sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause”). But see Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437-39 (1971), and Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 426-31 (1969).

30. See, for example, Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

31. The elements of due process, any or all of which may be required before an individual can be deprived of a particular liberty or property interest, include (1) adequate notice of expected conduct; (2) adequate notice of the charges; (3) a timely hearing; (4) a neutral decision maker; (5) an opportunity to make an oral presentation to the decision maker; (6) an opportunity to present evidence or witnesses to the decision maker; (7) a chance to confront and cross-examine witnesses or evidence to be used against the accused; (8) the right to have an adviser involved to assist in the presentation of the individual 's case to the decision maker; and (9) a decision based on the record with a statement of reasons for the decision.

Not all of these elements must be present in every hearing. To the contrary, only the more serious deprivations of liberty or property interests by the state require extensive procedural safeguards.

See generally, pp. 706-18 in Tribe (1988) and pp. 555-56 in Nowak et al. (1983). See also Mishkin (1988).

32. In this discussion the panel uses the term “hearing” to refer to the mechanism used to investigate complaints of misconduct in science. The hearing may or may not involve sessions in which the subject of a misconduct investigation may hear testimony by or cross-examine witnesses.

33. The issue of the involvement of attorneys in the investigation of misconduct in science is a vexing problem. Some universities believe that attorneys should not participate in the university investigatory process because their involvement may lead to an adversarial spirit that is not consistent with the academic environment. Other universities allow those accused of misconduct to be represented by attorneys in the misconduct investigation. In such cases, the investigative panel may also request the university to supply its legal counsel for the panel's assistance.

34. 45 C.F.R. Section 689.2(b) (1991).

35. 45 C.F.R. Sections 620.314(c), 689.2(d) (1991).

36. 45 C.F.R. Section 689.2(a) (1991).

37. See, for example, the accounts published in Westin (1981) and in Glazer and Glazer (1990).

38. Swazey and Scher (1981) and Glazer and Glazer (1990). See also Hollis (1987), Jacobstein (1987), and Sprague (1987).

39. Public Law 101-12 (103 Stat. 16 [1989]).

40. See, for example, testimony by academic officials and scientists in hearings on maintaining the integrity of scientific research convened by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (U.S. Congress, 1990b).