Most of us trust scientists. We believe they are not just competent, but honest as well.
This belief is well-founded. However, scientists are also human — and sometimes they can make mistakes. These mistakes can be accidental. But they can also be intentional, as the rising number of academic papers retracted on the grounds of scientific misconduct demonstrates.
Scientific misconduct — which includes data fabrication, falsification, and misrepresentation, and is being fuelled by artificial intelligence — isn’t merely an academic problem. Medical studies based on misleading or falsified data, for example, can harm human health. In extreme cases, scientific misconduct can also prove fatal.
Different countries have different approaches to tackling this problem. Sweden and Denmark are often lauded as “world-leaders” for establishing independent bodies that have the power to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct.
Australia has no such body. It instead relies on a self-regulation model, whereby universities assess and investigate scientific misconduct cases involving their staff internally.
Should Australia follow the approach of its international peers and establish an independent body that has the power to investigate scientific misconduct cases? We asked five experts. Three answered yes. Even the two who answered no said Australia could do more to protect research integrity.
Jason Chin, Senior Lecturer, College of Law, Australian National University, said: “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.
Dane McCamey, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), UNSW, said: “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 underutilized.
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.
Jennifer Byrne, Professor of Molecular Oncology, University of Sydney, said: “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.
Ben Willem Mol, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, said: “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 randomized 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.
Nick Fisk, Emeritus Professor, said: “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 a 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.
Disclosure statements
Jason Chin is a board member of the Association for Interdisciplinary Metaresearch and Open Science (AIMOS), a charity that seeks to study and improve science.
Dane McCamey is involved in overseeing research ethics and compliance at UNSW.
Jennifer Byrne receives funding from the NHMRC. She is the current recipient of the Professor David Vaux Research Integrity Fellowship (2025-2026) offered by the Australian Academy of Science. She is also a Research Integrity Advisor at the University of Sydney.
Ben W. Mol receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF, as well as international competitive grants.
Nicholas Fisk served as Dean of Medicine and Health at the University of Queensland (2010-16) and DVC Research and Enterprise at UNSW (2016-24). He is a board member of the peak body Research Australia.
Drew Rooke, Deputy Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Follow us on X, Facebook, or Pinterest
