liberal Arts and Technology. The
University is New Hampshire's only public institution of higher
learning with university status.
The University is the largest of the four institutions that
comprise the University System of New Hampshire (USNH), the
state's public higher education system. USNH also includes two
fully accredited undergraduate colleges (Keene State College and
Plymouth State College) and the statewide College for Lifelong
Learning, which is a nonresidential college that offers some
traditional degree programs in addition to noncredit courses and
workshops. A Board of Trustees sets USNH's policies and
appoints USNH's chief executive officer, the Chancellor. A labor
union represents all 608 full-time academic faculty members at
the University. The union's collective bargaining unit
negotiates agreements with the USNH Board of Trustees to develop
policies and procedures governing such issues as work load,
promotion and tenure, salary and benefits, and faculty
development.
The University offers 97 undergraduate programs through the
College of Liberal Arts, the College of Life Sciences and
Agriculture (COLSA), the College of Engineering and Physical
Sciences (CEPS), the Whittemore School of Business and Economics,
and the School of Health and Human Services. Enrollment at the
University's Durham campus for the 1995-1996 academic year
consists of nearly 10,000 baccalaureate students, of which about
6,000 (60 percent) are New Hampshire residents. Another 600
students are enrolled in associate degree programs through the
Division of Continuing Education and the Thompson School of
Applied Science. The Graduate School, which was established in
1928, is comprised of nearly 1,800 degree students in the 1995-
1996 academic year and offers 80 masters and Ph.D. programs.
Since 1985 the University has offered selected degree and non-
degree programs through the University of New Hampshire at
Manchester (UNHM), located in central New Hampshire to serve the
most densely populated region of the State. Approximately 700
degree candidates were enrolled at UNHM during academic year 1995-
1996.
As a land grant institution, one of the University's missions is
public service outreach to improve the welfare of the state's
citizens. This is accomplished in large part through its
Cooperative Extension division, which was established in 1914 to
deliver research-generated knowledge, programs, and services
through educators based in 10 county offices. Cooperative
Extension encompasses two broad program areas: natural resources
and family, community, and youth. In addition to its land grant
status, the University achieved joint Sea Grant College program
status with the University of Maine in 1980 and in 1991 the
University was recognized as a space grant institution.
The University offers interdisciplinary study opportunities in
addition to its core academic and professional curriculum. The
University's Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space
(the Institute), which was founded in 1985, is a
multidisciplinary research institute dedicated to studying the
earth and its space environment. The Institute emphasizes
training and educating students to be future earth and space
scientists by expanding upon existing graduate degree programs,
although courses are also available for undergraduates. In FY
1995, total support for research and sponsored programs at the
University was $41.2 million, of which $17.9 million (43.5
percent) was awarded to PIs associated with the Institute. The
Institute, which was the focus for this inspection, is more fully
described in the Program and Research Review section.
The University's external support for research is provided by
federal, state, and local governments; private industry;
foundations; and foreign and multinational sources. The
University received $25.1 million in FY 1990 and $41.2 million by
FY 1995 from these aggregate sponsors, with most of this
financial growth occurring in the early 1990s. Federal funding
for research and sponsored programs also increased from $18.1
million in FY 1990 to $27.5 million in FY 1995. Fifteen federal
departments and agencies fund research at the University. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and NSF have
been the largest federal sponsors of the University in every year
but two (FYs 1985 and 1987) since as least FY 1980. From FYs
1994 to 1995, NASA's funding to the University decreased from
$10.9 million to $9.6 million and NSF funding increased from $4.5
million to $5.0 million, respectively. Funding provided directly
from New Hampshire State agencies to support research and
sponsored programs at the University was about $3.6 million in FY
1995, which declined from $6.2 million in FY 1994. Federal
support transferred to the University by other U.S. universities
was about $4.6 million in FY 1995. The University regards these
transfers as external recognition for its unique facilities and
capabilities.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This inspection was conducted at the University (Durham campus)
by a team of four OIG employees: two financial auditors, a
management analyst, and a scientist whose Ph.D. is in geology.
We conducted our site visit from February 26 through March 1,
1996.
We limited our review to eight grants that NSF's Directorate for
Geosciences awarded to PIs affiliated with the Institute and
CEPS. All were basic research awards from NSF's Division of
Atmospheric Sciences for the study of the earth's climate and
upper atmosphere. (See Appendix A for detailed information about
these awards.)
We assessed compliance and performance in three areas: (1)
financial compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
circulars, grant award terms and conditions, and other federal
financial regulations; (2) management and administrative
compliance with NSF's Grant Policy Manual (GPM), important
notices, and other agency guidance; and (3) achievement of
program goals, as described in NSF's requests for proposals and
other program solicitations, the award document, proposals
submitted for funding, and as prescribed by generally accepted
research practices.
We reviewed paperwork that documented compliance with award
requirements and interviewed senior University officials and
administrators, faculty members, and graduate and undergraduate
students. The methodology used to assess compliance and
effectiveness for each component of the review is described in
more detail below.
FINDINGS
A. FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Background
The objectives of this portion of the inspection were to evaluate
the adequacy of the University's internal controls and to
determine whether the University was complying with its own
financial policies and procedures as well as federal laws and
regulations. We limited the scope of this portion of the
inspection to testing accounting and administrative controls for
eight grants NSF made to the University.
Inspections are designed to make quick assessments and therefore
do not include the detailed testing used during financial audits.
We interviewed administrative personnel, reviewed prior audits,
analyzed accounting and financial records, and performed
compliance testing.
Observations and Conclusions
The University generally complied with NSF's grant documents, the
GPM, the Grant General Conditions (GC-1), and other federal
requirements. However, we did identify two instances of
noncompliance for which we made recommendations for corrective
action. The University's administrative personnel did not have a
suitable means of verifying employees' work, as reported on their
Personnel Activity Reports (PARs), and the University
inappropriately allocated costs on one NSF grant and could not
explain its method of allocating costs to another NSF grant. We
also noted minor instances of noncompliance and weaknesses in the
internal control structure.
Descriptions of the financial and internal control deficiencies
we identified follow. We believe the University can increase its
compliance with federal regulations and strengthen its internal
controls by complying with our recommendations.
Verifying Personnel Activity Reports
The University's administrative personnel did not have a suitable
means of verifying employees' work as reported on their PARs.
Administrative personnel who signed PARs included a departmental
secretary and business managers in the Institute. The
departmental secretary and business managers did not supervise
the employees, and they did not have first-hand knowledge of the
employees' scientific work. At the end of each semester, 1
business manager signed PARs for over 100 employees, and another
business manager signed PARs for over 60 employees. These
employees included graduate students and PIs. We do not believe
that 1 person can adequately monitor the activities of over 60
employees in a given semester.
OMB Circular A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational
Institutions," states that salary costs may be confirmed by
responsible persons with a suitable means of verifying that the
employees performed the work. The University's PAR procedures
recommended that the PI sign the PARs. If PARs are not certified
by individuals with a suitable means of verification, the risk
that the University would not detect errors in reported work
effort increases. These errors could result in overcharges of
salary costs to federal grants and contracts. We recommend that
the University have the actual employee; the PI; or someone who
is familiar with, and involved in, the research project, sign
PARs.
Cost Allocations
The PIs inappropriately allocated costs to one NSF grant and
could not explain its method of allocating costs to another NSF
grant. OMB Circular A-21 states that organizations can charge
costs to a grant only to the extent the costs benefit the grant.
If costs benefit two or more grants, an institution should make a
reasonable attempt to allocate those costs proportionally based
on the benefit that each grant received. In our opinion, the
University did not demonstrate how it apportioned certain costs
to NSF grants. Below are examples of inappropriate cost
allocations made by two PIs.
Inappropriately Allocated Costs. A PI in the Physics
Department inappropriately allocated costs to federal
grants. The PI used NSF funds to pay salaries that
benefited the NASA grant, and he used NASA funds to pay
salaries that benefited the NSF grant. The PI should have
charged the costs to the grants based on how the costs
benefited the grants' objectives. We believe the following
pattern of events illustrates our concern.
The PI transferred approximately $4,000 in salary expenses
from an NSF grant to a NASA grant so that the NASA grant's
expenses equaled that grant's funding. This transfer
occurred just 2 weeks before the NASA grant expired. OMB
Circular A-21 states that organizations may not transfer
costs between grants for reasons of convenience.
