Yes.

Australia currently lacks a body that is primarily interested in safeguarding science and, especially, correcting the scientific record. This is problematic because self-correction is vital to maintaining trust in science.

At present, we rely on a soft law system in which universities investigate alleged misconduct as a condition of government funding.

However, their interest isn’t in improving science per se, but rather, maintaining their reputation, which does not necessarily equate to vigorously seeking retraction and correction of flawed or fabricated studies. Similarly, many researchers are likely not motivated to see their own work corrected.

This gap means no one has a clear responsibility to detect problems and correct erroneous or fabricated findings. Science holds a special place in society because it claims to self-correct. If that correction does not occur, and does not occur publicly, then trust in science is at risk.

An independent, investigative body that makes science a priority is essential to close this accountability gap.

No.

Research integrity is paramount. It ensures the public trusts and accepts new knowledge. It also allows knowledge to be effectively translated and applied for the benefit of society.

It’s crucial that breaches of that trust are identified, investigated, disclosed and remediated. But this is best done cohesively, by those closest to the research.

Proponents argue a national watchdog should publish findings, protect whistleblowers, provide appeals, and accept direct complaints. However, universities – the institutions where most research occurs – already have legislated whistleblower protections, and can demonstrate best practice around transparency.

A national independent investigative body may also lack workload. Although visible, the occurrence of serious research integrity matters is thankfully rare. For example, the United States Office of Research Integrity – which among other things provides independent oversight of research misconduct investigations within universities – handles tens rather than hundreds of cases annually, despite a population roughly 13 times Australia’s. Canada is similar.

An Australian equivalent would likely be underutilised.

Addressing drivers of misconduct, both human (employment pressures, competition for resources, recognition) and technical (such as data provenance), may be more effective at reducing misconduct than adding a new layer of bureaucracy.

Yes.

Most researchers are honest and truthful, yet research misconduct happens in every country, including Australia. Serious cases of research misconduct, even when they involve single individuals, can affect the research careers of entire teams, and waste public funds.

The public therefore deserves to be confident that allegations of research misconduct will be transparently investigated, and that perpetrators will experience meaningful consequences where allegations are upheld.

The United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and many European countries have all created independent national offices to oversee research misconduct investigations.

In contrast, research misconduct investigations in Australia take place internally, within institutions, and behind closed doors.

Internal investigations can be compromised by conflicts of interest, such as concerns about loss of institutional reputation or external research funding.

Australia has the opportunity to learn from peer countries and implement world-leading best practices in research misconduct investigations. Our many honest researchers, and the public that supports them, would all benefit from an Australian research integrity office.

Yes.

Unfortunately, scientific misconduct, even in its most severe form – the fabrication of data – happens on a global scale much more than often presumed. Just in my research area – women’s health – 30% of the randomised clinical trials are not trustworthy enough to include in meta-analysis and guidelines. The same is true in some other fields as well.

While this is mostly coming from overseas areas with limited research governance, it is also happening in countries closer to us, such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Australia is not immune to this either.

Universities want to protect their reputations. As such, they have a conflict of interest when it comes to investigating research misconduct that has occurred inside their walls.

To address this, an independent body that oversees and, if needed, investigates scientific misconduct is urgently needed.

No.

But Australia could lift its game.

What may work in small jurisdictions such as Sweden with a judicially-led single board and mandatory powers will not cut it here.

First there is the issue of caseload if all allegations are pursued, as highlighted by the United States experience.

Next is the issue of cost – especially relevant when the government struggles to fund even half the indirect costs of research. There is also the need for procedural fairness and confidentiality.

But there is a role for an independent Australian oversight body. This body would oversee external investigations into research misconduct conducted by universities and medical research institutes. It could consist of a panel of suitable discipline and integrity experts, and approve the terms of reference and findings of any investigation.

The body could also collect national data about research misconduct; promote all-important education/prevention programs, as exemplified by the Office of Research Integrity in the United States; and help smaller institutions to comply with the requirements of the Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.