C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER I—PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER H—HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND HEALTH EFFECTS STUDIES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES AND FACILITIES › PART 93—PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE POLICIES ON RESEARCH MISCONDUCT › Subpart A—General

42 C.F.R. § 93.100

General policy

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Research misconduct involving Public Health Service (PHS) support is contrary to the interests of the PHS and the Federal Government, to the health and safety of the public, to the integrity of research, and to the conservation of public funds.

(b) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and institutions that apply for or receive PHS support for biomedical or behavioral research, biomedical or behavioral research training, or activities related to that research or research training share responsibility for the integrity of the research process. HHS has ultimate oversight authority for PHS-supported research, and for taking other actions as appropriate or necessary, including the right to assess allegations and to perform inquiries or investigations at any time. Institutions and institutional members have an affirmative duty to protect PHS funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all PHS-supported work, and primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations of research misconduct, as provided in this part.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2023 · leading case: Kumar, ph.D. v. George Washington University
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kumar, ph.D. v. George Washington University (2016) dcd · cites it 4× “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.100 (b). HHS “has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS supported activities” to ORI.”
Mauvis-Jarvis v. Wong (2013) illappct · cites it 3× “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.100 (b) (2005) “Research misconduct” is defined as: “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”
Cabi v. Boston Children's Hospital (2016) mad “Third, Plaintiffs note that BCH acted in a “quasi-judicial investigatory and disciplinary capacity for the federal government” pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 93.100 et seq., D. 33 ¶ 241; D.”
Yuan v. Johns Hopkins University (2016) mdctspecapp · cites it 3× “Yuan based his wrongful discharge action on 42 C.F.R. § 93.100 et seq., which establishes a federal administrative mechanism to police intentional, knowing, or reckless “research misconduct” that represents “a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant…”
Brodie v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2010) dcd · cites it 2× “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.100 (b)(2009). HHS regulations provide that “[r]esearch misconduct involving PHS support is contrary to the interests of the PHS and the Federal government and to the health and safety of the public, to the integrity of research, and to the conservation of…”
C. Helm v. Allison Ratterman (2019) ca6 “42 C.F.R § 93.100(b) provides that “[i]nstitutions and institutional members have an affirmative duty to protect PHS funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all PHS supported work, and primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations of research…”
Rae v. Children's National Medical Center (2020) dcd “1, et seq and 42 C.F.R. 93.100, et seq.), and four District of Columbia Code provisions pertaining generally to assaults and victim’s rights ( D.”
William Helm, mb.bchir v. Allison Ratterman, Phd (2022) kyctapp “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.100 (b). See also Helm, 778 F.”
Croce v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees (2023) ohioctcl “” 42 C.F.R. 93.100(b). Defendant states that as a partner institution with certain responsibilities under the federal scheme, OSU is required to comply with ORI’s rules governing research misconduct.”
Brodie v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (2010) dcd “” 42 C.F.R. § 93.100 (b) (2009). HHS regulations provide that “[r]esearch misconduct involving PHS support is contrary to the interests of the PHS and the Federal government and to the health and safety of the public, to the integrity of research, and to the conservation of…”
— 42 C.F.R. § 93.100(b) — 2 cases
C. Helm v. Allison Ratterman (2019) ca6 “42 C.F.R § 93.100(b) provides that “[i]nstitutions and institutional members have an affirmative duty to protect PHS funds from misuse by ensuring the integrity of all PHS supported work, and primary responsibility for responding to and reporting allegations of research…”
Croce v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees (2023) ohioctcl “” 42 C.F.R. 93.100(b). Defendant states that as a partner institution with certain responsibilities under the federal scheme, OSU is required to comply with ORI’s rules governing research misconduct.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.