The PI rebudgeted $6,000 in tuition, materials, and
indirect costs to the equipment cost category on an NSF
grant so he could purchase computer equipment before the
NSF grant expired. The PI acknowledged that the computer
equipment would be used on a different NSF grant he had
recently received. We do not believe the computer
equipment benefited the objectives of the expiring grant.
We believe the PI purchased the computer equipment only as
a means of expending the full amount of the grant funds.
If a grantee does not expend all of the grant funds, it is
required to return the unused funds to NSF.
The PI allocated 100 percent of three graduate students'
salaries to an NSF grant, but acknowledged that the
graduate students also worked on a NASA grant during the
same time period. The PI stated that he alternated
charging 100 percent of the students' salaries between the
two grants. We do not believe this was an appropriate
allocation of the students' salaries. OMB Circular A-21
requires that institutions proportionally allocate an
employee's salary based on where the employee expended
effort.
Method of Allocating Costs Not Explained. A PI at the
Institute did not have a basis for allocating costs between an
NSF grant and a NASA grant. The following illustrate our
concern.
The PI arbitrarily divided computer usage and maintenance
charges between an NSF and a NASA grant. The PI could not
explain how he allocated the computer charges to the NSF
grant. In one instance, he charged $3,000 (60 percent) of
a $5,000 computer usage charge to the NSF grant; while in
another instance, he charged $1,965 (39 percent) of a
$5,000 computer usage charge to the same NSF grant.
The PI arbitrarily divided travel costs between an NSF and
a NASA grant. The PI incurred almost $3,000 in travel
costs while attending conferences in Colorado and
California. The PI charged all of the airfare ($911) to
the NSF grant and all of the registration fees ($565) to
the NASA grant. The PI allocated $301 of the other travel
expenses to the NSF grant, and the remaining $1,050 to the
NASA grant. The PI could not provide a basis for
allocating the travel expenses to the NSF grant.
We recommend that the University inform PIs that they must
allocate grant costs based on the proportional benefit that each
grant received. The method of allocation should be clearly
stated on the source document. The University runs the risk of
charging unallowable costs to grants when costs are not properly
allocated. The University should provide PIs with examples of
acceptable methods of allocating costs. For example, the
University may want to consider allocating computer usage fees
and travel costs based on an individual's effort as reported in
the PARs.
Minor Lapses in Financial Management and Internal Controls
The University did not require that persons working on NSF
grants have their travel approved in writing before they
incurred travel costs. The University required that its
employees get prior approval only when they used University
funds to obtain airline tickets from the University's
travel agent. Advance approval of all planned travel costs
would help protect the University from incurring costs for
unauthorized travel. NSF's GC-1 requires that grantees
document advance approvals for each expenditure or action
that affects the grant. We suggest that the University
require that persons working on NSF grants have all planned
travel costs approved in writing before they incur travel
costs.
A departmental secretary and business managers approved
PIs' travel expenditures but did not have supervisory
authority over the PIs. We do not believe a departmental
secretary or business manager is in a sufficient position
of authority to question the PIs' expenditures. We believe
the person approving travel costs should have supervisory
authority over the person requesting the travel
reimbursement. Preferably, the PI's immediate supervisor
should review and approve travel expenditures. We suggest
that the University require that persons only with
supervisory authority over travelers review and approve
travel costs submitted for reimbursement.
The University inadvertently charged $450 in travel costs
to an NSF grant. A University official acknowledged that
the costs were inadvertently charged to the NSF grant. We
suggest that the University credit the grant for these
costs.
One traveler did not document his reason for incurring 2
days' hotel and meal costs that were outside of the
official travel period. University officials stated that
the traveler incurred additional hotel and meal costs so
that he could take advantage of cheaper airfare, which
resulted in an overall savings to the NSF grant. While we
accept the University's rational for incurring the
additional hotel and meal costs, we believe that traveler
should have documented the cost savings. We suggest that
the University require that its travelers document the cost
savings before incurring travel costs that are outside of
the official travel period.
The University did not have documentation to justify an
employee's use of a foreign-flag air carrier while
traveling in Thailand. The GPM requires that air
transportation to, from, between, or within a foreign
country be performed by a U.S. flag air carrier if service
provided by such a carrier is available. We suggest that
the University document a traveler's need to use a foreign-
flag air carrier when a U.S. flag air carrier is not
available.
The University did not monitor its cost-sharing
requirements. The University did an excellent job of
establishing a cost-sharing account at the inception of
each NSF grant. The University set up an account that
tracked NSF's 1-percent cost sharing requirement as well as
specific cost-sharing requirements. However, the
University did not review its cost-sharing progress until
the grant ended. When the University did not monitor its
cost-sharing effort, it increased the risk of not meeting
its cost-sharing obligations. We suggest that the
University establish procedures to periodically monitor
each grant's cost-sharing requirements.
B. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE REVIEW
Background
The objective of this portion of the inspection was to evaluate
the University's ability to resolve allegations of misconduct in
science and determine the adequacy of the University's handling
of misconduct allegations; assess the University's compliance
with requirements for a drug-free workplace, investigator
financial disclosure, lobbying certification and reporting, and
nondiscrimination; and to assess the climate for advancement by
women and racial minorities as scientists and faculty members.
Observations and Conclusions
The University adequately complied with applicable regulations,
disclosure requirements, and restrictions identified as the
principal objectives of this portion of the review. Except as
noted below in the Misconduct in Science section, we did not find
any significant deviations from, or failure to comply with,
essential elements of federal or agency requirements in the areas
encompassed by this portion of the review.
Misconduct in Science
We reviewed the University's "Definition of Professional
Misconduct Including Research Misconduct (Definition)" and
"Procedures for Handling Allegations of Professional Misconduct
Including Research Misconduct (Procedure)" as well as the
"Bulletin of the University of New Hampshire;" the "Student
Rights," "Rules," and "Responsibilities; the Professional,
Administrative and Technical Handbook;" the "Personnel Policies
as of January 1995;" the "Commonplace Book," "A Faculty Guide to
the University and Community Resources;" and the "Faculty
Handbook." We interviewed the University's Interim Vice
President for Research and Public Service, who is the designated
university misconduct official, and the Executive Director of the
Office of Sponsored Research. We also discussed misconduct in
science during our interviews with the dean, chairpersons,
faculty members, students, and support staff.
General Definition of Misconduct. The University's
"Definition" does not articulate a general definition of
misconduct in science. Instead, it lists several examples of
misconduct. We believe the absence of a definition leaves
faculty members and students without a clear idea of what is
covered by the "Definition," beyond the stated examples. We are
concerned that the lack of a general definition could hamper the
University, if challenged, from justifying the pursuit of an
unlisted example as an issue of misconduct in science.
Procedure Requires Two Inquiries. The University's
"Procedure" appears to require two inquiries. When an allegation
of misconduct in science is reported "to the department chair,
dean of the college or next higher administrative officer of the
accused individual," an "administrative review" is conducted.
[T]he immediate administrative supervisor (usually
the Chair), shall, within ten (10) working days,
report the allegation in full and in writing to
the accused individual without identifying the
individual(s) who initiated the report. During
this 10-day period, the department Chair and
his/her college Dean (and the Vice President for
Research where research matters are involved)
shall conduct a confidential administrative
review. If they find the charge is without
substance, they shall document their decision, and
the case will be dropped. . . .
However, if they "find reasonable grounds to the charge, they
shall advise the accused of their findings in writing, identify
the accuser(s) to the accused, present the accused with a copy of
the procedures document, and immediately thereafter appoint a
committee of peers of the accused to determine whether a formal
investigation is warranted. . . ."[1] The University's
"Procedure" states that "[w]ithin 10 days following transmittal
of the Peer Committee report to the chair and the college Dean
(and Vice President for Research where applicable), the Peer
Committee along with the Chair and Dean will vote to pursue or
drop the charges, based on the evidence." In the event "the vote
is to pursue the charge based on evidence collected and
importance of the misconduct to the University, then the parties
(accused versus Chair/Dean) may agree to binding adjudication by
the Peer Committee. . . ." However, "[i]f the option for binding
adjudication by the Peer Committee is not agreed upon by the
parties, then a formal investigation committee shall be
appointed."
In our discussion with the Interim Vice President for Research
and Public Service, we noted that NSF's "Misconduct in Science
and Engineering" regulation, C.F.R. 45 part 689.1(c), specifies
that "[a]n 'inquiry' consists of preliminary information-
gathering and preliminary fact-finding to determine whether an
allegation or apparent instance of misconduct has substance. An
investigation must be undertaken if the inquiry determines the
allegation or apparent instance of misconduct has substance."
