The document presents a case study and related poll questions designed to explore institutional responses to evolving NIH and NSF disclosure requirements, especially concerning faculty affiliations and external engagements. The poll questions address whether institutions have adjusted their processes or are considering changes to comply with these disclosure mandates. Specific areas of inquiry include the review of faculty consulting agreements and the necessity of obtaining institutional approval before hosting visiting scientists, with an emphasis on which offices are responsible for such oversight.
The case study focuses on Prof. A., a well-funded, tenured pharmacology professor at Star University, whose salary is predominantly supported by NIH and NSF grants. The university permits consulting without mandatory disclosure or supervision beyond federal conflict of interest (COI) requirements. Prof. A. seeks guidance from his department chair regarding three consulting agreements: one with a U.S. pharmaceutical company, another with a Canadian pharma company (involving a confidentiality agreement), and a significant arrangement with a Chinese university. The latter requires Prof. A. to take on adjunct faculty status, engage in extensive travel, and host a Chinese colleague in his lab, with active data and material exchange already underway. This case raises questions about institutional oversight, compliance with federal requirements, international collaborations, and the management of potential conflicts of interest and foreign influence.
