Subpart B-Guidance for Program Officers and Other Decisionmaking Officials $681.20 Introduction. (a) If you are a progam officer or other NSF official who would normally handle a proposal or other application, but you possess with respect to it a potentially biasing affiliation, listed in §681.21, that section explains what you should do. (b) If you become aware that another NSF employee)—including a prospective employee or a recent employee (one who has left the NSF within the past year) or a current member of the National Science Board has an involvement or interest in a proposal or other application you are handling, §681.23 explains what you should do. (c) You must ask each peer reviewer of any proposal or project you are handling to indicate any possible conflicts of interest the reviewer may have. Section 681.25 suggests how you should do that and explains what you should do when a reviewer does have a possible conflict. (d) Should an employee of another Government agency have an interest in a proposal or other application submitted by anyone other than that agency, do not talk or correspond with that employee at all without first consulting an ethics counselor. He or she could inadvertently violate a criminal stat ute. (e) You "handle" a proposal or other applicaton if you recommend a decision on it, make or approve the decision, or otherwise substantially influence the decision. If you are a grants officer, contracts officer, financial official, or lawyer you are affected if you play a significant role in decisions on award budgets or terms. If in doubt, consult an ethics counselor in the Office of the General Counsel. (f) This part covers only conflicts and potential conflicts in handling proposals and other award-related applications. Conflicts or potential conflicts in handling other matters are covered in §683.20. [47 FR 32135, July 26, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 52732, Nov. 22, 1983] §681.21 When you have a potentially biasing affiliation or relationship. (a) If you would normally handle a proposal or other application, but possess with respect to it a potentially biasing affiliation or relationship listed below, you must bring the matter to the attention of a conflicts official in your directorate or staff office. You must do so whether or not the affiliation or relationship is also designated "normally disqualifying" or "automatically disqualifying". (Some affiliations or relationships are neither.) The conflicts official will determine how the matter should be handled and will tell you what further steps to take. (b) Affiliations with an applicant institution. (1) Current appointment at the institution as professor, adjunct professor, visiting professor, or the like [automatically disqualifying]. (2) Current employment or being under consideration for employment at the institution [automatically disqualifying]. NOTE: This may include employment via a consulting or advisory arrangement; check with an ethics counselor. (3) Any formal or informal reemployment arrangement with the institution [automatically disqualifying]. (4) Current membership on a visiting committee or similar body at the institution [automatically disqualifying, but only for proposals or applications that originate from the department, school, or facility that the visiting committee or similar body advises]. (5) Ownership of the institution's securities or other evidences of debt [automatically disqualifying]. NOTE: Minor or indirect holdings may be exempted; see § 680.21 or check with an ethics counselor. (6) Any office, governing board membership, or relevant committee chairmanship in the institution [automatically disqualifying]. NOTE: Ordinary membership in a professional society or association is not considered an office. (7) Current enrollment as a student [normally disqualifying, but only for proposals or applications that origi nate from the department or school in which one is a student]. (8) Receipt and retention of an honorarium or award from the institution within the last twelve months [automatically disqualifying]. (c) Relationships with an investigator, project director, or other person who has a personal interest in the proposal or other application. (1) Known family or marriage relationship [automatically disqualifying if the relationship is with a principal investigator or project director]. (2) Business or professional partnership [automatically disqualifying]. (3) Employment at the same institution within the last 12 months. (4) Past or present association as thesis advisor or thesis student. (5) Collaboration on a project or on a book, article, report, or paper within the last 48 months. (d) Other affiliations or relationships. (1) Any affiliation or relationship of your spouse, of your minor child, of a relative living in your immediate household or of anyone who is legally your partner that you are aware of and that would be covered by (b) or (c) of this section, if it were yours [disqualifying just as if the affiliation or relationship were yours, except for receipt by your spouse or relative of an honorarium or award, which is not necessarily disqualifying]. (2) Any other relationship, such as close personal friendship, that you think might tend to affect your judgments or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship. § 681.22 "Automatically disqualifying"; "normally disqualifying". (a) Automatically disqualifying. If you have an interest, affiliation, or relationship that §681.21 designates "automatically disqualifying", you should disqualify yourself from handling the affected proposal or other application. You must not participate in handling it under any circumstances. BE CAREFUL: in most cases a violation of this rule would be a Federal crime. (b) Normally disqualifying. If you have an interest, affiliation, or relationship that §681.21 designates "normally disqualifying", you should disqualify yourself from handling the affected proposal or other application, unless specifically directed to do otherwise by the conflicts official. 