The "administrative review" as described by the University's
"Procedure" appears to be the initial inquiry that determines
whether the allegation "is without substance," or has "reasonable
grounds." We think that if "reasonable grounds" are determined
as a result of this initial inquiry, NSF should be notified and a
University investigation initiated. However, the University's
"Procedure" requires the formation of a Peer Committee to do a
second, more rigorous, inquiry that appears to go beyond
preliminary information gathering and fact-finding, and, in fact,
appears to be more like an informal investigation.
After the Peer Committee submits its inquiry report to the "Chair
and college Dean (and Vice President for Research where
applicable), the Peer Committee along with the Chair and Dean
will vote to pursue or drop the charges, based on the evidence."
If the vote is to pursue, "the parties (accused versus
Chair/Dean) may agree to binding adjudication." However, in the
event "the option for binding adjudication by the Peer Committee
is not agreed upon by the parties, then a formal investigation
committee shall be appointed." We are concerned that, if the
parties agree to "binding adjudication," according to the
"Procedure," NSF would not be notified, even though an allegation
has been determined to have substance.
If NSF receives an allegation of misconduct in science against an
NSF-supported PI, it is our practice to defer allegations that
have substance to the grantee institution whenever it is
feasible. However, based on the University's "Procedure," it is
unclear, if we were to defer an allegation to the University for
investigation, whether a Peer Committee would be formed as a
prelude to a formal investigation. Consequently, it is possible
that the allegation could be resolved through "binding
adjudication" without a formal investigation. Further, it is
possible that the "binding adjudication" could include the
imposition of sanctions. NSF's regulation states that sanctions
are only imposed after an investigation is completed and the case
is adjudicated (45 C.F.R. part 689.1(c)). Given the current
University "Procedure," we are concerned about the University's
ability to accept deferral of an allegation of misconduct in
science.
We also believe the failure to fully investigate substantive
allegations of misconduct in science, as is permitted by the
University's "Procedure," raises concerns about the "Procedure's"
adequacy to protect federal funds and the "Procedure's" capacity
to preserve the integrity of science. By accepting "binding
adjudication" with a substantive allegation, the University
prevents a more thorough and formal investigation and therefore
likely leaves some aspects of the allegation unresolved. For
example, without a formal investigation, it is unlikely that a
complete and careful assessment of the accuracy of the subject's
work, including relevant associated publications, is accomplished
or that a careful evaluation of the subject's behavior, including
whether it was part of a pattern, is assessed. Failure to fully
investigate a substantive allegation of misconduct in science
associated with an NSF-supported activity does not appear to
adequately protect federal funds and could give the impression
that the scientific community is reluctant or unable to fairly
and fully monitor itself.
According to the "Procedure," the Peer Committee is told that, if
it votes to pursue an allegation, it is then to consider the
"evidence collected and importance of the misconduct to the
University. . . ." We are concerned that this charge could
influence the Peer Committee as to how rigorously it pursues a
substantive allegation of misconduct in science. We believe that
any substantive allegation of misconduct in science should be
fully investigated regardless of its importance to the
University.
Allegations Against Students. In our discussion with the
Interim Vice President for Research and Public Service and the
Executive Director of the Office of Sponsored Research, we were
told that the University's "Procedure" could be interpreted as
covering students and postdoctoral researchers as well as faculty
and professional staff members. We believe that, because the
University's "Procedure" does not include students in the
Reporting section, students participating in NSF-supported
activities, who are alleged to have committed misconduct in
science, could be pursued under "The Student Code of Conduct and
Judicial Process" described in the "Student Rights," "Rules," and
"Responsibilities." There is no provision in the student's code
of conduct that specifies that NSF should be notified if an
allegation of misconduct in science against a student supported
by an NSF grant is determined to have substance. Consequently,
it is unclear whether the University would comply with NSF's
regulation to notify our agency if such an event occurs.
Further, we are concerned that any inquiry or investigation
committee formed under the "The Student Code of Conduct and
Judicial Process" might not have the necessary scientific
expertise to fairly and completely evaluate an allegation of
misconduct in science.
Protection of Complainants. The University's "Procedure"
provides no protection for the complainant once an
"administrative review" determines that there are "reasonable
grounds" to proceed. We believe this lack of protection may
discourage individuals from bringing troubling situations related
to misconduct in science to the administration's attention. This
would be especially true if the complainant were in a subordinate
position with respect to the subject, such as a graduate student
alleging misconduct by a faculty member, or an assistant
professor alleging misconduct by a full professor. We believe
the University should consider procedures that, at a minimum,
better maintain the confidentiality of subordinate complainants.
Further, we are concerned that the University's "Procedure," in
general, provides no protection against possible retaliation
against a complainant who brings, in good faith, an allegation of
misconduct in science to the administration's attention.
Adjudications. The University's "Procedure" states that the
College Dean initiates "proceedings for appropriate disciplinary
action only as the FIC [Formal Investigation Committee] finds."
We believe the adjudicator should not be bound or limited by the
FIC's findings, but, instead, should independently, after
carefully reviewing and considering the FIC's findings, make the
final determination. Further, the University's "Procedure"
provides no guidelines as to the possible sanctions that the FIC
might recommend or the adjudicator might impose if misconduct in
science is found to have occurred. We believe the University's
"Procedure" should contain a clear statement as to the range of
sanctions available. This statement would provide guidance to
the FIC and clarify to the community the University's position on
the seriousness of misconduct.
Standard of Proof. The University's "Procedure" does not
specify a standard of proof (for example, preponderance of the
evidence, clear and convincing, etc.) that must be met for the
FIC to find "professional misconduct." A clearly stated standard
of proof would guide the FIC in its assessment of whether there
is sufficient evidence to find misconduct. It would also prevent
each FIC member from applying a different criterion and provide
consistency from one investigation to another. Further, for NSF
to consider using the University's FIC report in lieu of its own,
we need an assessment of the evidence using NSF's standard of
proof-a preponderance of the evidence. We believe the University
should specify a standard of proof that must be met to find
misconduct.
Notification of Funding Agencies. We noted that the
University's "Procedure" allows for the notification of funding
agencies "[i]f the allegation involves misuse of research funds
supported by a federal, state, or private granting agency. . . ."
It is not clear what would happen if an allegation arose against
someone supported by NSF for a nonresearch activity, such as an
education initiative. We believe the University's "Procedure"
should make it clear that all NSF-funded activities are included.
Anonymous or Oral Allegations. We are concerned that the
University's "Procedure" does not allow for the acceptance of an
anonymous or oral allegation from a complainant. The Interim
Vice President for Research and Public Service discussed, as an
example, how his office would carefully handle any anonymous
allegation it received. However, we believe the University's
policy should clarify that anonymous allegations, whether oral or
written, are acceptable. We occasionally receive anonymous
allegations from complainants that, because they believe they may
be retaliated against, wish to remain anonymous. We also receive
oral allegations from complainants who wish to inform us of their
concerns but do not wish to prepare written documentation. We do
not think the form in which an allegation is received should, in
any way, preclude the University's handling of the matter.
Faculty and Student Awareness of the "Procedure." The Interim
Vice President for Research and Public Service was unsure of how
aware faculty members and students were about the University's
"Procedure." Most of the faculty members we talked with were
aware the University had a policy, but they were unaware of its
contents. The University's "Procedure," which was approved in
1989, is not published in any of the documentation we reviewed
including the "Faculty Handbook" (last published in 1984); the
"Professional, Administrative and Technical Handbook; the
Personnel Policies as of January 1995;" and the "Commonplace
Book," "A Faculty Guide to the University and Community
Resources." We believe faculty members and students need to have
ready access to the University's "Procedure" so that, if
questions about the University's "Procedure" arise, they will
know where to find it.
The faculty members we interviewed described several different
approaches they would follow if they suspected misconduct in
science or received an allegation from another source about
misconduct in science. These approaches ranged from dealing with
the problem directly to taking the problem to a group leader, a
student's faculty advisor, the chairperson, or the Vice President
of Research and Public Service. All of the faculty members
believed that an allegation against a student would be handled
fairly. We were told that no allegations of misconduct in
science had been brought to the Interim Vice President for
Research and Public Service's attention since his appointment at
the beginning of the 1994-1995 academic year.
