New Federal Rules Give Harvard More Freedom in Research Misconduct Cases

Harvard may have more freedom to decide how to handle its research misconduct cases under new federal rules designed to make cases easier to bring forward and resolve.

The changes — announced on Sept. 12 by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity — reduce the burden of cases on research integrity offices while making it easier for whistleblowers to come forward. The revisions come after the office received more than 200 comments on the proposed changes last year, which were criticized for being too stringent.

The new guidelines — the first changes to the policy since 2005 — come in the wake of a string of research misconduct allegations against several prominent researchers affiliated with hospitals in the Boston area.

Earlier this year, four executives at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a top neuroscientist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital were accused of falsifying data in their papers.

The allegations of research misconduct have also struck Harvard affiliates. In early September, a federal judge dismissed defamation charges filed by Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino against the University, whose tenure was placed under review in July after being accused of data manipulation in 2021.

“We are grateful for this collaborative approach and believe it has resulted in a final rule that will be better for not only administrators, but also for the research and academic mission,” Kristin Bittinger, HMS dean for faculty and research integrity, wrote in an emailed statement to The Crimson.

“The changes include important extensions to previously unrealistic timelines, to the statute of limitations and to the development of an institutional record,” Bittinger wrote.

In addition to relaxing the timelines for cases, the changes also remove a proposed rule to transcribe all interviews during the inquiry and assessment phase and allow for “honest errors” to be found at any stage in a proceeding — allowing officers to finish these cases early on in the inquiry process rather than escalating to an investigation.

Though the HMS research integrity policy will be revised in light of the change, “the overall impact will be more administrative than substantive with regard to our oversight of integrity matters,” Bittinger wrote.

“I am not sure if the revised regulations will materially impact the experience of whistleblowers,” she added.

In an interview with The Crimson, Holden H. Thorp, the editor-in-chief of Science — a premier journal in which prominent Boston-area researchers have published — pointed to the limitations of the new rules.

“In some cases, they made it possible for institutions to be more transparent about what they’re doing,” Thorp said. Still, he said, “it doesn’t go nearly far enough in terms of stating that the institutions have an obligation to inform the public when they have concerns about the paper.”

Thorp pointed to a small change in language: While the original proposed rule stated that research journals “shall” be notified about certain aspects of investigations, the modified rule states that journals “may” be informed.

“I’d be very pleasantly surprised if any institution interpreted the word ‘may’ as meaning that they should be more responsive to us,” Thorp said.

“In my opinion, they have prioritized the fear of bad publicity and litigation that the institutions have over their obligations to be direct with the taxpayers and other scientists,” Thorp added.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.

—Staff writer Akshaya Ravi can be reached at akshaya.ravi@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @akshayaravi22.