By Liam Mannix
The architect of Australia’s current research integrity system says it is no longer fit for purpose and has called for the establishment of an independent scientific watchdog.
The revelations in this masthead of widespread concerns going back more than 10 years about the research practices of top cancer researcher Professor Mark Smyth have sparked calls for reform.
Former science minister Kim Carr.
In Australia, universities and research institutes are responsible for investigating allegations of research misconduct against their own staff. Smyth was cleared by multiple investigations before eventually being found by research institute QIMR Berghofer to have committed serious research misconduct.
On Sunday the government said it was undertaking a review of Australia’s research integrity system to ensure it “remains effective and fit for purpose”.
Kim Carr, minister for science in the Rudd government between 2007 and 2011, designed that system. It clearly no longer works, he said.
“The fundamental conflict of interest remains: self-governing bodies have a vested interest in not pursuing a rigorous inquiry,” he said.
“My model always insisted, at that time, with the institutions dealing with these problems first. It’s quite clear that has been inadequate.”
Carr joined a chorus of voices calling for the establishment of an independent scientific watchdog: CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton, the Australian Academy of Science, former head of the National Health and Medical Research Council Warwick Anderson, former chief scientist Ian Chubb, the Australia Institute, independent MP Dr Monique Ryan, Greens science spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson and former anti-corruption commissioner Bruce Lander.
Even Universities Australia – long seen as the chief opponent of the proposed reform – said in 2023 it “would welcome … an appropriate independent research integrity body that would have the capacity for investigation”.
CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton.Credit: Martin Ollman
Do you know more about a research integrity matter? Email the journalist: liam.mannix@theage.com.au
Chubb ran a consultation process for the Australian Academy of Science in 2023 that recommended the establishment of an independent body.
“I have been persuaded the era of self-regulation, in almost any sphere, is a thing of the past. There is a lot of taxpayer and philanthropic money goes into this area,” he said.
Academy president Professor Chennupati Jagadish said his organisation continued to advocate the concept.
The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Professor Mark Smyth.Credit: Justin McManus, supplied
When Smyth was working at the prestigious Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne he faced allegations of falsifying research data.
Peter Mac conducted a preliminary investigation, which found he had a case to answer. But a second full investigation by the University of Melbourne cleared Smyth of the allegations.
“An independent body, with no vested interest in protecting its public appearance like the University of Melbourne did, would have more rigorously investigated the facts,” said one of the witnesses at that inquiry, speaking anonymously to protect their career.
After Smyth transferred to QIMR Berghofer in Brisbane, several members of his lab team grew concerned about his research practices. QIMR twice secretly investigated Smyth and found no problems.
The whistleblowers in the case tried to warn the Office of the Chief Scientist and the National Health and Medical Research Council, which has oversight of research integrity in Australia. But in both cases they were rebuffed, with both institutions redirecting the complaint back to QIMR.
“Part of the problem is we did not know who to complain to, and the people we thought we were supposed to complain to couldn’t help us,” said one of the whistleblowers.
“If there was an outside body that took complaints and assessed them independently, I think you’d be surprised by how much information goes to them. Not just scientific integrity – bullying, nepotism. There’s a lot of little underlying problems in academic research.”
Smyth and the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane.
Warwick Anderson was the inaugural head of the National Health and Medical Research Council until 2015. He said universities should continue to investigate allegations first, but a central investigative body must also be established.
“That body must be able to rule whether the institution has done the right thing or not, require new independent investigations, and refer potential criminal activity to the federal police,” he said.\
Whish-Wilson said he would push hard for the creation of the body, which he called a “no-brainer”, in this term of parliament, “including having to introduce a private member’s bill if necessary”.
“It’s not just for these kind of cases. Given how much disinformation there is around science at the moment, it could actually be really useful.”
A spokeswoman for Science Minister Tim Ayres said Australia had exceptionally high standards in research, supported by strong checks and balances.
“Australia’s research integrity framework is robust, requiring all research to comply with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.
“The ARC, NHMRC and Universities Australia are currently undertaking a review of the current research integrity system to ensure it remains effective and fit for purpose.”
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.