In Canada case spurs concern over misconduct secrecy

first_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) In early 2013, scientists working in a laboratory led by a prominent cancer researcher at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada, were getting worried. They were unable to reproduce results from several of the researcher’s experiments, and suspected some of the original work was fraudulent.An investigation by UBC ultimately confirmed their fears: In 2014, investigators identified 29 instances of scholarly misconduct, 16 of them “serious,” including falsification and fabrication of data, according to university correspondence obtained by Retraction Watch. The tainted work had been included in 12 papers published in six journals between 2005 and 2012, investigators found, and had drawn financial support from more than a dozen government and private funders.To the dismay of some scientists familiar with the case, however, UBC never publicly released the damning report or named the researcher, who has since left the institution. Canadian policy does not require the university or federal funding agencies to disclose the researcher’s name. And a spokesperson for the university says its hands are tied by British Columbia’s privacy laws, which prohibit it from disclosing personal information unless it is “clearly” in the public interest. But critics say the case highlights a troubling lack of transparency in Canada’s system for policing scientific misconduct. Some believe the secrecy allows unreliable papers to remain in circulation, and could enable researchers to continue to raise funds from donors and investors who may not be aware of misconduct findings. [Current practices in Canada are] nothing but a cover-up with the excuse of privacy laid on top of itAmir Attaran, University of OttawaThe university is “obviously trying to limit dissemination of information,” and that is a “huge mistake,” says UBC biochemist Ivan Sadowski, a member of a three-person team that made the misconduct findings. The researcher at the center of the case is Sandra Dunn, according to the UBC documents. (Repeated attempts to contact Dunn were unsuccessful.) For nearly 15 years, Dunn ran a lab at UBC’s Experimental Medicine Program, where she worked on new treatments for aggressive brain and breast cancers. Dunn, once featured as an expert on a panel organized by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, secured at least CAD$1.1 million in government funding between 2009 and 2015. She left the university in 2015, after UBC concluded its investigation, to run Phoenix Molecular Designs, a company based in Richmond, Canada, that she founded in 2012. The company says it develops cancer therapies, and lists charities—including one supported by the parents of a child who died of cancer—among its “partners and supporters.”Many of Dunn’s past and current private funders may not be aware of UBC’s misconduct findings. The UBC correspondence lists 15 outside funders that directly or indirectly supported Dunn’s work, and recommended that UBC contact them “as necessary.” Retraction Watch tried to contact the funders; of the 10 that responded, only one—the C17 foundation in Edmonton, Canada—said it was aware of UBC’s investigation. Some said they would not expect to be informed, because they had not directly funded Dunn. And one current funder, the Michael Cuccione Foundation in Vancouver, said that UBC had not contacted it about the investigation, but that it was not concerned. The foundation has supported Dunn for years, says Executive Director Gloria Cuccione, and she has done “unbelievable work.”None of the 12 papers identified by investigators has been retracted, but Molecular Pharmacology recently published an “expression of concern” about one of the papers, citing UBC’s investigation. Breast Cancer Research, a journal that published two of the papers, confirmed that UBC had informed it of the findings.Although UBC has no legal obligation to publicly disclose details of its misconduct investigations, it is required to notify federal funding agencies of misconduct findings against researchers that the agencies have supported. The agencies then decide whether releasing the name is in the public interest. In 2011, agencies started requiring all funding applicants to consent to having their names publicized if they commit a serious breach of agency policy. Dunn’s funding predated the 2011 policy, however, and so far the policy has not led to the public naming of any offending scientists (although one agency recently named an offender under a different set of rules).Some Canadian researchers would like to see their funding agencies follow the lead of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Research Integrity, which does name researchers it concludes have committed misconduct. (The U.S. National Science Foundation does not.) Current practices in Canada are “nothing but a cover-up with the excuse of privacy laid on top of it,” argues Amir Attaran, a law professor and biologist at the University of Ottawa.Research institutions face a tricky task in balancing the need for public transparency with the right to privacy, says Paul Hébert of the University of Montreal. Misconduct findings can be “extremely disruptive,” he says, and there’s a danger that colleagues of the offending researcher can be “painted with the same brush.” Still, Hébert would like to see Canada improve its misconduct monitoring system. As it stands, he says, there is too little transparency and “no policing. … Universities as research institutes investigate themselves.”This story is the product of a collaboration between Science and Retraction Watch.last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *