Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

University misconduct inquiries lack transparency

By Geoffrey Stuart - posted Monday, 11 November 2013


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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Associate Professor Geoff Stuart is in the school of Psychological Science at La Trobe University.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy