ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HEAD OF INSTITUTION

(TO BE GIVEN ON LETTER HEAD)

PROJECT TITLE: _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

1. Certified that the Institute welcomes participation of Dr./Shri/Smt./Km. ____________________ as the Principal
Investigator and Dr./Shri/Smt./Km. _____________________________________________________ as the Co-Investigator
for the project and that in the unforeseen event of discontinuance by the Principal Investigator, the Co-Investigator will
assume the responsibility for the fruitful completion of the project (after obtaining consent in advance from DST).

2. Certified that the equipment, other basic facilities and such other administrative facilities as per terms and conditions of the
grant, will be extended to investigator (s) throughout the duration of the project.

3. Institute assures financial and other managerial responsibilities of the project.

4. Certified that the organization has never been blacklisted by any department of the State Government or Central
Government.

Name and Signature of Head of Institution

Date: ………………

Place:………………

REMARKS: In regard to research proposals emanating from scientific institutions/laboratories under various scientific
departments the Head of the institution is required to provide a justification indicating clearly whether the research
proposals falls in line with the normal research activities of the institution or not and if not, the scientific reasons which
merit its consideration by DST.
 CERTIFICATE FROM THE INVESTIGATOR
PROJECT TITLE: _____________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

1. We agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the DST grant.

2. We did not submit this or a similar project proposal elsewhere for financial support.

3. We have explored and ensured that equipment and basic facilities will actually be available as and when required for the
purpose of the project. We shall not request financial support under this project, for procurement of these items.

4. We undertake that spare time on permanent equipment will be made available to other users.

5. We have enclosed the following materials:

ITEMS NUMBER OF COPIES

(a) Endorsement from the Head of One

the Institution (on letter head)

(b) Certificate from Investigator One

(c) Certificate from Investigator regarding conflict of interest One

(d) Name and address of experts/institution interested in One

the subject/ outcome of the project

(e) Copies of the proposals One hard Copy

Date : ……………… Name & Signature of Name & Signature Of

Principal Investigator Co-Investigator(s)
Place:………………..
 DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
POLICY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

FOR REVIEWER & COMMITTEE MEMBER or APPLICANT or DST OFFICER ASSOCIATED/ DEALING WITH
THE SCHEME/ PROGRAM OF DST

Issues of Conflicts of Interest and ethics in scientific research and research management have assumed greater prominence, given
the larger share of Government funding in the country's R & D scenario. The following policy pertaining to general aspects of
Conflicts of Interest and code of ethics, are objective measures that is intended to protect the integrity of the decision making
processes and minimize biasness. The policy aims to sustain transparency, increase accountability in funding mechanisms and
provide assurance to the general public that processes followed in award of grants are fair and non-discriminatory. The Policy aims
to avoid all forms of bias by following a system that is fair, transparent and free from all influence/ unprejudiced dealings, prior to,
during and subsequent to the currency of the programme to be entered into with a view to enable public to abstain from bribing or
any corrupt practice in order to secure the award by providing assurance to them that their competitors will also refrain from
bribing and other corrupt practice and the decision makers will commit to prevent corruption, in any form, by their officials by
following transparent procedures. This will also ensure a global acceptance of the decision making process adopted by DST.

Definition of Conflict of Interest:

Conflict of Interest means "any interest which could significantly prejudice an individual's objectivity in the decision making
process, thereby creating an unfair competitive advantage for the individual or to the organization which he/she represents". The
Conflict of Interest also encompasses situations where an individual, in contravention to the accepted norms and ethics, could
exploit his/her obligatory duties for personal benefits.

1. Coverage of the Policy:

a) The provisions of the policy shall be followed by persons applying for and receiving funding from DST, Reviewers of
the proposal and Members of Expert Committees and Programme Advisory Committees. The provisions of the policy
will also be applicable on all individuals including Officers of DST connected directly or indirectly or through
intermediaries and Committees involved in evaluation of proposals and subsequent decision making process.
b) This policy aims to minimize aspects that may constitute actual Conflict of Interests, apparent Conflict of Interests and
potential Conflict of Interests in the funding mechanisms that are presently being operated by DST. The policy also aims
to cover, although not limited to, Conflict of interests that are Financial (gains from the outcomes of the proposal or
award), Personal (association of relative / Family members) and Institutional (Colleagues, Collaborators, Employer,
persons associated in a professional career of an individual such as Ph.D. supervisor etc.)