8681.23 When a prospective, current, or recent NSF employee has an involvement or interest. (a) If you become aware that a prospective, current, or recent NSF employee has an involvement or interest in any proposal or other application you are handling, you must bring the matter to the attention of a directorate conflicts official. For this purpose a member of the National Science Board is an employee. The conflicts official will decide how the matter should be handled and instruct you accordingly. If the file reflects that a conflicts official has already been consulted and has decided how the matter should be handled, you may proceed as the conflicts official has directed unless something of possible significance has changed. (b) What constitutes “an involvement or interest". A prospective, current, or recent NSF employee "has an involvement or interest" in a proposal or other application if the employee is, was, or will be a member of the research group or project staff involved. If the employee was a member of a research group, but has since ceased working on the project and with the group, the employee no longer has an involvement or interest. Unless there has been such a severance, however, appointment of a substitute principal investigator or substitute negotiator would not affect the requirement for consulting a conflicts official. (c) Finding out about it. How do you find out that someone who has an involvement or interest in a proposal or application is a current, prospective, or recent NSF employee? There are four possibilities: (1) The proposal or application might say so. (2) The Foundation's principal investigator/project director file that you routinely check when beginning work on a new proposal will usually indicate that a listed investigator is a current, prospective, or recent NSF employee if that is the case. The mechanism by which this is arranged is explained in §681.33. (3) You might receive a copy of a memorandum from another NSF official indicating that an investigator on a proposal already pending or an award already active has become a prospective employee. The circumstances under which such a memorandum will be sent to you are also explained in §681.33. (4) You might happen to know or learn of the person's NSF employment or prospective employment through your other activities. (d) Your responsibility. No matter how you find out, once you do, it is your responsibility to bring the matter to the attention of a directorate conflicts official-unless, of course that has already been done. If in doubt, consult the conflicts official or an ethics counselor. [47 FR 32135, July 26, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 52732, Nov. 22, 1983] 681.24 Directorate conflicts officials. Your directorate or office is responsible for letting you know who your conflicts officials are. If you do not know, check with the office of the assistant director or office head. Subpart D (§§ 681.40 through 681.44) explains the responsibilities of the conflicts officials and provides guidance for them. 681.25 Possible conflicts of peer reviewers. (a) You must ask each peer reviewer of any proposal or similar application you are handling to indicate any possible conflicts of interests the reviewer may have. (b) In the case of mail review, you may do this by including in the letter requesting the review the following language: If you have any relationships with the institution or the persons submitting this proposal, please consider whether they could be construed as creating a conflict of interests for you. Please describe in your own words any relationship that might be so construed. You may use a separate piece of paper and attach it to your review. Regardless of any such relationships, we would like to have your review unless you believe you cannot be objective. (c) In the case of panel review, you should make an oral request of the panel members, essentially as follows: If when we come to consider any particular proposal, you recognize that you have a relationship with the institution or persons submitting the proposal that could be construed as creating a conflict of interests, please let me know. I'll ask you to describe the relationship in your own words and will determine from your description what to do about the situation. You must not participate in reviewing any application in which you or a member of your immediate family or an organization of which you are or may become a part has a financial interest. Otherwise, we'll often just make a note in the file to consider when making final recommendations. (d) You may use the list in § 681.21 as a guide in responding to reviewer questions about the relationships that should be considered. Section 684.15 explains when a panel reviewer, like any other "special employee", must be excused from review of an application because of a financial interest. Otherwise, no advance disqualification of reviewers is required. There may be other circumstances, though, in which you and the reviewer will conclude that the review would have to be disregarded and would thus be a waste of the reviewer's time. (e) You should record in the proposal file all interests, affiliations, and relationships revealed by reviewers or otherwise known to you. You should determine how, if at all, those interests, affiliations, or relationships ought to affect the use of the review in assessing the proposal. You should describe in the file both your determination and the reasoning behind it. Subpart C-Identifying Prospec tive, Current, or Recent NSF Employees and Proposals or Awards in Which They Have an Interest §681.30 General. Sections 681.23 and 681.43 provide for special handling of any proposal or other application in which a prospective, current, or recent NSF employee has an involvement or interest. Section 681.23(c) explains generally how an official who handles a proposal or applica tion might learn that a person who has an involvement or interest is a prospective, current, or recent employee. This subpart: (a) Explains more precisely who is a "recent employee", or "prospective employee" (§681.31); (b) Identifies responsibilities of the recruiting directorate or office when a person becomes a "prospective employee" (§ 681.32); (c) Explains how the recruiting directorate should inform others when it becomes clear that a prospect will become an NSF employee (§ 681.33(a)); and (d) Requires the Assistant Director for Administration to provide for "flagging” the principal investigator/project director (PVPD) file to indicate that a person listed there is a prospective, current, or recent NSF employee (§681.33(d)). to "think it over" or come in for a talk. After such an expression of interest NSF officials could be influenced in decisions on proposals or other applications by their hopes of getting the candidate to consider the job or to take it. (2) When a specific vacancy is imminent, the NSF usually solicits and receives applications. Some applications may come from persons in whom there is little or no interest. Others may come from persons the recruiters have never met. Conflicts are unlikely to arise in such cases unless and until the recruiters become sufficiently interested to initiate some direct contact with the