Science Integrity Policy guidelines: Breaches of Scientific Integrity

1. Effective date

These guidelines take effect on March 11, 2020. This is an evergreen document.

2. Context

These guidelines are issued pursuant to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Science Integrity Policy (subsequently referred to as the AAFC SIP), adopted on January 1, 2019. These guidelines are to be read in conjunction with the following AAFC guidelines:

3. Purpose

These guidelines are intended to assist AAFC employees and applicable non-AAFC employees in understanding the required procedures for investigation of breaches of scientific integrity under s. 7.2.2 (Breaches of scientific integrity) of the AAFC SIP.

These guidelines are intended to support AAFC in:

informing employees and others of the procedures available to them for bringing forward allegations of breach of scientific integrity;
explaining and ensuring employees and others understand the process by which allegations are assessed, investigated and adjudicated; and
fostering confidence and trust in the procedures for bringing forward, investigating and adjudicating alleged breaches.

4. Breaches of scientific integrity

A breach of scientific integrity is behaviour or actions by an employee^{endnote 1} involved in the design, conduct, management, review, communication or use of research or science that could reasonably be construed as inconsistent with or violating one or more of the principles of scientific integrity as described in s. 6 (Scientific integrity principles) of the AAFC SIP.

Breaches may be of two types:

Breaches by researchers or scientists: actions or behaviour of researchers or scientists that could reasonably be construed as inconsistent with or violating applicable sections of the AAFC SIP.
Breaches by management: actions or behaviour of managers, supervisors or other relevant personnel that could reasonably be construed as inconsistent with or violating applicable sections of the AAFC SIP.

By contrast, policy non-compliance involves actions or behaviour by AAFC as an organization that could reasonably be construed as inconsistent with or violating applicable sections of the AAFC SIP.

Allegations of policy non-compliance should not be brought under the AAFC SIP. Rather, any such allegations should be documented and brought to the attention of the AAFC National Union-Management Consultation Committee, which will decide upon the appropriate course of action.

5. Principles of investigation of alleged breaches

Investigations of alleged breaches of scientific integrity should be conducted competently and expeditiously with full regard for the following principles^{endnote 2}:

Independence and impartiality: All assessments, investigations and adjudication of alleged breaches should be conducted in a manner that is unbiased, impartial and independent of any political, commercial, client or stakeholder interference. In this context, impartiality refers to the absence of both conflicts of interest, consistent with the Values and Ethics Code for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and bias with respect to a priori beliefs in the truth of the allegation.
Confidentiality: Any confidential (including personal) information brought in making an allegation of breach, gathered as part of an investigation of alleged breaches, or considered in assessing and adjudicating alleged breaches, should be maintained in a manner fully consistent with the Privacy Act, the Employment Equity Act and associated regulations, and in keeping with the federal Code of Confidentiality.
Openness and transparency: All parties involved in allegations of breach, or any assessment, investigation or adjudication of alleged breaches, shall be fully informed of all relevant procedures. All information or evidence brought in making an allegation of breach; gathered as part of the investigation of alleged breaches; or considered in assessing and adjudicating alleged breaches, should be documented. AAFC will ensure that any disclosure of such information or evidence: (i) does not satisfy one or more of the exclusion provisions of the Access to Information Act or one or more of the exemption provisions of the Security of Information Act; (ii) does not contravene the Privacy Act or the Employment Equity Act and associated regulations; and (iii) does not contravene the federal Code of Confidentiality.
Good faith and fair dealing: All parties involved in allegations of breach, or any assessment, investigation or adjudication of alleged breaches, shall conduct themselves in a manner consistent with good faith and fair dealing. AAFC should provide the safeguards necessary to instil in employees the confidence to bring forward allegations of breach of scientific integrity or participate in an investigation without fear of reprisal. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all parties are indeed acting in good faith.
Preference for informal consultation, mediation and dispute resolution: In recommending actions or deciding upon appropriate actions, preference should first be given to early informal consultation, mediation or dispute resolution as a means of fostering scientific integrity among AAFC employees.
Right of union, legal or other representation: Any party involved in allegations of breach, or in any assessment, investigation or adjudication of alleged breaches, shall have the right to union, legal or other representation at any stage of the process^{endnote 3}. Further, these guidelines in no way replace or abridge any employee rights pursuant to applicable collective agreements.

6. Allegations of breach of scientific integrity

Allegations of breach of scientific integrity may originate from any person, be they an AAFC employee, a non-AAFC federal government employee, or a third party from outside the federal government, including anonymous or undisclosed sources. Allegations may concern the conduct of:

current or former AAFC employees^{endnote 4};
non-AAFC federal government employees involved in the design, conduct, management, review, communication or use of AAFC research or science; or
individuals from institutions outside the federal government for which respecting the relevant provisions of the AAFC SIP is an explicit requirement of contracts, grants and contribution agreements and other formal agreements.

6.1 Precedence

If a complaint regarding an alleged breach of the AAFC SIP is also submitted as a complaint against another Government of Canada or AAFC legislation, directive, policy, regulatory or statutory requirement, or a collective agreement, or is submitted under the AAFC SIP but falls primarily under one of these other policies, the other policy shall take precedence^{endnote 5}, except in the case where the complaint is dismissed under the other policy at which point, it can be addressed by the AAFC SIP if appropriate.

