Editorial
Science fraudster shows independent research watchdog a necessity
Professor Mark Smyth was once considered one of this country’s leading cancer researchers. Yet as The Age has reported in the past week, alarming aspects of his work have put into question both his research and the manner in which complaints about his work have been investigated.
At core is this: integrity and trust. The Age revealed that while Smyth was working at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, he faced inquiries into falsifying research data. A preliminary investigation found he had a case to answer based on claims of falsified data. That prompted a second probe by the University of Melbourne, which cleared him.
Smyth left Peter Mac in 2013 after being hired by leading research institute QIMR Berghofer in Brisbane in 2012. At QIMR, members of his lab team raised concerns about his practices.
He was investigated twice, secretly, and no problems were detected. Whistleblowers went looking elsewhere for help. They approached the Office of the Chief Scientist and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which oversees research integrity. The whistleblowers were referred back to QIMR. Then, finally, four years ago, amid the turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic, an external independent investigation for the institute found research misconduct by Smyth. He left.
This circuitous route of investigation is unacceptable, as is the fact that the report has never been released.
The Age’s reports have shown an unhealthy nexus between taxpayer funding for institutions, self-interest and a system ill-equipped to manage complaints.
Mark Smyth, once one of Australia’s most lauded scientists, outside his Brisbane home this month.Credit: The Age
Smyth was protected, it appeared to those complaining, partly because he was a cash cow, having attracted more than $42 million in taxpayer funding for his projects over his career. A staff member at QIMR said of Smyth’s work practices: “Mark was bringing money to the institute, so the institute protected Mark.”
Who then protects the integrity of the science?
The NHMRC says society “expects research to be conducted responsibly, ethically and with integrity”.
To that end, there is the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, which is a framework “for responsible research conduct that provides a foundation for high-quality research, credibility and community trust in the research endeavour”.
To receive funding from the NHMRC and the Australian Research Council requires compliance with the code. But integrity lies with the morals of individual researchers and their employers. There it ends. It shouldn’t. As is clear from our reporting an independent watchdog is sorely needed to investigate complaints in the science research sector. Self-regulation is not regulation.
The weight of opinion from those with knowledge of the sector gives the call to immediacy. Kim Carr, the science minister from 2007 to 2011, set up the current research integrity system but now says “self-governing bodies have a vested interest in not pursuing a rigorous inquiry”.
“My model always insisted, at that time, with the institutions dealing with these problems first. It’s quite clear that has been inadequate,” Carr said.
Others to call for change are CSIRO chief executive Doug Hilton, the Australian Academy of Science, former chief scientist Ian Chubb, the Australia Institute, independent MP Dr Monique Ryan, Greens science spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson, former anti-corruption commissioner Bruce Lander and Warwick Anderson, the former head of the NHMRC.
Chubb believes self-regulation belongs in the past. A consultation process Chubb ran for the Australian Academy of Science two years ago recommended the establishment of an independent body.
The federal government is already reviewing the research integrity system to ensure it “remains effective and fit for purpose”. If that does not lead to the establishment of a watchdog then it will be a missed opportunity. Whether an independent watchdog is established under the wings of another government body, such as the National Anti-Corruption Commission, or established on its own, is of small matter compared to the greater good that would come from its existence.
As one whistleblower told The Age: “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.”
Science is built on replication. If the foundation of the research is based on false or unreliable work, then it cannot be trusted. The ripple-effect could be catastrophic.
There is a space here that needs to be urgently filled. After all, to paraphrase, science, and science research, abhors a vacuum.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.