Table Of ContentOFFICE 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
