Advisory Committee on Ethics, Conflicts, and Security (ACECS)

WHOI’s Advisory Committee on Ethics, Conflicts, and Security (ACECS) is responsible for the oversight of matters regarding conflict of interest or conflict of commitment at the Institution. ACECS also promotes the principles of ethical research, provides guidance and strategic thinking on intellectual property and advancement opportunities, and ensures that WHOI remains an institution of the utmost public trust.

ACECS is made up of 7 individuals, each serving a 3-year term, staggered and renewable at the discretion of the President and Director, with the advice of Staff Council and Senior Administration.  ACECS is chaired by the General Counsel, who reports recommendations to the Deputy Director and Vice President for Research (DDVPR). ACECS membership reflects WHOI’s diverse disciplines, departments, interests, and experiences and includes representation from: one member of the Technical Staff, one member of the Scientific Staff, one member from Marine Facilities Operations, one member from Academic Programs, one member from Finance/Procurement/Grants and Contracts, and one member from Advancement.[1] Appointments to ACECS shall be made by the President and Director, with advice from Staff Council and Senior Administration. ACECS shall be administered by the Advisor to the President.  All communications for ACECS shall be considered privileged and confidential.

[1] Individuals on ACECS may charge time required for ACECS involvement to WHOI overhead.

ACECS reviews Conflict of Interests and Conflict of Commitments proposals related to industry or commercial involvement, intellectual property/technology transfer, and other novel issues involving WHOI’s reputation, including all offers of, or requests for:

• Industry-Sponsored Research or projects;
• Use of Institution facilities or equipment by any non WHOI-entity (including start-up companies formed by WHOI personnel);
• Any compensated commitments of a professional or business nature, including any proposed consulting arrangements with a company that relates in any way to the work performed at WHOI;
• Opportunities that have a commercial or corporate connection, including technology licensing and transfer;
• Corporate sponsorships, giveaways, partnerships, perceived or actual endorsements of any kind, or other activities;
• Advancement or development opportunities that involve partnerships with any outside organization or the use of WHOI’s name, logo, or brand.
• All apparent or real Conflicts of Interest or Commitment (as defined in WHOI policy) brought to its attention by an Individual, Department Chair or Administrator, or a department in the course of doing business related to WHOI.
• Formal conflict management plans (CMPs) before they go to the DDVPR for final approval.

The goal of the review is to determine what conditions or restrictions, if any, should be imposed to manage, reduce, or eliminate any conflict to ensure that the Institution permits and promotes activities that are aligned with WHOI’s mission and values, and maintains the integrity and independence of the Institution and its people.

• Is the individual's primary responsibility to the Institution in danger of being compromised?
• If there is substantial personal (non WHOI or outside WHOI?), professional effort for the individual, is it clear that these professional efforts will be consistent with Institution goals?
• If use of Institution personnel or facilities is planned, is this use secondary to, and not likely to interfere with, normal Institution activities?
  • Have such personnel agreed to work on such activity or project?
  • How are such personnel to be compensated?
• Is the Institution's ability to deal objectively with suppliers, contractors, or others with which it does business in any way compromised or would the appearance of such a possibility be created?
• Would any appearance of unfairness to other Institution personnel result?
• Would the stature of the individual in the scientific community or in his/her particular discipline be enhanced, as is usually the case when serving in the capacity of a professional referee, member of a visiting committee, editor of a scientific journal, or the like?
• Is the Institution's name inappropriately associated with the activity or is there a possibility that such an association could arise?
• Is inappropriate use to be made of ongoing research to provide profit or competitive advantage to a private interest?
• Does the activity carry with it the potential for inhibiting the free communication of ideas among colleagues in the Institution or for unreasonably restricting the availability or dissemination of the results of research?
• Are patent protections and patent licensing being properly considered and agreed upon?

How does ACECS review occur:  Supervisors or Departments should review the conflict first through Conflict Disclosure Forms, and submit their mitigation plan (e.g., Conflict Management Plan) along with a request for review by ACECS.  PIs and other staff with any actual or perceived conflicts of interest should consult with their department chair for advice before submitting to ACECS.

Typically, the committee meets once per month (standing call) throughout the year and sets its meeting dates 6 months at a time (meeting dates will be listed on ACECS website). Materials submitted to ACECS are due two weeks in advance of the meeting. It is critical that the appropriate documents are submitted for ACECS review as early in the process as possible in order to determine whether a conflict exists, and whether it needs to be eliminated or can be managed (and if so how).  This means that questions of conflict should be raised during the earliest proposal times, and before any staff has committed significant time or expense into writing a proposal or pursuing an opportunity. (e.g., ACECS does not need final proposals, as general statement of work, preliminary budget, and explanation of the conflict are sufficient). PIs should plan accordingly when considering proposal deadlines, as lack of proper planning will not be considered grounds for granting an emergency request.