University of Texas at Austin
IN-1: Academy-Industry Connections
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.25 / 0.50 |
Jim
Walker Director of Sustainability, Financial, and Administrative Services University Operations |
Does the institution require that all significant consulting contracts be reported to a standing committee charged with reviewing and managing individual and institutional conflicts of interest?:
The policy language that requires that all significant consulting contracts be reviewed for conflicts of interest:
The University of Texas at Austin's Office of Research Support and Compliance (ORSC) partners with researchers to maintain the integrity of reseach here. They have a Conflict of Interest (COI) Review Program that ensures personal, financial, and organizational conflicts of interest do not interfere with the ability to contribute to the advancement of society.
The Conflict of Interest (COI) program provides for a transparent system of disclosure, approval and management of financial interests and outside professional activities, which might otherwise raise concerns about conflicts of interest or conflicts of commitment with teaching, research or service responsibilities at the University.
To identify and manage conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment, UT Austin requires:
- Prior approval of outside professional activities
- Disclosure of financial interests at time of initial employment, at least annually and within 30 days of a change to financial interests
The COI Office reviews these disclosures, and collaborates with the Objectivity in Research Committee, departmental supervisors, and other research administration units as needed to make a determination. The Objectivity in Research Committee includes University faculty, associate deans for research, a representative from Legal Affairs and other research administrators involved in technology commercialization and sponsored projects.
If a real or perceived conflict is identified, the COI Office will work with the filer to develop a plan to manage, reduce or eliminate the conflict. All investigators conducting research under a financial COI (FCOI) or conflict of commitment (COC) management plan must meet annually with their department chair or direct supervisor to review their compliance with the requirements of the management plan.
FCOI and COC Management Plan Annual Review Guidance and Checklists
Specific policy language can be found in UTS 129: Internal Audit Activities and Texas Government Code Chapter 2102 Internal Auditing. There is also a specific code for Conflict of Interest, Conflict of Commitment, and Outside Activities, and Promoting Objectivity in Research by Managing, Reducing or Eliminating Financial Conflicts of Interest.
-
Sec. 2 Principles Internal Audit (IA) at U. T. System Administration and the U. T. institutions shall be guided by the following principles:
-
-
a) Service to Organization – IA will assist the U. T. System Board of Regents and executive leadership enhance and protect U. T. organizational value by providing risk-based assurance, advice, and insight.
-
-
-
b) Professionalism – IA will perform its work with integrity, competence, and due professional care in conformance with The Institute of Internal Auditors’ International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS).
-
-
-
c) Independence – IA functions and the chief audit executives will be positioned and supported to ensure freedom from conditions that would threaten the performance of internal audit responsibilities in an unbiased manner.
-
-
-
d) Objectivity – IA will perform its responsibilities with an impartial, unbiased attitude and avoid conflicts of interest.
-
Texas Government Code Chapter 2102 Internal Auditing:
-
Sec. 2102.011. INTERNAL AUDIT STANDARDS.
-
-
The internal audit program shall conform to the Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, the Code of Ethics contained in the Professional Practices Framework as promulgated by the Institute of Internal Auditors, and generally accepted government auditing standards.
-
-
IPPF Standards 2017:
-
-
1120 – Individual Objectivity
-
-
-
-
Internal auditors must have an impartial, unbiased attitude and avoid any conflict of interest.
-
-
-
-
-
Interpretation: Conflict of interest is a situation in which an internal auditor, who is in a position of trust, has a competing professional or personal interest. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the internal auditor, the internal audit activity, and the profession. A conflict of interest could impair an individual's ability to perform his or her duties and responsibilities objectively.
-
-
-
-
1130 – Impairment to Independence or Objectivity
-
-
-
-
If independence or objectivity is impaired in fact or appearance, the details of the impairment must be disclosed to appropriate parties. The nature of the disclosure will depend upon the impairment.
-
-
-
-
-
Interpretation: Impairment to organizational independence and individual objectivity may include, but is not limited to, personal conflict of interest, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, personnel, and properties, and resource limitations, such as funding. The determination of appropriate parties to which the details of an impairment to independence or objectivity must be disclosed is dependent upon the expectations of the internal audit activity’s and the chief audit executive’s responsibilities to senior management and the board as described in the internal audit charter, as well as the nature of the impairment.
