{"id":43027,"date":"2023-10-20T15:25:34","date_gmt":"2023-10-20T15:25:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/startupsmart.test\/2023\/10\/20\/tougher-action-needed-in-the-fight-against-scientific-fraud-startupsmart\/"},"modified":"2023-10-20T15:25:34","modified_gmt":"2023-10-20T15:25:34","slug":"tougher-action-needed-in-the-fight-against-scientific-fraud-startupsmart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.startupsmart.com.au\/uncategorized\/tougher-action-needed-in-the-fight-against-scientific-fraud-startupsmart\/","title":{"rendered":"Tougher action needed in the fight against scientific fraud – StartupSmart"},"content":{"rendered":"
By Marilyn McMahon, Deakin University<\/em><\/p>\n What is there to stop someone publishing scientific research that is based on no actual research or uses fake evidence to support their claims?<\/p>\n If the risk to reputation and all that follows isn\u2019t enough to deter someone from such scientific fraud, then what other steps can science take to maintain the integrity of any published research?<\/p>\n The criminal prosecution of Dr Caroline Barwood should serve as a warning to researchers who might be tempted to engage in such actions. She was convicted last month of fraudulently applying for research grants.<\/p>\n The criminal charges for fraud and attempted fraud that were brought against Barwood were based mainly on her attempts to obtain funding for research investigating a treatment for Parkinson\u2019s disease.<\/p>\n The research was allegedly conducted with Professor Bruce Murdoch through the Centre for Neurogenic Communication Disorders Research at the University of Queensland.<\/p>\n In 2012, an unidentified whistleblower contacted the University of Queensland about Murdoch and Barwood\u2019s Parkinson\u2019s study. After an internal investigation the university discovered multiple irregularities, no primary data from the research and no evidence that the research had actually been conducted.<\/p>\n Publications based on the research had appeared in several prominent journals. The university informed the journals and four papers have now been retracted.<\/p>\n Both Barwood and Murdoch resigned from the university. But the university referred the matter to Queensland\u2019s Crime and Corruption Commission. After a lengthy investigation, the Commission recommended that criminal charges be laid against both researchers.<\/p>\n In March 2016 Murdoch pleaded guilty to 17 fraud-related charges. He was given a two-year suspended sentence. The sentencing magistrate found that there was no evidence Murdoch had conducted the clinical trials on which his findings, and some of his publications, were allegedly based.<\/p>\n A critical feature of the prosecution was that both public and private research money had funded the research.<\/p>\n Barwood\u2019s conviction followed later in 2016. She was convicted of five charges and sentenced to two years imprisonment, also suspended. She may face a further trial because the jury couldn\u2019t reach agreement on another two charges.<\/p>\n These cases may be rare but mark a willingness to use criminal prosecutions to deal with researchers who engage in fraud.<\/p>\n But is hitting researchers for fraud over their applications for funds enough to deter the scientific fraud itself?<\/p>\n In a hard-hitting editorial in 2013, the journal Nature said:<\/p>\n Science likes to shelter its crooks with euphemisms. The prefix \u2018research\u2019 softens fraud, and to deliberately obtain public money through deception gets labelled misconduct, among other things. This reflects the fact that the crime is viewed as being against professional standards rather than against the laws of wider society.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\nWhistleblower prompts investigation<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Scientific fraud! Call the police<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n