The faculty members we interviewed were not aware of any
University initiative to assist faculty members or students with
issues related to the ethics of science and engineering
practices. Most of the faculty members we talked with explained
that this information was provided through one-on-one experiences
between themselves and their students. We were told the
Engineering Department offers a two-course sequence for
undergraduates that covers the ethics of engineering, and the
Earth Sciences Department provides a handout that guides students
in paper preparation. We were also told the seminar the
Institute offers its graduate students discusses ethical issues
at times. We are concerned that there is no obvious University
initiative that encourages the community to discuss and learn
about the ethical issues in science and engineering.
NSF-supported students were unaware of the University's
"Procedure" for dealing with misconduct in science. Most
students said they would feel comfortable bringing a troubling
situation to their advisor or department chairperson's attention.
Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
Our limited review indicated that the University is making a good
faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace and campus. The
"Information about Campus Safety, Alcohol, & Illegal Drugs"
brochure addresses the University's policy regarding the use of
alcohol and illegal drugs, federal drug laws, health risks
associated with illegal drug use and alcohol abuse, and
information on assistance services. We were told that this
brochure is mailed annually to all faculty, staff, and students.
A separate booklet is mailed annually to faculty and staff
members that summarizes the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the
University's policy regarding the use of alcohol and controlled
substances in the workplace, available assistance services,
health risks of drug use, federal penalties for trafficking and
possessing illicit drugs, and state laws about trafficking and
possessing alcohol and illicit drugs as well as driving under the
influence of drugs or alcohol.
The University's Drug Advisory Committee (DAC) examines alcohol-
and drug-related problems within the University community and
makes recommendations to the University President in the areas of
policy, education, and assistance services relating to alcohol
and drugs. Since its inception in 1978, DAC's accomplishments
have included supporting the implementation of the University's
Employee Assistance Program, developing and implementing the
University's Alcohol/Drug Awareness Weeks, and creating a Health
Educator position to implement alcohol education programs.
The University's Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Education
Program and Assistance Service (Program), which was established
in 1982, is supervised by the Associate Director of Health
Services, coordinated by a Health Educator, and staffed by
trained student interns. The Health Educator works closely with
the University's Health Education and Promotion Office to provide
the University community with educational programs, assistance
services, and a resource library regarding alcohol and drug
abuse. The Program is funded primarily through the mandatory
student health fee, which is collected from undergraduate and
graduate students as well as full-time, nondegree students every
academic year ($302 per student for 1994-1995).
Since March 1992, the Employee Assistance Program has been
available to University employees and provides up to six free
visits. Additionally, the University's Office of Environmental
Health and Safety (OEHS) conducts an employee safety orientation
that all new University employees are required to attend once.
The Director of OEHS told us that these orientations are held
weekly at the beginning of every fall semester and several times
a month thereafter for the rest of the school year.
Lobbying Restrictions
The Byrd Amendment on Lobbying Reform (31 U.S.C. -1352) generally
prohibits recipients of federal contracts, loans, or grant awards
from using appropriated funds for lobbying in connection with
these awards. The law requires certification with each proposal
that federal funds have not been used for lobbying and disclosure
of some information if nonappropriated funds have been used for
lobbying.
The University had submitted the required certifications to NSF
for the eight awards we reviewed. University officials stated
that the University does not participate in lobbying efforts of
any kind. Our limited review did not identify any concerns in
this area.
Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action
The University's six "Equal Employment Opportunity Policy
Statements (EEO Statements)" cover Equal Employment Opportunity,
Affirmative Action, Equal Education Opportunity, Employment of
the Disabled, Employment of Veterans, and Sex Discrimination
Guidelines. These statements are widely disseminated in various
University publications including catalogs, handbooks, manuals,
and job advertisements. The "University's Affirmative Action
Plan for Minorities and Women (Plan)" states that USNH's Board of
Trustees (Trustees) is ultimately responsible for equal
employment opportunity and its achievement through the "Plan."
The Trustees delegate the responsibility for compliance with the
laws and regulations to the Chancellor, who, in turn, delegates
the responsibility for the overall planning, coordination, and
reporting of the "Plan" to the USNH Director of Human Resources
(Director). The Director works with the Affirmative Action
Offices at every institution that is included in USNH to ensure
compliance with federal and state regulations concerning
nondiscrimination. The "Plan" further states that every Vice
President, Dean, Director, and/or Department Head is responsible
for the implementation of the plan at his/her institution.
The University President's Commission on the Status of Women
(Commission) was established in 1972 to explore conditions
relating to the mobility and equality of women at the University
and UNHM and to encourage the full participation of women at all
levels: undergraduate and graduate students; part- and full-time
faculty members; operating staff (skilled craftswomen, clerical,
service/maintenance, and technical); and professional,
administrative, and technical, staff. The Commission's February
1996 "Draft Report on the Status of Women (Draft Report)" for
academic year 1993-1994 states that the "chilly climate" for
women at the University has not substantially improved over the
last 5 years. The Commission advised the University to hire
additional women at the full professor level, rather than waiting
for women "to work their way up through the ranks."
According to figures provided by the University for full-time
faculty members, the number of female tenure and tenure-track
faculty members was the same in 1995-1996 as it was in 1993-1994,
and the number of minority female tenure and tenure-track faculty
members has decreased from 8 to 6.
Full-Time Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty Members
Number (Percent) of Number
(Percent) of
Total Faculty Female Faculty Minority
Female
Year Members Members Faculty
Members
1993-1994 620 176 (28.4) 8 (1.3)
1994-1995 614 177 (28.8) 7 (1.1)
1995-1996 608 176 (28.9) 6 (1.0)
University figures for full-time, tenure and tenure-track faculty
members show that in 1993-1994, 21 (10.2 percent) of the 206 full
professors were female, and 88 (32.4 percent) of the 272
associate professors were female. Comparable figures for 1995-
1996 show that the numbers have increased slightly: 29 (13
percent) of the 224 full professors were female, and 95 (35
percent) of the 272 associate professors were female.
According to fall 1995 figures provided by the University for
full- and part-time students, women constitute 57 percent of
undergraduate population (6,034 of 10,620) and 57 percent of the
graduate student population (1,021 of 1,794). Most of the
undergraduate and graduate students are white, 90.9 percent and
82.2 percent, respectively.
Demographics [2] reveal that 98 percent of New Hampshire's
residents are white, and figures provided by the University show
that about 60 percent of its under-graduate and graduate students
are New Hampshire residents. Minority enrollment of
undergraduate students consists of 194 Asian Americans (108
females, 86 males), 80 African Americans (25 females and 55
males), 128 Hispanic Americans (71 females and 57 males), and 20
Native Americans (10 females and 10 males). The 1994 University
report, "Building a New University Community: Minority Student
and Faculty Recruitment and Retention at the University," states
that although minorities represented 2.8 percent of the
undergraduate population in the fall of 1994, the University's
goal is to have a range of 7.5 percent by 2005, with intermediate
checkpoints of 3 percent by the fall of 1995 and 5 percent by the
fall of 2000. The University has achieved the fall 1995 goal
with a minority undergraduate representation of 3.5 percent.
NSF has a continuing commitment to increasing the participation
of women and minorities in science and engineering. In addition
to reviewing compliance with nondiscrimination regulations, we
seek to learn about any initiatives, mechanisms, or programs that
have increased or may contribute to increasing the presence of
women, racial minorities, and other underrepresented groups in
science and engineering and that may be successfully modeled at
other institutions. Several University officials and faculty
members told us that much of the outreach to women and minorities
in science and engineering was often informal and/or by an
individual faculty member's initiative. For example, one
University official told us about his outreach efforts to
minority high school students. Over the past several years, this
official has visited with students at science and math high
schools in the Boston and New York areas who indicated an
interest in the University. He spoke with the students about the
role of education in their future, and he hoped to stimulate the
students into thinking about and preparing for college.
Interested students were invited to visit the University for a
tour of the facilities and the chance to meet University
professors, students, and other personnel. Unfortunately, these
informal outreach activities were not formally documented, and
involved students were not tracked, so the success and value of
these initiatives is unknown. While this outreach is
commendable, we encourage the University to support these efforts
by keeping records that will provide a more thorough evaluation
of the activities. Also, formalizing the process might provide
more visibility and thus increase participation in, and support
of, the activities. During our inspection, we interviewed
several other individuals who informed us about some established
programs that are geared to women and underrepresented minorities
in science and engineering. Brief descriptions of some of these
programs follow.
McNair Graduate Opportunity Program (McNair Program).
Funded by the Department of Education since 1992, the
purpose of the McNair Program is to prepare eligible
undergraduate students to pursue doctoral degrees.