Complaints pertaining to issues that are covered by AAFC’s Science Ethics Policy Framework or AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications will be addressed directly under those policies, for which AAFC’s Science Ethics Committee is responsible.

See Annex 1: Hierarchy of precedence.

6.2 Roles and responsibilities

Science Integrity Lead — The AAFC Deputy Minister (DM) appointed the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of the Science and Technology Branch (STB) as AAFC’s Science Integrity Lead (SIL)^{endnote 6}. The SIL:
- is informed of all allegations of breach of scientific integrity;
- determines whether the alleged breach constitutes a breach of scientific integrity and whether to respond to the allegation(s) of breach(es) under the AAFC SIP, AAFC’s Science Ethics Policy Framework, AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications or under some other directive, policy or law; and
- is responsible for ensuring that all allegations, investigations and adjudications of breach, and any actions taken as a result of an allegation, are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles in s. 5 of this document (Principles of investigation of alleged breaches).
Head of Response
- a delegate of the SIL who conducts investigations and makes recommendations to the SIL regarding alleged breaches of the AAFC SIP that are not resolved by any other mechanism
Science Ethics Committee Chair
- the SIL’s delegate that conducts investigations and makes recommendations to the SIL regarding allegations against one or more scientists that constitute breaches of the Science Ethics Policy Framework or AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications
AAFC DM
- is responsible for ensuring that AAFC employees know who the SIL is and understand the process for contacting the SIL; and
- is the final adjudicator of appeals under the AAFC SIP.

6.3 Responding to an allegation

Whenever a possible breach is observed, the observer shall engage in an informal resolution mechanism, such as discussion with the subject of the allegation (henceforth the "respondent"), their own supervisor or the respondent’s supervisor. If this action resolves the issue, the case can be closed. If the issue is not resolved by informal mechanisms, the allegation will be submitted to the SIL.

The SIL will then determine if the alleged breach involves any other policies other than the AAFC SIP, AAFC’s Science Ethics Policy Framework or AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications. If so, the allegation will be forwarded to the appropriate process owner and the complainant will be informed of the transfer of responsibility for the allegation. If the allegation is rejected under the other policy and therefore not resolved, it may be re-submitted to the SIL for investigation under the AAFC SIP, AAFC’s Science Ethics Policy Framework or AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications.

Once the SIL has established that an allegation falls under the AAFC SIP, AAFC’s Science Ethics Policy Framework or AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications, the SIL will appoint a Head of Response, who may or may not be chair of AAFC’s Science Ethics Committee. The Head of Response will investigate the evidence related to the allegation (and may convene an investigation committee as required) and will report findings and recommended action(s) to the SIL. The SIL will then decide on action(s) to be taken and will delegate accordingly for implementation. The SIL or delegate will prepare a final report on the investigation and subsequent actions and respondent will be informed. The complainant will be informed that the allegation has been resolved.

6.3.1 Investigation

During the investigation, the Head of Response is responsible for:

gathering and assembling the relevant evidence (data, information, documents, electronic files, etc., including all documents produced as a result of the allegation prior to the investigation);
taking appropriate measures to secure this evidence;
undertaking, as required, interviews with both the complainant and the respondent^{endnote 7};
consulting with Labour Relations, Legal Services or other authorities if and as required; and
obtaining a written statement from the respondent as to whether they admit partial or complete responsibility for the alleged breach.

6.3.2 Report

The Head of Response will prepare a written report for the SIL that includes:

the relevant background information to the case;
a description of the allegation(s);
a description of the steps taken in the investigation;
a description of the evidence gathered during the investigation, including a summary of the interviews with the complainant and the respondent;
an evaluation of the strength of the evidence for (supporting) and against (inconsistent with) the allegation(s) and all mitigating and aggravating factors; and
a recommended course of corrective and/or disciplinary action.

6.3.3 Decision and communication

On the basis of the report and any other information deemed appropriate, including consultation with AAFC Legal Services, union representatives, Labour Relations, and other relevant institutions if and as required, the SIL will decide: (a) which, if any, of the allegations they shall consider to be sufficiently well-substantiated; and (b) on subsequent actions, if any.

If the SIL finds that an allegation(s) is not sufficiently well-substantiated, the SIL shall ensure that: (i) all parties involved in the investigation process are advised that the matter has been concluded; and (ii) the respondent is provided with a formal letter to the effect that an allegation was made, a review process was established, that the allegation was found to be not sufficiently substantiated, and that no further action will be taken.

If the SIL finds that one or more allegations are sufficiently well-substantiated, the SIL shall provide the respondent with a letter which explicitly states: (a) which allegation(s) has/have been found to be supported; (b) the reason(s) for this/these determinations; and (c) any further actions that will be undertaken.

If no appeals are filed against the investigation within 30 days, the file can be considered closed.

See Annex 2 for a flow chart depicting the process of responding to an alleged breach.

