Table Of Content

OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY Position Paper #1 The Whistleblower’s Conditional Privilege To Report Allegations of Scientific Misconduct DECEMBER 1993 Prepared by the Research Integrity Branch, Office of the General Counsel, for the Office of Research Integrity This paper may be copied without permission. Additional copies may be obtained by calling ORI at (301) 443-5300, or writing: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Office of Research Integrity Suite 700 5515 Security Lane Rockville, MD 20852 22501548634 FORMATIOINN SERVICE 31 447 Hs1 7 Vy an DAEo e eran ~ - wit 3 LCOME ct Ae Lis: RA WrO'4 DEREu a x ‘syoll 2A 5c ap@ee)ne cehcaPCnsapome ltenlemneescssmtmemirmomeenntessa ns Consistent with PHS regulations, ORI believes that whistleblowers possess a conditional privilege to disclose, in good faith to the proper institutional or ORI officials, allegations of scientific misconduct. Such a conditional privilege would protect whistleblowers from defamation claims even where the allegations ultimately prove to be untrue. However, whistleblowers who abuse the privilege by making bad faith allegations or by intentionally violating the confidentiality of accused parties may not be protected from defamation claims. Introduction In scientific misconduct cases, an individual who discloses misconduct to a proper authority is termed the “whistleblower".? Accused scientists in some cases may choose to retaliate against the whistleblower. Such retaliation may be manifested in a number of ways, including a civil suit against the whistleblower for defamation. : The Public Health Service scientific misconduct regulation aims to protect whistleblowers against a broad spectrum of retaliatory actions. Under the PHS regulation, covered institutions must undertake diligent efforts to “protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, make allegations [of scientific misconduct]."? The PHS regulation requires protection of good faith whistleblowers. On the other hand, institutions must also provide the individuals accused of misconduct “confidential treatment to the maximum extent possible." The regulation therefore does not condone a whistleblower’s intentional public allegation of misconduct, such as disclosure to the media. DS at i A Oe sa hee 2 aaaa : ue, a oye elaeMbnie l e Bt c‘5 h.9a tz‘; a ee Aoi in; e , i a tPgaay oa hh; 4 Live th Sa Wy cew e$} } } a i ria ae i i ® . cBis yTae ya twye ) wy, iJ A \ wy ; bn ye5 t t 1 ae oT . Pat Bote ae Ky.) si yd oohthe perrne 100 mail Bris 7" , ae er ey photoes; ‘i 704 jews ty -f omh ty Lia ; sie Fit " iseide. mateo L Lo: © rete ue mebod pei oy a besun:y Case arpa eh eg arg bo Ld 5 SRN a ey ia ae ie ececr ay. Sees 2 Xe és Rate ; ee erwf aee tatty 8c SoF Te 0 “1a ) eenP, eeaee LSD ee yaeyn seeahlm eehn I nete peietet yc sae pheasloaa g5e cniga= d‘ ‘7 iie i ¥ aay “£ a7 e < ' “mw > i MAG j i , : “he ey - en ee <0 piven ah ers6 iet #1 }, . i 3 | yaots oh be beR yb caens) don Puce ten dtsicmess Ps (ows (dele thet “eh ia aie ors nado us yeqong & ot a £ Pi rok a we | od Suir ba ad tals eon nk. setaneie bow ¥ re ¥r s pa|t Rita a Agee. e ea be re bhnssce MOvR . Suceadanel: , Vi ; Pet eee a net 5 seth 709, ewe is _ertoadond Bab ya<ehs ae2_ ?4o nee: i ' . . un | ea.e -. , she aa =v) : a iP |=i ¥u w pMee“ ie, ¢i ;G :ei[ : a me¢ 7 fi Me Papi. ope eeeb ates oee ee Ashi } j i soit; ae : ~ n i es : len Ip fa 1s ey " Ps i “ae | ie : : pee. cap Sane oF =t ree ie | “4s ‘ et vorie > : oe pr. fe p- ey ae ; habe Pen a .. ote aamersnie es ‘i esta ne haat ory Whistleblower’s Conditional Privilege (ORI) - Page 2 In addition to the PHS regulation which mandates protection for whistleblowers against general retaliation, common law suggests that such whistleblowers may be protected in civil aefamation suits. In particular, case law indicates that whistleblowers possess a conditional privilege to disclose, in good faith to appropriate authorities, “defamatory" allegations of scientific misconduct.* The following commentary summarizes this conditional privilege. First, the general law of defamation and conditional privilege will be reviewed. The discussion will then turn to the various reasons why scientific misconduct allegations may be conditionally privileged against defamation suits. Lastly, this paper will briefly address potential abuses and resulting loss of the conditional privilege. The Law of Defamation and Conditional Privilege A written or non-written communication is defamatory if it “tends to injure plaintiff in his trade, profession or community standing, or lower him in the ‘estimation of the community."