Momentum is building for a regulator to be established to police research misconduct, with the peak body for universities coming out in support of an integrity body.

It follows a new report by the Australia Institute arguing the current self-regulation model is failing as it lacks oversight and allows institutions to investigate any allegations internally.

“This approach is not only ineffective, but can also incentivise research institutions to hide cases of research misconduct,” said the report, published earlier this month (link here).

“An independent research integrity body will ensure public confidence and international trust in the Australian research sector.”

The think tank noted the Australian Academy of Science had begun making steps towards the establishment of a body, perhaps to be called Research Integrity Australia (RIA), that would oversee research misconduct investigations in Australia.

However, details on the model being proposed had not yet been made available to the public.

“Progress on a research integrity body is welcome and overdue,” the report said.

“Over 500 Australian academic papers have been retracted over the past 20 years. Research misconduct has consequences, including risks to patient health, misappropriation of research funding, and the obstruction of progress on other research.”

Its recommendations include:

• Create a clear and enforceable definition of ‘research misconduct’
• Establish a free-standing, government-funded research integrity watchdog with investigatory powers and the ability to hand down binding findings to research institutions
• Send out a network of local research integrity officers based in research institutions but accountable to the watchdog
• Mandate all reports of research misconduct be made publicly available

In what may be a pivotal move, Universities Australia has now thrown its weight behind greater regulation, although it too is yet to come up with a detailed proposal.

“Universities Australia would welcome the resourcing and strengthening of an appropriate independent research integrity body that would have the capacity for investigation and review to protect the integrity of the entire Australian research system,” it said in a recent submission (link here).

It comes just weeks after a former head of the NHMRC went public to call for mandatory registration of medical researchers with an AHPRA-style regulator to stamp out the sector’s “genuine and substantial” problem with fraud.

Professor Warwick Anderson, the commission’s CEO from 2006 to 2015 said that without such a body “anyone can call themselves a researcher”.

“Other groups whose jobs involve highly technical knowledge and particular responsibilities are usually self-organised as a profession, with training and competency requirements and recognition through some form of accreditation,” he wrote (link here).

“They have formal processes to withdraw recognition and accreditation when their members act in ways that harm their customers or patients and the reputation of the profession itself.”

“Why should medical research be different? Surely medical research is as important as the work of lawyers, plumbers, electricians, doctors, nurses, dentists, physiotherapists and vets?”

The limbic approached the NHMRC for its view and received the following statement:

“The NHMRC acknowledges that there have been some high-profile cases of research misconduct in Australia in recent years.”

“NHMRC expects the highest levels of research integrity and conduct to be observed in the research that it funds, and compliance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018 is a requirement for the receipt of NHMRC funding.”

“The Code’s implementation is supported by guides that help institutions and researchers comply with its principles and responsibilities.”

“Additionally, NHMRC promotes high-quality research through its Research Quality Strategy and work is in progress to develop resources on good institutional practice to support the conduct of high-quality research and education and training of researchers about good research practices.”

“The breadth of NHMRC’s responsibility is a matter for the Australian Government.