Law

  The University of Virginia (“University”), a public institution, employs Kelvin as a biochemist. Kelvin mistakenly received an email from the Chair of the Biology Department noting that the University had cloned three individuals for compensation. In the email, the Chair of the Biology Department identified three researchers that witnessed the cloning. Kelvin noticed that the University’s president and general counsel received a courtesy copy of the email. Kelvin talked to the three researchers identified in the email: Dr. Mason, Dr. Justin and Dr. Toner. The researchers confirmed that they saw the cloning. In addition, the researchers admitted that they falsified the records that the University must maintain under section 300 and they falsified the reports that the University filed with the BORS under section 301. The researchers said that they kept the original records in their personal lockers at the biology laboratory. Kelvin saw evidence in a biology laboratory that would prove that the University had cloned the individuals. The evidence included six test tubes, two flasks, and ten slides. Kelvin filed an administrative complaint with the BORS against the University for violating section 201 of the HCA. Kelvin alleged that the University was engaged in cloning individuals for compensation. Kelvin signed the complaint, and he notarized it. In the complaint, he noted that he saw the physical evidence that proved the University cloned the individuals. He identified the three researchers who saw the cloning and said that they falsified University's records and reports. The BORS opens an investigation of Kelvin’s complaint. 1. Must the University maintain records of its cloning activities? 2. Must the University file reports on its cloning activities?