whistleblower
What are the legal ramifications of going public with corruption in academia?
<p>Let us say that someone has been aware of scientific and professional misconduct in academia.  They blew the whistle, and they were heavily retaliated against.  A multi-million dollar grant was involved.  Also, the Feds are involved to some extent.  </p>

<p>To my knowledge, it isn't libel if it is true.  I do know that going public would void any further investigations.  But what are the legal ramifications of going public with serious forms of corruption at this particular university?</p>

<p>There are no negative legal consequences for the person writing about these acts, assuming that what is written is true, and also assuming the writer is in the US or similar nation where First Amendment protection exists. If the statements are false, then the author is liable under a defamation suit, and the author would want to consult with an attorney to be sure that innuendo about the professor (or post-doc, or the university) did not cross the line and become defamatory. An exception would be if the book reveals classified information, so while it would be legal to imply that there is a classified fact involved, you can't actually reveal that fact. Another potential exception would be if the book unnecessarily revealed specific information that constituted a "trade secret", in which case the author could be liable in a civil suit. A third theoretical avenue for suppressing such a book would be if there were an NDA between the author and the university, and the author learns of the inculpatory facts via a relationship to the project, which he is obligated per the NDA to keep secret. However, the chances that a university would sue for violating such an NDA are nil, and even if they did, the courts would almost certainly toss out the NDA (see this <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4339/when-can-an-nda-be-legally-broken">Q&amp;A</a>).</p>
