Greta's Dilemma
Greta Grant, an Account Specialist in a university Sponsored Projects Office sets up the budget for an NIH grant recently awarded for a project directed by Prof. Alfredo Fettucine. The day after he receives the notification that the budget has been set up, Fettucine writes an email to Greta saying he wants all the funds budgeted for graduate students rebudgeted for conference travel over and above what he had in his proposal budget, and most of the funds budgeted for a variety of items to be rebudgeted to buy a piece of equipment. The total amount of the rebudgeting comes to about 24% of the total approved direct costs. Greta knows that this is below the percentage considered significant rebudgeting and therefore NIH prior approval is not required. Still, she is curious as to why so much rebudgeting is being done at the beginning of the grant period. Greta calls Fettucine, and he does not hesitate to tell her that this is how he always wanted to spend the funds, but he knew NIH would never approve either so much conference travel or the equipment he wants to buy since he already has the same equipment but wants a duplicate as back-up. This concerns Greta, but all of the expenses now proposed by Fettucine are allowable under A-21, so she decides to do as Fettucine requests.
Case Discussion
Interests of the Affected Parties:
Fettucine, as the PI, wants to spend the grant funds in the way he sees fit. He knew that what he wanted would not be approved, so he "played the game" and proposed costs that he knew would be approved. By doing so, he obtained the level of funding he wanted and, since the university can approve the budget changes internally, there is no need to seek NIH approval and alert them to what he is doing.
Greta has reviewed the proposed change, and has checked the NIH policy. She has done what is required of her and, according to the letter of the policy. Given that, why does she feel uneasy?
The university's interest revolves around the uneasiness that Greta feels. The proposal was, in effect, submitted with fraudulent information. The difficulty in this case is that only Fettucine knew at the time the proposal was submitted that it was fraudulent. Unfortunately, should this be questioned under an audit, it would be the university that would be held responsible, it would be the university's name making the newspapers, and it would be the university's good name that would be questioned by the public.
Ethical Issues:
As noted above, Fettucine's unethical action would never have been discovered had he not freely admitted it. Of course, he could have lied and come up with a more palatable rationale for needing the changes, but that too would be unethical. Fettucine's ethical problem lies within himself – a willingness to ignore sponsor policy and to lie in order to get what he wants.
Greta checked the NIH policy regarding rebudgeting and found that the level of rebudgeting did not require NIH approval. Had she checked further, however, the cause of her uneasiness would have become clear. On the application cover page she would have found the PI's certification:
14. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROGRAM DIRECTOR ASSURANCE: I certify that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties....
Greta's ethical issues involve what she needs to do once she found out what Fettucine had done.
The person signing the NIH application for the university certified to the following:
15. APPLICANT ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION AND ACCEPTANCE: I certify that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and accept the obligation to comply with Public Health Services terms and conditions if a grant is awarded as a result of this application. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties.
Given that the person signing for the university did not know false statements were made in the budget, there was no problem in his/her signing the application. Should the matter be brought to the attention of the appropriate university officials, the university has the ethical responsibility to report this matter to NIH. In order to do so, however, the appropriate university officials must be informed that a problem exists.
Consequences of Actions:
The consequences of Fettucine's unethical action can be found in the phrase, "criminal, civil, or administrative penalties." Among these are termination or suspension of the grant and/or debarment of the university or, more likely, Fettucine from receiving further sponsored funding from the federal government. As always, the university would be linked to Fettucine's unethical action and almost inevitably be tainted by it. While the university is ultimately responsible to the proper stewardship of sponsored funding, it depends on its employees to act ethically and responsibly. Given the certifications contained in the application page, if Greta does not report what Fettucine told her, then she is acting just as unethically as he did. This would and should result in disciplinary action taken against her.
Obligations:
Needless to say, Fettucine has the responsibility not to act in a fraudulent manner. His lying in the proposal is inexcusable. He may see it as "playing the game," but it is an unethical game. If he knows that NIH would not fund certain expenses, it is his responsibility to search for other sources of funding.
Greta has the clear-cut obligation to report what she learned from Fettucine to her supervisor. She also has the responsibility to know what the university is committed to when accepting the award from NIH. Part of that commitment lies in its certifications found in the application forms and NIH policy. The university is depending on her and other employees to protect it from exposures and penalties resulting from noncompliance.
Assuming Greta reports this matter to her supervisor, that person has the responsibility to ensure that appropriate corrective action takes place. That could take place in a number of ways. It could be that the supervisor contacts Fettucine and his department chair to convince them that this issue must be addressed. If they are not willing to cooperate, then reporting the matter to NIH by an appropriate university official may the only course of action possible. Take another look at the university official's certification on the NIH application:
15. APPLICANT ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION AND ACCEPTANCE: I certify that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and accept the obligation to comply with Public Health Services terms and conditions if a grant is awarded as a result of this application. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties.
Now that the university knows that fraudulent statements were made in the application, and the application is incorporated in the award, it is clear that doing nothing about Fettucine's unethical action is a violation of the university's certification.