Eligible applicants must either be (1) a low-income and
first-generation college student or (2) an underrepresented
minority student (African American, Alaskan Native,
American Indian, Hawaiian Native, or Hispanic). Also, the
applicants must demonstrate academic ability and achieve
junior or senior standing (but not graduated), plan to
apply to graduate school with the intent of pursuing a
doctorate, and be a citizen or permanent resident of the
United States. Students selected as McNair Fellows
participate in a 10-week instructional/research experience
at the University that includes a $2,400 stipend, workshops
and seminars on preparing for graduate school, research and
writing skills, and mentoring throughout the Program from
University faculty members. McNair Fellows must complete a
research project and a written report over the 10-week
course and present the project's results at a research
symposium. About 15 students per year have participated in
the McNair Program since its inception at the University.
The Department of Education provided $192,255 for the
McNair Program for academic year 1994-1995. Of the 20 (16
females and 4 males) McNair Fellows in 1995, there were: 1
American Indian/Alaskan Native, 4 African Americans, and 3
Hispanic students.
Society of Women Engineers (SWE). The University's SWE
chapter is open to female undergraduate students in the
University's CEPS and COLSA and to female graduate students
studying science and engineering at the University. Most
of the University's SWE chapter members (about 25 in spring
1996) are undergraduate female students from CEPS. The
University's SWE chapter officers are student members, and
there is a faculty advisor who oversees the chapter and a
professional advisor who is available to offer career
advice. Senior students (Big Sisters) are paired with
younger students (Little Sisters) for mentoring. The
University's SWE chapter meets biweekly, and annual dues
are $15 ($12 goes to SWE and $3 goes to the University's
SWE chapter). The members also sell sweatshirts and T-
shirts to cover special trips to SWE conferences or special
events. The President of the University's SWE chapter told
us she regularly contacts industry representatives to
address the members about their career experiences. Also,
every semester, the University's SWE chapter works with
high school guidance counselors throughout the state to
coordinate Shadow Day. Interested junior and senior female
high school students are required to write an essay
explaining their interest in Shadow Day, where they have
the opportunity to follow a University SWE chapter member
through a typical college day. About 20 high school
students participated in the spring 1996 Shadow Day. CEPS
contributes about $150 toward Shadow Day expenses, which
include lunch, postage, and photocopying.
The Association for Women in Science (AWIS). The
University's AWIS chapter started in 1988 and is available
to female faculty members and graduate students (there are
roughly 20 members). We were told that the University's
AWIS chapter meets informally every week and that there is
a potluck dinner for members once every semester. One
female faculty member told us that she finds the
University's AWIS chapter very supportive and that she
learned the tenure process better through informal
discussion at the weekly meetings than through the
University's written procedures provided. The University's
AWIS chapter has cosponsored a variety of programs on
campus, including a workshop entitled, "Graduate Students
in the Sciences Funding Workshop," and science and
engineering seminars with guest speakers from other
universities. Additionally, the University's AWIS chapter
is a cosponsor for the Women in Science Poster Session that
is held during Women's History Month at the University.
Female researchers have the opportunity at the Poster
Session to describe and present their work in the form of a
poster that is displayed on campus.
Financial Disclosure
We assessed the University's policy and procedures for PIs
regarding conflicts of interest, as described in the
"University's Policy on Financial Conflict of Interest in
Research (University Policy),"[3] to determine whether it met the
minimum requirements of NSF's "Investigator Financial Disclosure
Policy (NSF's Policy)," which became effective on October 1,
1995. University officials told us that the "University Policy"
was drafted and subsequently approved by multiple facets of the
University community, in response to NSF's previous notice [4] on
investigator financial disclosure. The "University Policy" meets
the minimum requirements of "NSF's Policy;" however, there are
some relatively minor areas that would benefit from
clarification. In the fall of 1995, the University revised its
"Policy" for two reasons: to change the University's disclosure
process and to address the requirements in "NSF's Policy."
During this revision process, the University has also clarified
requirements and procedures in the "University Policy." These
clarifications make it easier for PIs to understand their
responsibilities and the processes involved in disclosing and
managing conflicts of interest. University officials told us
they expect the revised "University Policy" to be approved and
disseminated by the end of the 1995-1996 spring semester. The
University is following certain procedures in both the
"University Policy" and the revised "University Policy." In
light of this, we reviewed both of the University's policies and
procedures regarding financial conflicts of interest.
The University briefed full-time faculty members about the
"University's Policy" and its implementation through the Office
of Sponsored Research's (OSR's) "Funding Information Newsletter
(Newsletter)," which is usually issued biweekly. The
"Newsletter" is also listed on an electronic page in UNHINFO, the
University's campus-wide information system, which is accessible
to everyone on campus. Copies of the "University Policy" are
available in Deans' and departmental offices throughout the
campus, in OSR, and in the Office of the Vice President for
Research and Public Service. Although it is not publicly
available yet, University officials told us they intend to
broadly disseminate the revised "University Policy" after it is
approved.
The "University Policy" requires that PIs "reveal all current
significant financial interests that relate to the research" for
themselves and their immediate family through a Financial
Disclosure Statement (Disclosure Statement) before beginning any
work on the project. This original Disclosure Statement, which
has not been used, was intended to serve as a screening document
by asking several targeted questions relating to the existence of
relevant financial interests. If the PI had indicated that any
relevant financial interests existed, a complete description of
those interests would have been required. The original
Disclosure Statement also required that the PI certify that
he/she read and understood the "University Policy," made all the
required financial disclosures, and will comply with any
conditions or restrictions imposed by the University to manage
any identified conflict of interest. The "University Policy"
requires that Disclosure Statements and any accompanying
documentation be sealed in a confidential envelope addressed to
the Executive Director of OSR. According to the "University
Policy," Disclosure Statements indicating the existence of
relevant financial interests will be reviewed by a University
Disclosure Review Committee (Review Committee) that consists of
the Vice President for Research and Public Service, the Vice
President for Academic Affairs, and three faculty members
appointed by the University President. The Review Committee will
determine whether a conflict of interest exists and, if so, may
solicit recommendations from PIs for conflict-of-interest
management plans. According to the "University Policy," all
Disclosure Statements and associated documents will be secured in
the Office of the Vice President for Research and Public Service.
The "University Policy" requires that PIs update their records of
significant financial interests within 15 days of a change in
those circumstances either during the project's activities or
while the proposal is pending.
University officials told us that, after the "University Policy"
was approved, it did not appear feasible to collect and track all
of these Disclosure Statements for each external funding
proposal. As a result, the University revised the "University
Policy" by making several changes to the disclosure process.
Although the University has been following these new procedures
since October 1, 1995, the revised "University Policy" has not
been disseminated to PIs because it is pending approval. The
first of these changes was the addition of a specific PI
certification in the "Request for Internal Approval of Grant or
Contract Application to External Sponsor," an internal document
that PIs must complete for every proposal submitted for external
funding. The certification states:
I certify that I have read and understand UNH's
policy on Financial Conflict of Interest in
Research; have made all required financial
disclosures; as project leader, have made every
effort to ensure that all responsible for the
design, conduct, or reporting of the research have
submitted the required disclosures; and prior to
the expenditure of award funds will have reached
an agreement with UNH which provides for
conditions or restrictions necessary to manage,
reduce, or eliminate any conflicts of interest
under UNH policy.
If disclosure is necessary, the PI is expected to request a
Disclosure Statement, copies of which are available in OSR. If
neither the PI nor his/her immediate family has any significant
financial interests to disclose, no action is taken. At the time
of our visit, University officials told us that no PIs have
requested a Disclosure Statement; therefore, there are no PI
disclosures on file.
A second change to the disclosure process includes a revision of
the Disclosure Statement itself. Since the revised Disclosure
Statement needs to be completed only if the PI has significant
financial interests to disclose, the targeted questions were
removed and replaced by a listing of various kinds of financial
interests. The PI is required to check off those financial
interests that relate to the research and attach a written
description identifying the business entity, the amount of the
interest, and the nature of the relationship. The revised
Disclosure Statement (and the revised "University Policy")
requires that PIs complete a proposed conflict-of-interest
management plan if they, or their immediate family, hold
significant financial interests that may be affected by the
research. According to the revised "University Policy," the
Committee will review the PI's Disclosure Statement, accompanying
description, and conflict management plan to determine whether a
conflict exists. It is of interest to note that, in the revised
"University Policy," the University expects PIs to complete a
proposed conflict management plan before the Committee formally
identifies a conflict. In the third change to the disclosure
process, the revised "University Policy" will require that the PI
return the Disclosure Statement, supporting documentation, and
the proposed conflict-of-interest management plan in a
confidential envelope addressed to the Vice President for
Research and Public Service rather than to the Executive Director
of OSR. Under the revised "University Policy," the Vice
President for Research and Public Service will notify the
Executive Director of OSR that a Disclosure Statement has been
received and will keep that person informed about the status of
conflicts of interest so that funds are not spent in the event
the conflict of interest has not been managed.