2. Specifications as to what constitutes Conflict of Interest.

Any of the following specifications (non-exhaustive list) imply Conflict of Interest if,

(i) Due to any reason by which the Reviewer/Committee Member cannot deliver fair and objective assessment of
the proposal.
(ii) The applicant is a directly relative# or family member (including but not limited to spouse, child, sibling,
parent) or personal friend of the individual involved in the decision making process or alternatively, if any
relative of an Officer directly involved in any decision making process / has influenced interest/ stake in the
applicant’s form etc..
(iii) The applicant for the grant/award is an employee or employer of an individual involved in the process as a
Reviewer or Committee Member; or if the applicant to the grant/award has had an employer-employee
relationship in the past three years with that individual.
(iv) The applicant to the grant/award belongs to the same Department as that of the Reviewer/Committee Member.
(v) The Reviewer/Committee Member is a Head of an Organization from where the applicant is employed.
(vi) The Reviewer /Committee Member is or was, associated in the professional career of the applicant (such as
Ph.D. supervisor, Mentor, present Collaborator etc.)
(vii) The Reviewer/Committee Member is involved in the preparation of the research proposal submitted by the
applicant.
(viii) The applicant has joint research publications with the Reviewer/Committee Member in the last three years.
(ix) The applicant/Reviewer/Committee Member, in contravention to the accepted norms and ethics followed in
scientific research has a direct/indirect financial interest in the outcomes of the proposal.
(x) The Reviewer/Committee Member stands to gain personally should the submitted proposal be accepted or
rejected.

# The Term “Relative” for this purpose would be referred in section 6 of Companies Act , 1956.
3. Regulation:

The DST shall strive to avoid conflict of interest in its funding mechanisms to the maximum extent possible. Self-regulatory
mode is however recommended for stake holders involved in scientific research and research management, on issues
pertaining to Conflict of Interest and scientific ethics. Any disclosure pertaining to the same must be made voluntarily by the
applicant/Reviewer/Committee Member.

4. Confidentiality:

The Reviewers and the Members of the Committee shall safeguard the confidentiality of all discussions and decisions taken
during the process and shall refrain from discussing the same with any applicant or a third party, unless the Committee
recommends otherwise and records for doing so.

5. Code of Conduct

5.1 To be followed by Reviewers/Committee Members:

(a) All reviewers shall submit a conflict of interest statement, declaring the presence or absence of any form of conflict of
interest.
(b) The reviewers shall refrain from evaluating the proposals if the conflict of interest is established or if it is apparent.
(c) All discussions and decisions pertaining to conflict of interest shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
(d) The Chairman of the Committee shall decide on all aspects pertaining to conflict of interests.
(e) The Chairman of the Committee shall request that all members disclose if they have any conflict of interest in the items
of the agenda scheduled for discussion.
(f) The Committee Members shall refrain from participating in the decision making process and leave the room with respect
to the specific item where the conflict of interest is established or is apparent.
(g) If the Chairman himself/herself has conflict of interest, the Committee may choose a Chairman from among the
remaining members, and the decision shall be made in consultation with Member Secretary of the Committee.
(h) It is expected that a Committee member including the Chair-person will not seek funding from a Committee in which
he/she is a member. If any member applies for grant, such proposals will be evaluated separately outside the Committee
in which he/she is a member.

5.2 To be followed by the Applicant to the Grant/Award:

(a) The applicant must refrain from suggesting referees with potential Conflict of Interest that may arise due to the factors
mentioned in the specifications described above in Point No. 2.
(b) The applicant may mention the names of individuals to whom the submitted proposal should not be sent for refereeing,
clearly indicating the reasons for the same.

5.3 To be followed by the Officers dealing with Programs in DST:

While it is mandatory for the program officers to maintain confidentiality as detailed in point no. 6 above, they should declare,
in advance, if they are dealing with grant applications of a relative or family member (including but not limited to spouse,
child, sibling, parent) or thesis/ post-doctoral mentor or stands to benefit financially if the applicant proposal is funded. In
such cases, DST will allot the grant applications to the other program officer.

6. Sanction for violation

3.1 For a) Reviewers / Committee Members and b) Applicant

Any breach of the code of conduct will invite action as decided by the Committee.

3.2 For Officers dealing with Program in DST

Any breach of the code of conduct will invite action under present provision of CCS (conduct Rules), 1964.

7. Final Appellate authority:

Secretary, DST shall be the appellate authority in issues pertaining to conflict of interest and issues concerning the decision
making process. The decision of Secretary, DST in these issues shall be final and binding.

8. Declaration
I have read the above “Policy on Conflict of Interest” of the DST applicable to the Reviewer/ Committee Member/
Applicant/ DST Scheme or Program Officer # and agree to abide by provisions thereof.

I hereby declare that I have no conflict of interest of any form pertaining to the proposed grant *
I hereby declare that I have conflict of interest of any form pertaining to the proposed grant *

* & # (Tick whichever is applicable)

Name of the Reviewer/ Committee Member or Applicant or DST Officer

(Strike out whichever is not applicable)

(Signature with date)