University misconduct inquiries lack transparency

Last week the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) endorsed the findings of an inquiry into research misconduct at the University of Queensland. As reported by the ABC, an academic – Dr Caroline Barwood – resigned from the university following the earlier resignation of Professor Bruce Murdoch. The researchers were accused of fabricating data to support a new treatment for Parkinson's disease.

But my own experience of the research misconduct system is that it is far from effective and lacks transparency, and this parallels the experiences of complainants in other cases, most of whom have suffered serious career setbacks following their allegations of research misconduct.

There have been two other cases of alleged research misconduct in the news this year, one at the University of NSW and another at the Queensland University of Technology, which are ongoing despite initial findings that absolved the accused researchers of deliberate misconduct.

In a recent article on The Conversation, Professor Warwick Anderson, chair of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), assured readers that Australia had a rigorous system for investigating research misconduct, based on Part B of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research ("the Code").

According the NHMRC website, Part B of the Code:

...provides a valuable framework for handling breaches of the Code and research misconduct. This part of the Code helps institutions and researchers to understand their responsibilities in the event that a breach of the Code occurs or an allegation of research misconduct is made. The Code guides institutions through the appropriate responses and explains the responsibilities and rights of researchers if they witness research misconduct. This section of the Code is designed to ensure there are agreed, clear, fair and effective processes in place in the event of an allegation of research misconduct.

It is a matter of public record that in 2010 I made complaints against Professor Christos Pantelis and others then at the University of Melbourne for publishing my original work, and that of an Oxford colleague, without including us as authors of the resulting papers.

Professor Pantelis has recently been in the news again as the senior and corresponding author of a study describing a genetic test for autism, which has been comprehensively refuted based on a number of serious methodological errors.

Of course it cannot be concluded that this latest incident reflects anything more than a lack of research expertise and a failure of the peer-review process. What is relevant, but not publicly known, is the outcome of the prior research misconduct inquiry in relation to Pantelis.

I made my own allegations about research misconduct against Pantelis and others under the Provisions of Part B of the Code. The University of Melbourne strongly resisted investigating my allegations according to those provisions until the NHMRC intervened. During the inquiry they passed over important aspects of the Code.

Currently, the University of Melbourne investigates research misconduct under its general disciplinary procedures. These are not consistent with the Code as required by funding bodies, but are conducted under the auspices of the director of human resources and are the same as for any other form of misconduct.

Long story short, some of my allegations were upheld, but no individual was named. In effect, several of my allegations were dismissed, some publicly, without any explanation, and well before I was provided with limited information about the original inquiry findings.

I appealed to the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) who then passed its own findings to Professor Anderson. Despite recent correspondence with ARIC, which has not drawn a response, I have never been informed in detail of the inquiry findings as required by the Code and as determined by ARIC itself. This particular case also shows that the Code is ineffective and can be ignored without sanction.

Unfortunately, this parallels the response of UNSW to the allegations made there. In both cases inquiry findings were made without justification and the complainants were told that the outcomes were "strictly confidential" and not to be disclosed to any third party.

This means that the inquiry could simply be a whitewash, given that the reasons for the dismissal of allegations could not be challenged under appeal - a basic tenet of procedural fairness and natural justice which is also mandated by the Code.

Further, under the present secretive system, even if allegations of research misconduct are upheld, no meaningful sanctions need be applied. Those found to have engaged in misconduct may suffer no reputational damage and are free to move to another research organisation - which may remain unaware of their past history of misconduct.

The institution can also protect its own reputation, as the public will never know that misconduct has taken place. This can be contrasted with the practice of professional bodies, who release the adverse findings of complaints against doctors, psychologists and others. The Office of Research Integrity in the US publishes adverse findings against named researchers and retains them on its website for three years.

There is some evidence that universities are beginning to be more open about research misconduct, particularly in Queensland where the Crime and Misconduct Commission has taken an interest in the issue.

While initially the University of Queensland was prepared to ignore a whistleblower, and initially failed to comply with directions from the commission in relation to allegations of nepotism, more recently they have cooperated with the commission, investigated research misconduct under the supervision of the commission, named the accused researcher and requested a journal to withdraw a published paper.

This shows that an independent body can play a critical role in ensuring that research misconduct is properly investigated and that whistleblowers are taken seriously and protected from adverse actions. It also shows that guilty researchers can be named.

What is needed to ensure that this approach is extended to other Australian states is a national body with the legislated power to conduct its own investigations independently of the institution where the misconduct is alleged to have occurred.