We believe the "University Policy" meets the minimum requirements
of "NSF's Policy" to identify, manage, and resolve conflicts of
interest, although the revised "University Policy" is much more
simplified and explicit. Also, since some of the procedures
detailed in the "University Policy" are not being practiced as
such, this can present confusion for PIs, particularly those who
have significant financial interests to disclose. Once endorsed
and implemented, the revised "University Policy" will more
clearly and consistently correspond with "NSF's Policy."
C. PROGRAM AND RESEARCH REVIEW
Background
The objectives of this portion of the inspection were to (1)
assess the scientific aspects of the projects funded under the
grant awards reviewed, (2) evaluate the adequacy of the
facilities and other institutional support for these efforts, (3)
determine the PIs' views on issues related to the research awards
covered by the inspection, and (4) develop an understanding of
the PIs' impressions of the quality and adequacy of NSF's
proposal review and award processes, including NSF program
officials' interactions with PIs.
The information, observations, and conclusions presented in this
section of the report were gathered through reviews of relevant
documentation and interviews with University and NSF personnel.
We also reviewed documentation University officials sent to us
before our inspection and information we requested during our
inspection, as well as a June 1995 Committee of Visitors report
on the Geosciences Directorate, Division of Atmospheric Science
(ATM) for the Lower Atmospheric Research Section.
Our review focused on NSF's Directorate of Geosciences and the
University's Institute. The Institute housed interdisciplinary
research groups that interacted on projects related to earth,
oceans, and space sciences. We reviewed eight awards made by
NSF's ATM to the University. We interviewed the six ATM program
officers who are responsible for one or more of the awards. We
interviewed 10 CEPS PIs and co-PIs supported under the awards, 8
of whom were affiliated with the Institute. One of the PIs had
recently left the University to begin a new job, so we conducted
our interview with him by telephone. The eight awards
represented research on the earth's past climate and upper
atmosphere. For example, one award supported research that
collected and analyzed ice cores from high mountain glaciers in
Nepal to learn about changes in the earth's atmosphere over the
last 1,000 years. Knowledge gained from this work will add to
our understanding of the causes and effects of climatic change on
earth. Other awards supported research on the earth's upper
atmosphere and the solar wind that interacts with it. Our
understanding of "space weather," which encompasses the
conditions and variations of the earth's upper atmosphere, the
sun and the solar wind, is important because it can influence the
operations and useful life of space facilities and it can
endanger humans.
As a part of our inspection, we interviewed one undergraduate and
eight graduate students as well as four professional staff
members who were supported by NSF grants. In addition, we
interviewed the Interim Vice President for Research and Public
Service; the Executive Director of the Office of Sponsored
Research; the Dean of CEPS; the Director and Associate Director
of the Institute; the chairpersons of the Earth Sciences,
Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Physics departments; the
Director of OEHS; the Regulatory Compliance Officer; and the
chairpersons of the Radiation Safety Subcommittee, the
Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects
in Research, and the Animal Care and Use Committee. Finally, we
met briefly with several faculty members who were not PIs on the
grants under review, but who expressed a desire to talk to us.
We toured some of the Institute laboratory, computer, and storage
facilities contained in Morse Hall, the building in which the
Institute faculty worked.
Observations and Conclusions
The Institute brings together faculty members with different
backgrounds and department affiliations to encourage the
development of collaborative and interdisciplinary research
efforts. At the time of our inspection, the Institute was
composed of five major research groups: a Biogeochemical Systems
Center, a Complex Systems Research Center, a Glacier Research
Group, an Ocean Processes Analysis Laboratory, and a Space
Science Center. Financial support for the Institute is provided
by the University and is determined annually to be half of the
total indirect costs from Institute faculty members' awards for
the previous fiscal year.
The Institute is organized so that the traditional University
departmental structure is maintained. Each of the Institute's 37
faculty members is affiliated with a University department, and
it is through the department that admission and degree
requirements for graduate students who work with the Institute
faculty are determined. There are three different types of
Institute faculty appointments. First, six Institute faculty
members, each of whom is tenured, are supported equally by funds
from the department and Institute. The Institute Director and
the CEPS Dean, with assistance from the department chairperson,
determine the teaching workloads for these faculty members.
Second, 21 Institute faculty members, each of whom is a nontenure-
track researcher, are supported entirely by funds from the
Institute. The Dean of CEPS arranges these research faculty
members' teaching responsibilities. Finally, eight faculty
members, each of whom are either tenure-track or tenured, are
supported entirely by funds from their respective departments.
The Dean of CEPS works with department chairpersons to determine
these faculty members' teaching responsibilities. All Institute
faculty members are provided space in Morse Hall. At the time of
our inspection, the Institute included one retired and one
visiting faculty member.
The Institute offers courses and certain degree programs in
cooperation with the departments. Courses and programs are
interdisciplinary and tend to complement and enhance courses and
programs offered by departments. Graduate students who elect to
work with the Institute are required to participate in an
Institute-sponsored interdisciplinary seminar that focuses on
scientific presentations, proposal writing, and manuscript
preparation. At the time of our inspection, we were told that
about 75 graduate students, 6 postdoctoral researchers, and
approximately 100 undergraduate students were involved in courses
or research activities with the Institute.
For the most part, faculty members we talked with viewed the
Institute as a tremendous asset for the University. They
described its strengths in terms of the interdisciplinary
collaborations it fostered and of the additional courses provided
by the Institute research faculty. During our interviews, two
faculty members commented on the reduced support for departments
that began with the advent of the Institute or about the possible
perception that the Institute was a better place for students to
do research than the departments.
Most of the Institute faculty members we interviewed had
developed extensive collaborative relationships within the
Institute as well as with scientists from other U.S. and foreign
institutions. The Institute receives some industrial support as
well; a large portion of the support goes to the Complex Systems
Research Center, a computer-based global environmental research
group. Generally, Institute faculty members were satisfied with
their facilities. A concern that was commonly expressed was
about the future limited availability of research space in Morse
Hall.
Efforts were made to maintain a collegial atmosphere between all
CEPS faculty members and students, including those affiliated
with the Institute. For example, we observed signs in several
buildings inviting people to attend a regularly scheduled
"Wednesday Afternoon Tea," at the Institute. We were told the
"Tea" generally involved poster presentations by students in
addition to refreshments.
Many of the faculty members we interviewed also received support
from other federal agencies, chiefly from NASA. We were told
that NASA accounts for about 70 percent of the Institute's
support, while NSF accounts for the second largest portion at
about 15 percent. In comparison, we were told that NSF support
of the three CEPS departments, to which most of the faculty
members we interviewed were affiliated, ranged from as much as 50
percent to as little as 1 percent.
The students we interviewed described faculty members as
supportive and available, and the laboratory and equipment
facilities as more than adequate. The students said they
received fair and proper recognition for their research efforts.
We saw no evidence of any serious interpersonal conflicts.
Generally, we heard little concern about gender discrimination,
although we should note that no female faculty members were
associated with any of the grants selected for this inspection.
Department chairpersons we interviewed appeared to be supportive
of the young faculty members in their departments. Chairpersons,
as well as the Dean of CEPS, indicated that young faculty members
were generally permitted reduced teaching loads to permit them
time to develop research programs. In one case, a chairperson
described a situation of a first-year faculty member who was
teaching an advanced undergraduate course. He explained that the
new faculty member had agreed to do this because it provided her
with the opportunity to "jump start" her research program with
students by meeting prospective seniors, some of whom she could
advise on senior projects the next year.
Data Collection and Retention
The University provided us with a February 1994 draft copy of a
data retention policy, the "University of New Hampshire Policy
Statement," "The Ownership and Retention of Research Data (Draft
Policy)." However, at the time of the inspection, the University
had not officially adopted the "Draft Policy." The Interim Vice
President for Research and Public Service told us that he became
aware of the "Draft Policy" as a result of our inspection. He
indicated he would ensure the "Draft Policy" was properly
administered to receive official approval.
