At the direction of Congress, the National Institutes of Health has tightened rules for reporting sexual and workplace harassment by investigators. If a grantee has been disciplined because of harassment findings, institutions will have to tell theNIH.
The policy is a major step towards closing loopholes that have allowed institutions to hide harassment cases from the agency.
Observers are happy with the law, but they note that the reporting requirements at the National Science Foundation still fall short. The agency might not know about some ongoing investigations.
Some high-profile cases and the #MeToo movement prompted the National Institute of Health to beef up its sexual harassment rules. In 2020 the agency asked to be informed if the change was related to harassment concerns, because institutions need the approval of theNIH to change thePI or other personnel on a grant or transfer the grant to another institution. The agency worked with leading institutions to remove 92 individuals from grants after 112 harassment findings.
The reporting rule lacked teeth according to theNIH. Lawrence Tabak, acting Director of the National Institute of Health, said in a statement that the institute lacked authority to require that they report harassment.
Congress added a provision to the spending legislation that will make reporting harassment mandatory. The change in grant personnel is not the only reason for reporting. The agency announced in a 10 May notice that institutions must inform the agency within 30 days if key grant personnel are removed from their position or are otherwise disciplined due to concerns about harassment.
Any allegations or concerns must be detailed in an online form, along with actions taken in response. Replacing personnel or ending the grant can be taken by theNIH. If institutions ignore the new requirement, the National Institute of Health can suspend further awards.
The foundation requires reporting of any administrative action related to a harassment finding or investigation. That could include actions that aren't disciplined, such as barring a PI from teaching while an investigation is underway.
The new policy will not allow genuine grantee misbehavior to be swept under the rug, according to Lauer. Formal findings are only 25% to 30% of the time, he says. In a number of cases, investigators find no wrongdoing.
Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy and regulatory counsel for the Association of American Medical Colleges, said that the agency hears about investigations through victims and others. The new policy is a good, helpful, and clear step in what must be reported.
Some observers want the agency to require institutions to inform it when a harassment investigation begins before any determination of guilt. Carol Greider of the University of California, Santa Cruz was a member of the committee that wrote the report on sexual harassment.
She agrees with the idea and understands the concerns about due process. She says that the new policy could push institutions to shield those who have committed wrongdoing.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
