N SERB 
DIA 
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOARD 
POLICY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
FOR GRANT APPLICANTS (INCLUDING COLLABORATORS), REVIEWERS & 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND OFFICERS DEALING WITH VARIOUS 
PROGRAMS OF SERB 
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. 
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 policy shall be binding on persons applying for and receiving funding from SERB, 
Reviewers of the proposal and Members of Expert Committees and Programme Advisory 
Committees. The policy is also binding on all individuals including Officers of SERB 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 SERB. 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 Family members) and Institutional (Colleagues, Collaborators, 
Employer, persons associated in a professional career of an individual such as Ph.D. supervisor 
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. 
(i) The applicant is a 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. 
(ii) 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 relationshipin the past five 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, 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 five 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. 
3. Regulation: 
The SERB 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 declared voluntarily by the 
applicant/Reviewer/Committee Member. 
4. Code of Conduct to be followed by the Applicant to the Grant/Award: 
(a) The applicant must refrain from suggesting referees with potential Conflict of Interestthat 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. Code of Conduct 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 
(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 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. 
6. 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. 
7. Code of Conduct for Officers dealing with Programs in SERB 
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 
personal friend or thesis/ post doctoral mentor or stands to benefit financially if the applicant 
proposal is funded. In such cases, SERB will allot the grant applications to the other program 
officer. 
8. Applleate authority: 
Secretary, SERB shall be the appellate authority in issues pertaining to conflict of interest and issues 
concerning the accountability of the decision making process. The decision of Secretary, SERB in