How Implementing a 2022 Law is Helping Us Ensure Safe and Respectful Workplaces

Nearly two years ago, we implemented a provision in a law (Section 239 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022). The law requires NIH grant recipients to notify us when their senior key personnel on awards are removed from their position or are otherwise disciplined due to concerns about harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions. This step represented an important milestone to help ensure safe and respectful workplaces, free from harassment and discrimination. Here we provide an update on the implementation of Section 239.

Table 1 shows how many harassment self-disclosures we received in calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023. Section 239 was implemented in July 2022. Institutional self-disclosures increased from 24 in 2021 (15% of total allegations) to 42 in 2023 (22% of total allegations). The overall number of allegations/notifications also rose.

Table 1. Number of Institutional Notifications of Harassment: CYs 2021 to 2023

Year	2021	2022	2023
Number of institutional notifications	24	30	42
Total allegations and notifications	162	186	192
Institutional notifications as % of total	15%	16%	22%

We believe the law was one factor leading to the increase seen in recent years, but it was likely not the only reason. As we noted in a post from last March, heightened awareness in the research community, our outreach efforts, and strengthened recipient notification requirements may have also helped contribute to the increase in notifications.

Has the new requirement for institutional notifications been helpful? The short answer is yes.

The law has enabled us to get involved early on when recipients initiate disciplinary processes. Prior to the law, we may never have been informed or notified, unless the institution mentioned workplace environment concerns when requesting to change the principal investigator on the grant. Now that we are being made aware much earlier, we can help ensure that any actions to be taken are within everybody’s best interest.

We are now learning more about recipient administrative actions to ensure a safe and respectful workplace. Based on the information we receive, we are better equipped to address concerns and ensure compliance. Below are some de-identified examples:

• An institution shared their investigation report with us, and it noted the principal investigator was put on administrative leave but was still leading the grant. We informed the recipient we had concerns that the researcher would not be able to properly oversee an NIH grant, especially while being on administrative leave and not having access to the institution’s facilities. This type of response is a red flag for us, as we wrote about previously.
• An institution removed the principal investigator designated on an NIH award for 1 year after completing their investigation. During this time, the researcher was required to receive additional training and coaching, and the lab environment underwent frequent assessments before bringing the person back to NIH funding.
• An institution was conducting an investigation involving an NIH-supported researcher. They informed us about the serious allegations, their ongoing investigation, and the interim measures taken to ensure a safe environment while the investigation proceeded. Notifying NIH while the investigation was still ongoing allowed us to work with the institution to ensure that projects could proceed with proper oversight.  

Section 239 better positions us to prevent “passing the harasser,” though challenges remain. Whereas previously a recipient institution may not have fully informed NIH about an investigation, these rules now require that recipient institutions report all disciplinary actions, including interim actions (e.g., placing an individual on administrative leave). NIH’s oversight and accountability efforts are bolstered as a result.

We appreciate that many institutions are doing their best to report promptly to us and work collaboratively to address these types of concerns. However, challenges remain. Here we will share some advice:

• The more details you can provide, and as early as you can provide them, the better.
• Report any administrative actions, including but not limited to disciplinary actions, even if there is no clear impact on an NIH award (see FAQ #18 here).
• If interim actions are taken while an investigation is ongoing, those must be reported to NIH, even if a finding has not been made.
• Consider ways to avoid harm to students or others who may not be in positions of authority when developing disciplinary action plans for senior key personnel.
• Additional guidance and resources are available on our website, FAQs, and this recent All About Grants podcast.

In addition to our efforts implementing Section 239, NIH is currently funding two awards aimed at lessening or eliminating sexual harassment in biomedical research (see RePORTER here and here). We support a re-integration program that provides individuals, including predoctoral students, who are adversely affected by unsafe or discriminatory environments resulting from unlawful harassment, to rapidly transition into new safer and more supportive research environments. Recipients are required to have behavioral codes of conduct to assure safe and healthful working conditions for their employees and foster work environments conducive to high-quality research.

The important thing to remember is, when in doubt, institutions are encouraged to reach out to us. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with you to handle these issues effectively, thoughtfully, and appropriately.