applicant, typically by suggesting an interview. At that point the applicant should be considered a “prospective employee". If no direct contact is ever initiated outside the personnel mechanics, the applicant need not be considered a prospective NSF $681.31 "Recent employee"; "prospec- employee. tive employee". (a) Recent employee. Any former NSF employee who left the NSF within the year before the affected proposal or other application is filed with the NSF should be considered a recent NSF employee. (b) Prospective employee threshold. As soon as those recruiting have expressed interest in a particular person in connection with a specific opening and have received some indication of reciprocal interest, that person should be considered a prospective NSF employee-even though no actual offer has been made and even though there is substantial doubt that one would be accepted if it were made. More specifically: (1) NSF officials who have an opening on the horizon often discuss it with persons outside the NSF. If the discussion is just a general effort to make members of the appropriate community aware of the opening in the hope that applicants will appear, it makes no one a prospective employee. But if the discussion is with a particular individual whose candidacy is sought for a particular position, that individual should be considered a prospective employee if (but only if) the candidate expresses some interest. The expression of interest need not be strong. It could amount to no more than a willingness §681.32 What the recruiting direc torate or office should do when a person becomes a "prospective NSF employee". (a) Special attention and special handling of proposals or other applications in which a prospective NSF employee has an involvement or interest are not required automatically. They are required under § 681.23(a) only if an official handling the proposal or application actually becomes aware that a person involved or interested is a prospective employee. Whether to inform other officials that a person is a prospective employee is within the discretion of a conflicts official of the recruiting directorate or office. (b) If those who are recruiting determine that a person has become a prospective employee under these guidelines, they are responsible for bringing that fact and subsequent developments to the attention of a directorate or office conflicts official. This should be an official who is not directly involved in the recruitment and does not immediately supervise the position for which the prospective employee is being considered. (c) The conflicts official is responsible for deciding whether, when, and to what extent proposals or other applications involving the prospect re quire special attention and special handling. See §681.44. §681.33 Informing others about incom ing employees; “flagging”. (a) When a "prospective employee” becomes an "incoming employee". Each directorate is responsible for informing the Division of Information Systems by memo whenever a prospective employee listed in the NSF PIPD (principal investigator/project director) file seems likely in fact to become an NSF employee. The memo should be sent at least as soon as the incoming employee enters into discussions of grade and salary with personnel officials. It might be sent sooner should the responsible conflicts official of the recruiting directorate or office find that appropriate. The memo should identify all active NSF awards and pending NSF proposals with which the prospective employee has an association. This should be checked with the PL/PD file and with the prospective employee. (b) Informing other divisions. The recruiting directorate is also responsible for sending copies of its memo to each NSF division or office that is responsible for such an active award or pending proposal. (c) "Signals off". If the prospect does not become an NSF employee after all, the recruiting directorate is responsible for notifying by memo all those who received its original memo. (d) "Flagging". The Assistant Director for Administration is responsible for "flagging" the PIPD file to indicate every person listed there who is a current or recent NSF employee or who has been identified in a memo from the recruiting directorate or office as an incoming NSF employee. Subpart D-Guidance for $681.40 Summary; responsibilities of conflicts officials. (a) If your directorate or staff office has designated you as a conflicts official, you have three responsibilities under these regulations: (1) You determine how to handle a proposal or other application when an official who would normally handle it possesses with respect to it an affili ation or relationship listed in §681.21. The potential conflicts you should be concerned with in such a case are generally apparent from the nature of the affiliation or relationship. (2) You determine how to handle a proposal, or other application when a prospective, current, or recent NSF employee or a current member of the National Science Board has an involvement or interest in it. Section 681.43 describes the potential conflicts you should be concerned with in such a case. (3) You determine whether, when, and to what extent proposals or other applications involving a prospective NSF employee require special attention and special handling. Section 681.44 offers guidance for such determinations. (b) Section 681.41 describes the underlying considerations you are called upon to accommodate and balance in making these determinations. Section 681.42 describes the disclosure that is required in all cases that come to you for determination and the forms of special handling you might require in such cases. It also explains what you should do when a particular relationship is considered "automatically disqualifying" or "normally disqualifying”. [47 FR 32135, July 26, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 52732, Nov. 22, 1983] When you are called upon to make any of the determinations described in §681.40, what considerations should influence you in deciding what to do? (a) The primary purpose of your involvement is to remove or limit the influence of any ties to an applicant institution, investigator, etc. that you think could affect the decisions of an NSF official. Keep in mind that an official may be influenced by such ties without deliberate bias Do not, however, "strain at gnats". (b) A secondary purpose is to preserve the trust of the scientific community, the Congress, and the general public in the integrity, effectiveness, and even-handedness of the NSF and its award-review processes. This requires you to be concerned with appearances as well as actualities. |