We are particularly concerned about this situation because, in
1992, we deferred our inquiry of an allegation of misconduct in
science to the University. Part of the inquiry required that the
inquiry committee review data collected by a scientist at the
University. However, the acquisition of these data was
complicated by the fact that the University had no official data
collection or retention policy, and the necessary data were not
readily available. As a result of this deferral and the
subsequent complications, in March 1994, our office received the
assurances that a February 1994 "Draft Policy" was in its "final
stages of formal acceptance." We were told at that time that the
comment period for the "Draft Policy" ended on "March 15, 1994,
and then the policy statement [would] be published." However, at
the time of our inspection, the "Draft Policy" still had not been
officially adopted and published, and the University had no
formal data collection and retention policy. We are concerned
that, without a formal policy, the University will not be able to
adequately pursue an allegation of misconduct in science that
questions the integrity of data collected by a subject. Such
research results might not be available if the University finds
it necessary to obtain or confiscate them from the subject.
Consequently, we are not sure we would defer an allegation of
misconduct in science that questioned the integrity of data
collected under NSF-supported grants until the University adopts
a formal policy.
We are also concerned that research results generated under NSF-
supported grants might not be available if it became necessary to
conduct a performance audit of the grant. Most of the faculty
members we talked with were unaware of any NSF or institutional
policy concerning data retention, and most said they would take
their data with them if they left the institution. However,
because much of the data generated from several of the awards we
reviewed in this inspection were submitted to national or
international databases, this was not a significant concern. All
of the faculty members we interviewed indicated that data and
records collected by students would remain at the University.
Most of the data collected by faculty members working under the
NSF awards reviewed in this inspection were maintained in
computer files that were backed up in at least two other
locations. Several faculty members indicated that they kept
additional back-up files at home. Few faculty members used the
traditional notebook to record data. Those who did, used them to
record either experimental conditions associated with data
collection or field observations. We were told that most
information associated with experimental conditions recorded in
notebooks was transferred to computer databases with the relevant
data. We were told that field notebooks were duplicated as soon
as possible after the field work was completed, and, when
significant travel was involved, the duplicate copy was shipped
separately from the original.
The faculty members we interviewed told us they never threw any
data away. Faculty members who did not generate their own data
sets but used data sets generated by others in the development of
models and theories did not keep all their work papers. These
researchers maintained separate project paper files of their
work, and they believed each file contained sufficient record of
their work. However, these files were not duplicated. They
explained that, in their fields, the published paper became the
permanent record. We were concerned that, in case of a mishap,
such as a fire, some relevant information related to the
individual faculty member's effort, might be lost. Such a loss
might negatively affect an ongoing project or an old project
review. We recommend that faculty members who maintain paper
files periodically evaluate and duplicate relevant progress and
consider storing duplicate files in a separate location. This
effort would guarantee that, in case of a disaster or an audit of
their research efforts, records would be available.
For the most part, tampering with data was not a concern because
faculty members who generated raw data maintained multiple back-
up files in different locations.
Safety Issues
OEHS was formed in 1990 to oversee all health and safety issues
at the University. The Director of OEHS explained that OEHS
acted in conjunction with the various safety committees at the
University, which resulted in a more efficient overall monitoring
of safety issues. OEHS conducts annual laboratory safety
inspections. The Director told us that OEHS reports the results
of these inspections to department chairpersons. Department
chairpersons told us that laboratory safety inspections were
regularly performed, but not all of the chairpersons were aware
that these reports were issued to them after each laboratory
inspection.
All staff members are required to have formal safety training,
and the training is available for any interested faculty members
and students. We were told that most faculty members and
students do not take advantage of the training. Faculty members
indicated that, when laboratory safety is an issue, either they
or a full-time staff laboratory manager handles the training.
Students thought there were few significant safety issues
associated with their work and relied on laboratory personnel or
faculty members for training.
We were told that the University has no formal safety manual.
The Director of OEHS explained that he thought a general safety
manual would not be effective because it would not address the
wide variety of safety concerns associated with the many
different activities at the University. Instead, he indicated
that user responsibility is emphasized with an informed OEHS to
respond to questions and provide assistance. The Director of
OEHS said that, although faculty members and students generally
do not attend the formal safety meetings, in his experience,
activities or situations that are high safety risks or novel
generate an interest in safety and more frequent contact with
OEHS. The laboratories we visited were generally clean and well-
organized. We were told that no significant accidents had been
reported.
One safety issue of interest involved field work proposed as part
of one of the grants selected for this inspection. The field
work was performed in high mountain terrain in another country by
a faculty member, a graduate student, and host country workers.
The field group was trapped when a sudden change in the weather
during the first field season resulted in 5 feet of snow over a
short period of time. Fortunately, the faculty member was well-
prepared, and the entire team was eventually evacuated. From
what we could determine, the University was not fully aware of
the potential safety issues associated with this field work.
However, the NSF review process correctly identified the
potential problems associated with the proposed field work and
adequately addressed the participants' experience and training
for such an expedition. The program officer was also aware of
the safety issues and, with the reviewers assurances, was
confident that the participants were properly trained to safely
accomplish the proposed field work. During an interview, the
faculty member who led the field expedition told us that he was
well-prepared and that his major concern when the storm came was
his team's safety. We believe it is advisable that the Director
of OEHS be informed of unusual safety issues associated with off-
campus grant activities, especially when graduate students are
involved.
We interviewed the chairpersons for some of the safety committees
at the institution. Our impression was that the committees
functioned as they were intended.
Relations With NSF
Faculty members told us about OSR's "Newsletter," which contains
information about funding sources and programs. Several faculty
members said they also received information about programs as
well as NSF's GC-1 from OSR or NSF. Most of the faculty members
were aware of many of the targeted programs at NSF. However, two
of our interviewees, who were in a position to possibly influence
other faculty members, were unfamiliar with several of NSF's
targeted programs. Most of the faculty members we talked with
were unfamiliar with the Small Grants for Exploratory Research
(SGER) program. A few of these expressed an interest in the SGER
after we described its purpose and requirements.
Faculty members were supportive of the review process, and most
thought that the number of proposals they were asked to review
was fair. Two faculty members mentioned that each received from
NSF and NASA combined over 15 proposals a year to review. Each
expressed concern that he was approaching his personal limit
given the time it took to do a good review. For the most part,
the faculty members we interviewed who reviewed NSF proposals
respected the confidentiality of the review process. However,
one faculty member indicated that he sometimes called other
researchers in his field and discovered they were reviewing the
same proposals, although he said he did not discuss the ideas
contained in the proposals. Another faculty member said he
shared some of the NSF proposals he received for review with his
graduate students to provide them with the opportunity to learn
how to review proposals. He also told us he did not ask the
program officer for permission to do this. Sharing NSF proposals
received for confidential review with other individuals,
including graduate students, without the program officer's
permission, is a violation of the confidentiality of peer review.
In general, faculty members we interviewed had positive comments
about NSF program officers. Specifically, faculty members
described ATM program officers as supportive and accessible.
Several faculty members commented on the importance to them that
NSF program officers attend national meetings. They viewed these
meetings as their single most important conduit for information
exchange with NSF. One faculty member believed that his
interactions with NSF program officers at meetings strongly
influenced his future funding because it was at these meetings he
was able to show program officers what he had accomplished with
his awards. Several faculty members discussed the 8 or 9 months
it typically took to have proposals processed. One faculty
member told us he had been informed by an NSF program officer
that, as a result of the government shutdown,[5] proposal
processing could take almost 1 year. Several faculty members
discussed the indecision that resulted from the proposal
processing delays. For example, one faculty member described the
uncertainty and confusion experienced by graduate students who
needed support for the summer and who applied for jobs in case
NSF support from grants would not be available. However, as a
result of delays associated with NSF proposal processing,
combined with the additional delays caused by the government
shutdown, students were forced to accept or reject job offers
without knowing whether NSF support would be available.
Generally, the review process at NSF was viewed positively. Many
faculty members expressed a possible concern, which none of them
had encountered personally, that a single bad review might
prevent funding a proposal. However, none of the faculty members
could think of a better approach for proposal review and believed
that, for the most part, the system supported the best ideas in
science. Most indicated that they had very little concern about
putting their best ideas in proposals.