°’ An allegation of scientific misconduct, whether or not substantiated by subsequent investigation, will tend to injure the reputation of an accused scientist. Therefore, a whistleblower’s allegation of misconduct will often constitute defamation. The truth of a defamatory statement furnishes a complete defense for the one who makes the statement. However, if the | ESE) B'S Fee RaeGeme Wr feewto7 van atgel LinerA nessa tentaps « late Agee wine Maly Lew to TP: batonsr oa ‘oct vem : a) Agia" er ae ee pheiogetas 5. he sold eo vena ra ian pater, hita on Vie ae ) & og tee t ee ee IO ony epakiekay Lnaoia tbApS * my Higa 3 tel opel ‘gtezaeaten noises ovat ocwenstinic tell nig Diktis oey sii Season gakwollok ou? ee Shi | fone eae ne iii to ek Leman: et eM Sma ai? i ocsus cog Aen messmo ee _bewenva wh satesf a nin a (aa <9 Neely= va mend nissaewioeh ase fiw teawdh, pei: vital) s +2 ABE Phi. eer BMD: a cients al Pres o: OA.tw Le aiatmmitate ane , seat nash te ROLES: Sem tA va4 ;p at:Ry ohf e Trayb Whistleblower’s Conditional Privilege (ORI) - Page 3 conditional privilege applies, it may not be necessary for the whistleblower to prove the truth of his allegation. The conditional privilege allows the whistleblower to allege scientific misconduct even if the allegation proves to be false;® he must merely have a good faith belief that the allegation is true. “Good faith" encompasses, among other things, “an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage."’ See “Abuse of Privilege" discussion, below. A whistleblower who discloses scientific misconduct is not liable for defamation if he can claim a conditional privilege. A conditional privilege may be invoked only if the allegation was made under certain conditions, and the privilege is not abused.* The following section describes four special instances of defamatory disclosure in which a conditional privilege may be invoked. Any one of these kinds of defamatory disclosure will establish the conditional privilege. 1. Communication to One Who May Act in the Public Interest A whistleblower may claim a conditional privilege if he reasonably believes that the facts he alleges affect a public interest of such importance that he should communicate the matter to a person authorized to respond to the allegation.’ Federal statute and regulations create a legal mechanism by which ORI is authorized to respond to misconduct allegations. PHS research grant applicants and awardees are accountable to the shen» sere ‘ont ae yan: apews rk 9. bole of paa a nat, cieak diya! < wket ee aera! eliee e sa wrote samedi yeg gatis oF ea a 8 Lated y mecha qpet ay Ja | seuiiei ee al teelad® of OF seer re Seay wate ee trove! , Bate) :c.o €i mol et bo ele rads omilodt 20% tines | ahd) ae ee ed peroncs -wenikaaimoodar ; “enee t coe ol iyp resets ondadn . exit ‘bas. oer Lt to ; - ated Hives ie sauce” a7: ip *+ ageuinewien etnsesvemesan 1 1806n0 tm ahPe tiewsall Apaotono baw sowohdoszekate a - tata bate Leto tt 2 oaaer a BO hives, ot SE viatnsot woh cour) sigh Rinis hate. bent at jam opeliniag bat eye ea mL epoit Ps aiid cod dine aussie aaaw ae (5 yang aati Ke ceca. gl |a eibiepiaheth molar! “pel sé eon apenas torre.het bleed 8 tole 9 ocusatoaht 3 Eittw wen wots a o8 % paabev ed vodh eat a ., a } ont ao ae a feo e ae ai rae may ee ie: a ee P ae a Ai } i ;a eK : a .e e- a . " we rs ca ake ©, 48 <I i ‘a , = Whistleblower’s Conditional Privilege (ORI) -— Page 4 statutorily established Office of Research Integrity (ORI).'° When an allegation of scientific misconduct surfaces, the grantee institution which supervises the accused scientist must initiate an inquiry, and possibly a subsequent investigation, in accordance with the PHS regulation.!! ORI may conduct its own investigation if necessary and impose sanctions in addition to those imposed by the institution if appropriate. Moreover, allegations regarding misconduct in PHS funded research clearly affect “important public interests," ites? the advancement of scientific research, the public health, and conservation of public funds.'*? This public interest requires that allegations of misconduct be brought to ORI or authorized institutional officials. In sum, Federal statute and regulations recognize the LpoLtane public interest in detecting and deterring scientific misconduct, and create an administrative structure by which whistleblowers may communicate misconduct allegations to those authorized to take action. Thus, ORI considers a whistleblower’s good faith allegation to ORI or an authorized institutional official to be conditionally privileged as a communication of Matters affecting important public interests. On the other hand, ORI believes that a whistleblowwoeurld not have a conditional privilege to publicly disclose misconduct allegations to unauthorized persons because this contravenes one of the requirements of the privilege and the regulatory requirement to protect the confidentiality of accused individuals. i gaia ae Liye ovat: Sears . a . 9oo See rowbagaan pe iia 20 a Ae we BP iah 2s = RFS beasanm wad sontorogue soate er, ati abies «. (coli ape aRaws 1 aahunganetone ) viding “beg seu é Ln: cil . at k S30 Remy. each ERG " mokantiogon a a aqo2 seme ie seal . . ta ae i‘ Oat egis }La mon ye aL noktaa toma oA: bObonee ete i som aerate hie: gn ayes enok tepents. a i y 7a un Gye hoe ye ceed si bday Sen xecget" foatis’ ween ina i ‘rth icy ote NRO ol toeke ee) ame na: sade norte mM scesetnd oA ae atu wa Ldheng as slate me LR pe _ Aehgatcnrst: ori in to :5 act 4 sielmaaae " nate lugeneh e peau Coes man . ile L see tee Hinksxoze. |t e. diviees pd sates. e ais ws one keoe ta > hs ee a =i on € == o Remeodrls.| Saude ee aod Mi - cer tes par 4 pares 2 £9 r a