7. Appeals

If the complainant, the respondent, or any other affected or concerned party files an appeal against the investigation, they must submit a written request to the DM within 30 days of receiving the letter from the SIL stating the reason for the appeal. Legitimate grounds for appeal include: (i) errors of procedure, or (ii) new or additional evidence that was not available to the Head of Response during the investigation. The letter should provide evidence that: (i) appropriate procedures were not followed and/or (ii) the original investigation was unable to consider significant evidence as described in the appeal letter.

Should the DM decide that an appeal is warranted, they will appoint a Head of Appeals to review the case and report on findings. The DM will then make a decision regarding the appeal and inform all parties of the results and any actions required.

In addition, or as an alternative, and where appropriate, the complainant, respondent or any other affected party may consider filing a grievance under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

Annex 1: Hierarchy of precedence

AAFC Policy and Responsibility Centre

The Science Integrity Lead, once informed of an incident that may be a breach of scientific integrity, shall determine whether the allegation constitutes a breach of scientific integrity or of any other departmental or Government of Canada policy, and refers it to the appropriate jurisdiction according to the following order of precedence:

a Federal act, regulation, law or policy;
an AAFC policy other than the AAFC SIP, AAFC’s Science Ethics Policy Framework, or AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications;
the AAFC SIP, AAFC’s Science Ethics Policy Framework, AAFC’s Policy on Science and Technology Publications.

If a resolution has not been achieved through a federal or departmental process, it can be addressed by the AAFC SIP process.

Authority level	Breach issue: Values & ethics	Breach issue: Intellectual Property	Breach issue: Science Integrity	Breach issue: Science Ethics	Breach issue: Science & Technology Publications	Breach issue: Communications	Breach issue: Workplace (Labour) Relations	Breach issue: Other
Government of Canada Policies, Acts, Regulations	Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector	Public Servants Invention Act	n/a	n/a	n/a	Policy on Communications and Federal Identity	Collective Agreements	Other Regulatory or Statutory Requirements
AAFC Policies, Regulations	Values and Ethics Code for AAFC (AAFC)	n/a	Science Integrity Policy (AAFC)	Science Integrity Policy (AAFC)	Science Integrity Policy (AAFC)	Directive on Management of Communications (PAB)	n/a	n/a
AAFC Branch Policies	n/a	n/a	n/a	Science Ethics Policy Framework (STB - SEC)	Policy on Science & Technology Publications (STB - SEC)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Responsible Branch / Work Unit	CMB - V&E Secretariat	STB - OIPC	STB - Science Integrity	STB - Science Ethics Committee	STB - Science Ethics Committee	PAB	CMB - HR	Other Department / Branch as required

Annex 2: Flow chart for responding to alleged breaches of scientific integrity

Description of the image above.

Top of chart begins: "Possible Breach observed"

First action: "Observer engages informal resolution mechanism (discussion with respondent, own supervisor, or respondent's supervisor)"
Next Action Q: "Resolved?"
1. If "Yes" to Resolved – then "Case is closed"
2. If "No" to Resolved – then: "Science Integrity Lead (SIL) receives notification of an alleged breach", then Q: "Does the alleged breach involve any policies other than SIP, SEPF or S&TPP?"
  1. If "Yes" – then "SIL informs other process owner and complainant" – then "Other process"
    1. Next Action Q: "Resolved?"
      1. If "Yes" to Resolved – then "Case is closed"
      2. If "No" to Resolved – then return to step 2.b. until resolved under 2.b.i.1.a. or the SIL is required to move to step 2.b.ii.
  2. If "No" – then "SIL appoints a Head of Response (HOR) - SEC chair or other" (4 actions follow)
    1. Then "HOR investigates (self or with committee as needed)";
    2. Then "HOR reports to SIL – findings and recommendations";
    3. Then "SIL decides on actions to take and delegates accordingly for implementation"; and
    4. Then "SIL prepares final report to file". Then Q: "Does the Respondent or complainant appeal?"
      1. If "No" – then "Case is Closed"
      2. If "Yes" – then next action: "Appellant sends a written request to DM stating cause for appeal"
        Then "DM appoints Head of Appeals (HOA) to review case and report"
        
        Then "DM decides on appeal and informs all parties and delegates any action required"
        
        Then "Case is Closed"

Endnotes

Endnote 1

Or non-AAFC employee as per s. 5.1 (Application) in the AAFC SIP.

Return to endnote 1

Endnote 2

Investigations of breaches of scientific integrity should also conform to Appendix A of the Treasury Board Guidelines for Discipline.

Return to endnote 2

Endnote 3

This right does not oblige AAFC to provide financial support for such representation.

Return to endnote 3

Endnote 4

Applies to former employees who are subject to post-employment limitations or who remain connected to AAFC, such as Honorary Research Associates.

Return to endnote 4

Endnote 5

Federal acts, regulations or policies take precedence over departmental policies or directives.

Return to endnote 5

Endnote 6

This appointment is consistent with the role of the ADM-STB under the Science Ethics Policy Framework and overall as the Branch Head for STB.

Return to endnote 6

Endnote 7

The Head of Response may be accompanied by another person, normally a Labour Relations Advisor, to reduce the risk of conflicting interpretations of the conversations.

Return to endnote 7