Several faculty members expressed their strong support for ATM
program officers who permitted them to respond to reviewers'
comments before final decisions were made about funding. They
appreciated the opportunity and found this interaction more
constructive and less frustrating than merely receiving reviews
after the fact. Two faculty members acknowledged that this
interactive approach probably took more time and, if this were
the case, they accepted the delays. ATM program officers we
interviewed, who used this approach, told us that PIs were very
supportive of the opportunity to respond to reviewers' comments
prior to a final decision on a proposal. Program officers
thought the extra time associated with this interaction was
important because it often helped to strengthen the proposed work
and it permitted the program officers the opportunity to provide
some guidance at the outset.
We found that one PI had purchased equipment under an award for
which no equipment funds were budgeted. The faculty member told
us that he contacted the NSF program officer to make sure the
purchase was appropriate. However, the award jacket contained no
indication that the faculty member had contacted the program
officer. The program officer reviewed an old telephone log and
confirmed that the faculty member had called about this request
and it was considered to be a reasonable use of funds. The
faculty member received University approval for the change. At
our request, the program officer placed a diary note in the award
jacket explaining these events.
Several faculty members and NSF program officers expressed an
ethical dilemma associated with supporting graduate students in
areas of science where future employment and research
opportunities seemed bleak. On the one hand, they were aware of
their responsibilities to develop new, young scientists to
continue research efforts in these fields. On the other hand,
they were concerned that, with the reality of future limited
employment and research opportunities, many of these young
scientists would probably be unable to sustain careers in their
chosen fields. NSF program officers thought this was a subject
that should receive serious discussion.
In general, faculty members strongly supported the rotator system
at NSF. They thought rotators brought new ideas to programs.
Several faculty members expressed their opinion that if a program
officer, who comes to NSF as a rotator and, before the end of the
2-year period, expresses a desire to stay longer, should be
provided with the opportunity to remain.
OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED
One function of an inspection is to serve as an unbiased conduit
of information. During our interviews, we asked individuals if
they have comments (positive or negative) or concerns that they
wished to convey to NSF. This part of our report conveys such
comments without OIG assessment.
One University official told us that the University has
been experiencing severe budget constraints, and, as a
result, some PIs have said they wouldn't bother submitting
proposals that require cost sharing.
Another University official stated that it would be helpful
if the University could defer the commitment of cost
sharing until an award is made. The official suggested
that it would be easier to find the cost-sharing dollars at
the University for proposals that are awarded.
A University official stated that a single, clear
definition of every NSF deadline related to proposals and
awards, such as target and postmark dates, would be helpful
because the various dates have different meanings to
different NSF program officers.
One University official stated that it would be useful if
NSF award letters included e-mail addresses and fax numbers
for NSF contacts listed in the letters and if NSF's
Telephone Directory included fax numbers.
Several faculty members commented on their concerns about
the delays in funding decisions caused by the government
shutdown with respect to their projects and their graduate
students.
One administrator commented on the seriousness of the
second government shutdown. He explained that it resulted
in the development of a plan to reduce or cut University
programs, which would have been implemented if the shutdown
had continued much longer.
One faculty member mentioned that, if a program officer
(rotator) were changed at the wrong time in the budget
cycle, it could cause delays and make things difficult.
Two faculty members praised NSF's Home Page on the Internet
because it provided them with current and useful
information.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES
A. FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW
A.1. We recommend that the University have the actual employee;
the Principal Investigator; or someone who is familiar with, and
involved in, the research project sign the Personnel Activity
Reports.
University Response
The University stated that it requires that the individual who
signs the PAR be knowledgeable about the effort of the person
compensated. In some cases, PIs have delegated their signature
authority to individuals (typically the business manager)
intimately familiar with their research projects and effort
expended on those projects. The PI meets with the business
manager before the project is initiated to determine planned
effort and during the project period to review actual effort.
Thus, the PI is the one responsible for the correct statement on
the PAR. It is a technicality that in some cases the business
manager signs on behalf of the PI. Because grant periods do not
coincide with PAR reporting cycles, PIs may not always be
available to sign PARs in a timely manner.
A.2. We recommend that the University inform Principal
Investigators that they must allocate grant costs based on the
proportional benefit that each grant received. The method of
allocation should be clearly stated on the source document.
University Response
The University agreed that PIs must allocate grant costs based on
the proportional benefit that each grant receives. The PIs
involved in the NSF inspection have been advised of our concern.
The University will reinform all PIs about appropriate allocation
methods.
B. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE REVIEW
B.1. We recommend that the University revise its definition of
professional misconduct so that it is consistent with NSF's
definition.
B.2. We concluded that the deficiencies in the "University's
Procedures For Handling Allegations of Professional Misconduct
Including Research Misconduct" were so numerous that, in contrast
to our usual practice, we would be unable to defer the inquiry or
investigation into allegations against an NSF-supported faculty
member or student to the University. If the University wishes to
accept deferrals under NSF's Misconduct in Science and
Engineering regulation, we recommend that the University
immediately review its outdated (1989) procedures and revise them
to conform with NSF's regulation. However, if the University
elects to retain its present procedures, we recommend that the
procedures be revised to:
(a) define inquiry and investigation so that, if the "Peer
Committee" is still considered to be an inquiry that follows the
"administrative review," NSF is notified at the beginning of that
inquiry;
(b) ensure that NSF is notified if an allegation brought
against a student supported by an NSF grant is determined to be
substantive;
(c) ensure that, if the "Peer Committee's" inquiry determines
that an allegation has substance, but if the situation is
adjudicated without an investigation, NSF is provided with
sufficient information to evaluate the proceedings including any
sanctions that may have been imposed;
(d) clarify that any activity funded by NSF is covered;
(e) specify a standard of proof to be used during the
investigation; and
(f) specify some protection against retaliation against a
complainant who has, in good faith, brought an allegation of
misconduct to the University's attention.
University Response to B.1. and B.2.
The University replied that it is concerned about NSF not being
able to defer to the University inquiries or investigations into
allegations against an NSF-supported faculty member or student
because of the deficiencies NSF found in the University's
misconduct procedures. The University intends to draft a
separate, new policy that will conform to the aforementioned
recommendations and to NSF's regulations. The University
acknowledged that it will seek input and, where necessary,
endorsement by the various constituent groups and that, although
this process will take time and effort, it is committed to
completing a new policy.
B.3 We recommend that the University take the lead in increasing
faculty and student awareness of ethical issues in science.
University Response
The University stated that, since this inspection, it has
recognized nine courses, ranging from first year to upper level,
that are designed to heighten student awareness of ethical issues
in science. The University explained that, because many of the
nine courses are general education courses, they are required for
undergraduate degree programs and hence, undergraduate students
enroll in them from all colleges and schools within the
University. The College of Life Sciences and Agriculture also
offers several graduate seminars that address ethics and social
issues in science, with an emphasis in the natural and biological
sciences. The University stated that it recognizes the
importance of ethics education and it will continue efforts to
increase this awareness among both students and faculty members.
B.4. We recommend that, when the University has completed its
revised procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in
science and engineering, the revised policy be made available to
the members of the University community in publications that each
will receive on a regular basis.
University Response
The University responded that the new misconduct policy will be
widely distributed to the University community after it is
approved by the University president.
C. PROGRAM AND RESEARCH REVIEW
C.1. We recommend that the University officially adopt its
present draft policy on "The Ownership and Retention of Research
Data," and that the adopted policy be made available to the
University community.
University Response
The University stated that it will continue final discussions on
its draft policy and will distribute the final policy widely and
frequently.
[1] NSF describes "accusers" as "complainants," and the "accused"
as "subjects" because we believe to identify someone as an
"accused" or an "accuser" conveys a negative connotation that
might affect the proceedings from the outset.
[2] The "Chronicle of Higher Education," Vol. XLII, No. 1,p.74, 1
September 1995.
[3] "Federal Register," Vol. 60, No. 132, pp.35820-35823, 11 July
1995.
[4] Announced in the "Federal Register," Vol. 59, No. 132,
pp.33308-33312,28 June 1994. This policy, with an effective date
scheduled for June 28, 1995, did not become operative, as
anticipated by the University.
[5] The first government shutdown began on November 14, 1995,
when federal employees, upon arrival at work, were told that they
were furloughed. Employees returned to work on November 20,
1995. The second government shutdown began on December 18, 1995,
when federal employees, upon arrival at work, were told that they
were furloughed. The furlough officially ended on January 8,
1996. On January 7, 1996, a blizzard in the Washington, D.C.,
area resulted in the government closure from January 8 through
January 10, 1996. On January 11, 1996, the government opened.
However, a blizzard in the Washington, D.C., area in the early
morning of January 12, 1996, resulted in the government closure
on January 12, 1996. The government opened on January 16, 1996,
after the federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.