David Vaux warns Australia has a research integrity problem – and he has a way to solve it.
The medical scientist is a long-time campaigner for a national research integrity office and makes his case in a submission to the Senate university governance inquiry, arguing that universities fail to effectively investigate allegations of bodgy science.
There are reasons for this; investigations are bad for institutions’ images, findings are worse, “Denying or covering up concerns protects reputations and maintains funding,” he argues.
And so it will remain, while oversight comes from the Australian Research Integrity Committee, which does not investigate alleged research breaches but instead focuses on the processes institutions use to conduct their own inquiries. Given this, it may not surprise that whistleblowers don’t bother. Last financial year, ARIC managed five inquiries.
What we need, Professor Vaux argues, is an independent agency to conduct investigations which, “would protect the integrity of the scientific record, protect whistle-blowers and those considering careers in research, make the process of scientific discovery more efficient, enhance public confidence in science, and save taxpayers’ money.”
So, what is to stop it? Professor Vaux claims “several” unnamed vice chancellors are the “chief impediment.” But it is easy to also imagine researchers in controversial, contested fields not liking the idea of independent investigators showing up with questions on cutting edge science they do not understand.
Still, an independent office staffed by specialists might be better than the alternatives. TEQSA’s guidance note on academic and research integrity mentions, “plagiarism, falsifying or fabricating data, omitting data to manipulate a result or misleading attributions of authorship.”
There is even a prospect of the Fair Work Commission getting involved. Last July the FWC decided it could consider the merits of plagiarism allegations as part of a separate industrial dispute.
The science establishment has long been lucky in Australia, with cases of research fabrication rarely turning up in the courts, in part because the means to identify them are sparse, in part because institutions are not all that rigorous in finding them.
As Adrian Barnett (QUT) and colleagues found in a 2023 survey, “there were multiple institutions where we found it difficult to find anything about research integrity and other institutions where the contact about research integrity was a generic email or generic on-line form.”