Endorsement Policy
The Canadian Association for HIV Research (CAHR) does not, as a rule, endorse other organizations’ or groups’ policy positions and statements or advocacy messaging or initiatives to ensure we respect the diversity of views represented by our broad-based membership. However, as the national voice for Canadian HIV researchers, CAHR commits to utilizing its platform to disseminate causes that seek the betterment of our membership and those living with and at risk of HIV.
CAHR Awards Revocation Policy
Summary:
The Canadian Association for HIV Research (CAHR) confers honors and awards each year to recognize significant contributions to HIV research in Canada. These Awards are determined and issued at CAHR’s sole judgment and discretion and CAHR is in no way obligated to issue or maintain an Award to/for any person. CAHR retains the right to grant, defer, or decline to grant an Award to any person. CAHR also retains the right to revoke an Award already granted, if, in its judgment and discretion, CAHR determines that revocation is in the best interests of CAHR and its membership.
Purpose:
Professional ethics is of vital importance when conferring an award. When CAHR grants an Award, the Award reflects CAHR’ judgment that an individual’s contributions to, and effect on, HIV research are exemplary. CAHR takes into account the effect on the enterprise of the totality of the individual’s work and professional and ethical conduct and reputation. CAHR expects that those who hold Awards to demonstrate that participation in and recognition by the HIV community are privileges, and that the community’s leaders, and others it celebrates, embody highly professional and ethical conduct in their work.
Therefore, as indicated in the documentation for the CAHR Board-approved Awards (“Award”) program, “All award winners are expected to meet the commonly held standards of professional ethics and scientific integrity.” In the rare case where an Award winner no longer meets this expectation, or otherwise fails to merit the continued status of Award winner, the following set of guidelines and procedures are to be followed to request revocation and for the consideration of the request to revoke an individual’s Award.
Scope:
CAHR will not confer any Award on any individual whose ethical conduct is the subject of a credible question known to CAHR, so long as the question has not been finally and favorably determined to CAHR’s satisfaction, in its discretion. A person who is being considered for an Award (upon becoming aware of being considered), or who holds an Award, acknowledges a continuing duty to disclose to CAHR the existence of any fact, situation, or circumstance that could be considered relevant to CAHR’s decision whether to grant the Award under provisions of this policy. Failure to make a disclosure may result in CAHR withholding or revoking an Award, in CAHR’s discretion, in accordance with this policy and the procedures outlined herein.
Accordingly, CAHR will, in its sole discretion, consider revoking an Award in cases of proven scientific misconduct, serious breaches of professional ethics, or when the Award winner (in the view of CAHR) otherwise no longer merits the continued status of Award winner.
In either case, when applying this policy in situations of credible but undetermined questions, CAHR is withholding judgment and is not making a statement or determination regarding any individual. Rather, revocation in this case can be considered a preventative measure to safeguard the integrity of CAHR awards.
All requests to revoke Award status will be handled in accordance with the procedures provided below. Breaches of professional ethics might include sexual misconduct, racial discrimination, or other ethical violations. Sexual harassment or retaliation for declining, objecting to, or reporting harassment or other sexual conduct may constitute a serious breach of professional ethics. This policy covers professional activities wherever they take place. This includes, but is not limited to, academic buildings, laboratories, field sites, research stations, field course venues, professional meetings, or any such professional settings. This policy includes interactions with persons such as, but not limited to, colleagues, subordinates, students, teaching or research assistants or others with whom the Award winner interacts as part of the Award winner’s professional activities.
A request for revocation of an award must include an investigative report that documents findings, sanctions, or actions taken from an independent organization or agency, an organization affiliated with CAHR, or CAHR itself. Alternatively, a public announcement of the information in a report, or actions that have been taken, may be submitted. Media reports alone may not be sufficient to support a revocation request. CAHR will only consider requests for revocation filed within two (2) years of publication of the report or announcement of the finding, sanction, or action, and will not consider requests when the Award winner is deceased.
Procedures:
A request for revocation of an Award (“Request”) should be made in writing to the CAHR Board Secretary. Requests must be sent via email to: info@cahr-acrv.ca. In all steps of these Procedures, the identity of the requestor will generally not be revealed by the CAHR Office.
