RESPECT | TRUST | INCLUSION | DISCOVERY | EXCELLENCE
On the Fuzzy Edge:
Conflicted Collaborators
Two faculty colleagues create a professional consortium with collaborators from other institutions. The aims of the consortium are to promote networking, share scientific ideas and possibly host an annual conference. The first few years, the consortium functions informally.
During the third year, the consortium members decide to formally create an organization, with the two Duke faculty taking the lead on registering the organization legally. The faculty use their Duke address to register the entity with the state and are named as key members of the organization. Because of the overlap with their function and research at Duke, they apply for funding from a federal agency to help cover the cost of a planned conference to be hosted by the consortium, intending to add the consortium as a Duke vendor. After the conference, the department contacts Procurement regarding paying the consortium and adding it as a Duke vendor. Duke Accounts Payable identifies the faculty as the main contacts for the vendor, triggering a conflict of interest review.
Duke Values In Action: Dual Interest and Outside Activities
Outside activities are a valuable means for professional and civic engagement with the community. Avoid or manage real or perceived conflicts of interest in all aspects of business, patient care, research, time commitment, and governance. Avoid activities, pursuits or financial interests that are not compatible, in reality or perception, with our responsibilities. Do not use our positions of influence or authority to secure personal advantage or gain.
Fact finding and intervention:
In the award application, the faculty had not indicated the consortium would be paid, whether as a vendor or a sub-recipient. The award covered the consortium conference attendance cost for some graduate students and post doctoral associates. The department had paid for the cost of the attendance and then planned to bill the consortium for the funds. The COI evaluation determined the consortium should not be added as a vendor, given the faculty were both initiating and benefiting from the transaction due to their role as PI and co PI on the award and fiduciary roles at the consortium. In addition, there was inadequate documentation in the award document regarding paying the consortium.
Resolution and action plan:
- Contact the faculty to go over policies including avoiding using Duke resources for an external activity, in this case the use of the Duke address. Guidance is also provided on use of sponsored awards.
- The faculty are instructed to: 1) Remove the Duke address from the entity filing; and 2) file an amendment with the award sponsor; payment will only be authorized after these actions are taken.
- The consortium will not be added as a Duke vendor due to the conflict; because the conference already occurred, Duke will authorize a one-time payment to the consortium when the award is updated.
*This vignette is loosely based on real cases received through Duke’s Speak Up program and/or other investigatory offices. Creative license was taken to protect the identities of those involved.*