42 CFR 93.408
§ 93.408 Mitigating and aggravating factors in HHS administrative actions.
United States · 42 CFR — Public Health · Status: effective
Cite this
- Citation
- 42 CFR 93.408, § 93.408 Mitigating and aggravating factors in HHS administrative actions, United States, version 1 as recorded 2026-07-09, yourstate.us, https://yourstate.us/provision/202029
- Permanent ID
ys:prov:202029@1- SHA-256
8a1deff7359e3ca478f017b1a961a513a845bf636cf9f158c577904b0f70155d
The hash is SHA-256 of this version's text, with every run of whitespace collapsed to a single space and the ends trimmed. The ID always leads back here, and checking it says whether the text you cited is still the current version.
Full text
The purpose of HHS administrative actions is remedial. The appropriate administrative action is commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to protect the health and safety of the public, promote the integrity of the PHS-supported research and research process, and conserve public funds. ORI considers the following aggravating and mitigating factors in determining appropriate HHS administrative actions and their terms. The existence or nonexistence of any factor is not determinative.
(a) Knowing, intentional, or reckless. Were the respondent's actions knowing or intentional or were the actions reckless?
(b) Pattern. Was the research misconduct an isolated event or part of a continuing or prior pattern of dishonest conduct?
(c) Impact. Did the misconduct have significant impact on the proposed or reported research record, research subjects, other researchers, institutions, or the public health or welfare?
(d) Acceptance of responsibility. Has the respondent accepted responsibility for the misconduct by:
(1) Admitting the conduct;
(2) Cooperating with the research misconduct proceedings;
(3) Demonstrating remorse and awareness of the significance and seriousness of the research misconduct; and
(4) Taking steps to correct or prevent the recurrence of the research misconduct?
(e) Failure to accept responsibility. Does the respondent blame others rather than accepting responsibility for the actions?
(f) Retaliation. Did the respondent retaliate against complainants, witnesses, committee members, or other individuals?
(g) Continued risk to PHS funding. Does the respondent demonstrate responsible stewardship of research resources?
(h) Other factors. Are other factors relevant to the circumstances of a particular case?
Legislative history
This is a federal regulation, adopted through agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act — not enacted by a recorded vote of Congress.