A Request must include an investigative report and/or public announcement of findings or actions taken (or links thereto) from a credible body such as a funding agency, a professional organization, an academic institution, a court of law, or admission(s) of conduct by the Award winner. Requests may only be made by a member of CAHR. The member must include detailed information about the sources used in order to enable verification of information. In addition, the member must agree in writing to maintain the confidentiality of the matter until its conclusion at CAHR.
CAHR Office staff will conduct a preliminary review to determine if the Request is substantive, contains adequate documentation, and complies with this Policy and these Procedures. As a result of this review, either these Procedures will continue, or the Request will be dismissed without prejudice. In either case, staff will provide a report to the CAHR Board of Directors.
During revocation procedures, deliberations on claims will be based on the evidence provided. Investigations by CAHR of complaints or charges beyond information presented in the Requestor otherwise available publicly (such as publications or court records) will not occur as part of revocation procedures.
Based on the submitted documents, the Board will decide whether to proceed with revocation procedures or to dismiss the Request. A majority vote of the Board members present is sufficient to proceed with the Request. If the Board proceeds, it will appoint an ad hoc Committee made up of at least two current Board members and other members, to be appointed at the Board’s discretion. The ad hoc Committee will remain active until a determination has been made on the Request, even if the term of office of an involved Board member expires during this period.
If the Board decides to proceed, the Board will define a timeline for the process, and the Award winner will be notified of the Request in writing and in confidence. The Award winner will be given notice of the Request, with the supporting documentation. The Award winner will be offered the options to relinquish their Award or to defend the maintenance of the award. The Award winner will be invited to respond in writing to the Request, and if desired, to make an oral presentation to the ad hoc Committee which will ordinarily occur virtually. Such conference will include the Award winner but not include any representatives of the Award winner and will be limited in time and scope per the direction of the ad hoc Committee. The Award Selection Committee may provide a written response within the timeframe defined by the ad hoc Committee.
After the deadline for responses has passed, the ad hoc Committee will consider the original Request, any responses, including the oral presentation/conference with the Award winner, if any, and may also consider any other pertinent information of public or official record. The ad hoc Committee will discuss and vote on a motion of revocation. An affirmative vote of the majority of the ad hoc Committee is required for this motion to pass. The decision of the ad hoc Committee is final and there is no appeal.
After the decision is made, the ad hoc Committee will provide a summary report to the Board of Directors. The report would indicate if the motion passed, but neither the vote tally nor the decisions of individual members of the ad hoc Committee will be included. CAHR Office staff will share the report with the member who submitted the request and the former Awardee.
In the event of a revocation, the former Awardee’s name will be removed from all public listings of Award winners. If the CAHR Office staff determine that there should be a public statement of the decision to revoke the Award, the background factors or bases for the revocation may be included in the announcement, but all other information about the requestor, the ad hoc Committee, or its deliberations will remain confidential.
Further Reading
- Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022)
- Tri-Agency Policy on Indigenous Citizenship and Membership Affirmation (2024)
- Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (2021) (Section 3.1.1 – Breaches of Agency Policies by Researchers)
3.1.1 Breach of Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy includes:
- Fabrication: Making up data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images.
- Falsification: Manipulating, changing, or omitting data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images, without appropriate acknowledgement, such that the research record is not accurately represented.
- Destruction of research data or records: The destruction of one’s own or another’s research data or records or in contravention of the applicable funding agreement, institutional policy and/or laws, regulations and professional or disciplinary standards. This also includes the destruction of data or records to avoid the detection of wrongdoing.
- Plagiarism: Presenting and using another’s published or unpublished work, including theories, concepts, data, source material, methodologies or findings, including graphs and images, as one’s own, without appropriate referencing and, if required, without permission.
- Redundant publication or self-plagiarism: The re-publication of one’s own previously published work or part thereof, including data, in any language, without adequate acknowledgment of the source, or justification.
- Invalid authorship: Inaccurate attribution of authorship, including attribution of authorship to persons other than those who have made a substantial contribution to, and who accept responsibility for, the contents, of a publication or document.
- Inadequate acknowledgement: Failure to appropriately recognize contributors.
- Mismanagement of Conflict of Interest: Failure to appropriately identify and address any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the Institution’s policy on conflict of interest in research, preventing one or more of the objectives of the RCR Framework (Article 1.3) from being met.
