Climate Change Project

Table of Contents



Articles on Law, Science, and Engineering



  1. Researchers filing suit to challenge the fairness of rules governing research misconduct prior to a determination of misconduct will have their cases summarily dismissed.
  2. Researchers filing suit to claim imminent irreparable harm from an on-going misconduct investigation will fail unless they plead and show that loss of grant support is imminent and will exclude them from their occupation. Such plaintiffs may suffer sanctions from the court unless they can at least demonstrate a serious danger of having their grant money reduced, and that such reduction would exclude them from their occupation.
  3. Tenured professors with guaranteed employment will face enormous obstacles when trying to convince a court that they are in imminent danger of losing their employment.
  4. On the other hand, if found guilty, tenured professionals can expect to see universities, especially public institutions, make OSI misconduct determinations (and similar actions by other agencies) grounds for tenure revocation. This, after all, is only a logical extension of the current practice of using success in the grants business as the yardstick for granting tenure.
  5. Certain employees, such as research directors on annual contracts, may be able to convince a judge that they will be excluded from their occupation should their access to grants be "stripped away" during misconduct investigations or hearings. Their remedy, however, may not permanently derail of the investigation. At most, it will enjoin whatever aspects of the investigation (for example, leaks in the ALERT system) that created the imminent danger of irreparable harm to their positions.
  6. A judge may not be sympathetic toward plaintiffs with little or no value as teachers or academic administrators in their university or elsewhere since the harm is not caused only by a misconduct investigation.
  7. The most favorable case for research professionals involves a young professor as s/he begins research and teaching in a tenure-track appointment. It would be in the interest of such individuals to have success criteria in the "grants business" spelled out in his or her annual employment contracts. Such individuals might be faced with non-renewal of their contract by a misconduct investigation and unable to find alternative employment due to their lack of experience. This is the sort of imminent irreparable harm that might move a judge to provide relief by enjoining the source of potential harm.
  8. Misconduct proceedings are going to become longer and more burdensome. All but the wealthiest will find that they are unable to afford this newly granted right to be due-processed. Even without court action, the cost of representation during a misconduct investigation can easily exceed $50,000, payable in advance. With court action, the amount could quadruple. Will universities pay the costs of defending their professors? Will future grants have a new budget line for misconduct defense? Many institutions already have a history of refusing to support faculty members when they are under attack. Indemnity clauses in employment contracts may become a new status symbol for universities and researchers alike.

    Previous - Responses


    Articles Table of Contents

The Climate Change and Public Health Law Site
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH - Webmaster

Provide Website Feedback - https://www.lsu.edu/feedback
Privacy Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/privacy
Accessibility Statement - https://www.lsu.edu/accessibility