industry & research
campusreview.com.au
Code in conflict
Academics “very concerned” by
new research code of conduct.
By Loren Smith
A
medical researcher has warned
that countries like China are
eclipsing Australia in terms of
research integrity mechanisms.
Professor David Vaux, deputy director
and joint division head at Melbourne’s
Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, claims this
is because the revised Australian Code
for the Responsible Conduct of Research
is watered down.
“It seems Australia is going the opposite
way to the rest of world,” Vaux says.
“There are a lot of people who are very
concerned.”
Around 20 European nations, the
UK, US, Canada and now China have
national offices of research integrity.
Meanwhile, Australia just changed its
research ethics code to a confidential,
self-regulating model.
Research institutions no longer have
to appoint external investigators for
allegations of serious misconduct, there
is no longer a requirement for institutions
to report on findings of investigations,
and institutions can now self-define
‘misconduct’.
Vaux thinks this could have a negative
flow-on effect in terms of international
student numbers.
“If Australia is perceived as one of the
few countries in the world where there’s
no independent oversight of research
integrity … I think students will realise
there are other countries that offer more
rigorous governance,” he says.
Though he believes the original 2007
code needed to be clarified in various
respects, he thinks the new code,
formulated by a “well-meaning but not
particularly experienced” panel, could
lead to confusion, as well as perceived or
actual conflicts of interest.
In regard to confusion, this could arise
because there is no longer a mandated
definition of ‘misconduct’. This could
be troublesome in instances of cross-
institutional collaboration.
“Everywhere else in the world uses the
term, so it’s reasonable for us to do so as
well,” Vaux says.
As for conflicts of interest, the fact
that the revised code provides that
no external investigators need to be
appointed, and that decisions need not be
published, leaves institutions vulnerable
to accusations of bias from accusers
and defendants.
“One of the biggest cases [regarding
research integrity in Australia] was the
Bruce Hall affair,” Vaux says.
“It was one of the reasons the 2007
code was established. It led to the
resignation of the UNSW VC, it cost lots
of money, everyone was unhappy. It was
generally a disaster.
“In an editorial for the Medical Journal
of Australia, the then-editor Martin Van Der
Weyden reflected on the Hall affair.
"Lesson number one, he said, was
that future investigations into research
misconduct should be external and
independent.
“We’ve seen problems in the Church,
with banks, and with the police. In every
case, you need independent oversight and
governance.
“Scientists are no better or worse than
anybody else … The majority are fine
It seems Australia is
going the opposite way to the
rest of world.
people, but there are always those who do
the wrong thing.
“For the system to be robust, we need
mechanisms to handle those few cases
that will inevitably arise.”
The revised code, published by the
National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research
Council (ARC), and Universities Australia, is
expected to be adhered to by 1 July 2019.
Institutions’ receipt of funding from the
NHMRC and ARC is contingent on code
compliance.
In a statement, NHMRC chief Professor
Anne Kelso said, “The 2018 code will help
to maintain Australia’s strong culture of
research quality and integrity.” ■
15