-
-
-
-
1130.A1
-
-
-
-
Internal auditors must refrain from assessing specific operations for which they were previously responsible. Objectivity is presumed to be impaired if an internal auditor provides assurance services for an activity for which the internal auditor had responsibility within the previous year.
-
-
-
-
1130.A2
-
-
-
-
Assurance engagements for functions over which the chief audit executive has responsibility must be overseen by a party outside the internal audit activity.
-
-
-
-
1130.A3
-
-
-
-
The internal audit activity may provide assurance services where it had previously performed consulting services, provided the nature of the consulting did not impair objectivity and provided individual objectivity is managed when assigning resources to the engagement.
-
-
-
-
1130.C1
-
-
-
-
Internal auditors may provide consulting services relating to operations for which they had previous responsibilities.
-
-
-
-
1130.C2
-
-
-
-
If internal auditors have potential impairments to independence or objectivity relating to proposed consulting services, disclosure must be made to the engagement client prior to accepting the engagement.
-
-
Does the institution prohibit faculty, staff, students, postdoctoral fellows, medical residents, and other academic professionals from engaging in industry-led “ghostwriting” or “ghost authorship”?:
The policy language that prohibits industry-led “ghostwriting” or “ghost authorship”:
As stated clearly in the UT Responsible Authorship Guidance document, Ghost Authorship is considered an unnacceptable authorship practice. It is considered unethical and detrimental to the research enterprise, along with gift and guest authorship. This unethical authorship practice violates the university's principles of responsible conduct of research and may involve other policy violations.
Specific policy language can be found under Authorship of Scholarly and Scientific Publications.
Policy Statement:
Authorship is the primary means for assigning responsibility and credit for intellectual contributions to scholarly work. Public trust in research relies on the integrity of the research, including honesty and transparency in the dissemination of research results. Authorship attribution must be based on substantial, intellectual contribution to the work, and individuals accepting authorship credit must be willing to assume responsibility for the validity of research output. Appropriate authorship attribution and accurate disclosure of author affiliations are essential for enabling the scholarly community and the general public to identify those responsible for the disseminated work. All scholarly or scientific publications involving faculty, staff, students, and trainees arising from academic activities performed within the scope of institutional responsibilities at The University of Texas at Austin (University) must include appropriate authorship credit for individuals involved in the work and accurate disclosure of affiliation(s) for individuals identified as authors.
This policy continues with Responsibilities and Procedures, which goes over guidelines for Authorship Affiliation, Authorship Credit, Transparency and Disclosure, Research Support, and Authorship Disputes.
Does the institution prohibit participation in sponsored research that restricts investigator access to the complete study data or that limits investigators’ ability to verify the accuracy and validity of final reported results?:
The policy language that prohibits sponsored research that restricts investigator access or verification:
Guidance under Rule 90101: Intellectual Property, begins with stating the following as a fundamental principle of intellectual property:
- 1.4 Sponsored research is frequently tightly integrated with the educational mission at many U. T. System institutions but must not abridge publication and research rights, impinge upon the dissemination of research results, including student theses and dissertations, nor diminish an environment of academic and research integrity;
A similar principle can be found under UTS 125: Guidance for Negotiating Research Agreements with Sponsors and Processing Research and Intellectual Property Agreements:
- 3.3 Sponsored research and the rights and obligations of creators to publish and disseminate research data and/or results for scholarly purposes are paramount to the institution’s educational mission and must be protected throughout the commercialization process. Regardless of ownership and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the creators and the U. T. institution shall retain a nonexclusive license to use such data and/or results for patient care, teaching, scholarly, and other academically related purposes and nonprofit research (see Section 9, Regents’ Rule 90101).
These policies focus on granting intellectual property rights to the researchers, but also provide guidance on accepting the grant to perform the research:
- Are the institution’s, principal investigator’s and undergraduate and graduate students' rights to publish the results of the research (subject to sponsor’s prepublication review and even if principal investigator chooses not to publish) preserved and protected?
Within the list of questions that guide the acceptance of the research grant, it asks the institution to consider if the grant language does not conform to any of the guidance. "It is important to consider the above listed criteria to determine if the benefits and value from receiving the grant, performing the research or granting access to intellectual property rights outweigh the impact of any nonconforming provisions."
These principles advocate for open access and dissemination of research findings. However, because there is no explicit prohibition, we have marked "no" for this credit.
Does the institution ban confidential corporate research?:
The policy language that bans confidential corporate research:
Optional Fields
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.