Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (PR 98)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOLLOWING ORAL
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PROFESSOR SIR ADRIAN SMITH ON 8TH JUNE 2011
Details of whether any of the Research Councils have
cut funding for an individual researcher or institution on the
grounds of fraud/misconduct in research.
AHRC—No cases where
funding has been withdrawn on the grounds of fraud/misconduct
in research.
BBSRC—Under BBSRC's
formal complaint procedures BBSRC have withheld payment/processing
of grants in four cases while allegations were investigated. However,
following the completion of the investigation there have been
no cases where BBSRC have cut funding for an individual/institution
on the grounds of fraud/misconduct in research.
EPSRC—No cases where
funding has been withdrawn on the grounds of fraud/misconduct
in research.
ESRC—No cases where
funding has been withdrawn on the grounds of fraud/misconduct
in research.
MRC—There have been
three allegations during the last 10 years of scientific misconduct
relating to MRC funded work that were proven.[78]
None of cases has resulted in withdrawal of funding, but all have
had sanctions imposed against the individuals concerned.
1. In 2001 an MRC-funded Clinical Fellow was
reprimanded for serious professional misconduct and suspended
for a year by the General Medical Council (GMC) for falsifying
published data. The Fellow's supervisor was also severely reprimanded
by the GMC for not having reacted adequately and promptly.
2. In 2010-11 there was a case related to manipulation
of results and falsification of data (images) by a member of MRC
staff.
3. In 2010-11 there was a case related to falsification
of documentation relating to patient consent in a clinical trial
supported by an MRC grant.
In the third case, where the allegation was against
the Principal Investigator (PI), MRC temporarily transferred the
supervision of the grant to another PI while the investigation
was ongoing. This transfer was made permanent once the allegation
was proven. This case was also reported to the GMC.
MRC decided to continue the funding the grant in
the third case for a number of reasons:
— the
recruitment of patients to the trial and collection of biological
samples was already complete;
— there
was no risk to patients;
— the
misconduct did not affect the integrity of the data;
— publication
of the results would be possible (having checked patient consent
was valid); and
— the
data from the trial would be important to inform clinical practice.
It would have been a waste of public money to terminate
the grant as this would have prevented the results being analysed
and published.
NERC—No cases where
funding has been withdrawn on the grounds of fraud/misconduct
in research.
STFC—No cases where
funding has been withdrawn on the grounds of fraud/misconduct
in research. However, in 2010 STFC pulled a grant application
from consideration because of a case under investigation (a case
of plagiarism in a proposal which was referred to the university
for investigation). STFC has not yet formally been informed of
the outcome of this case.
June 2011
78 There have been a number of allegations scientific
misconduct but these were either investigated and the allegations
disproved, or dismissed at an early stage before a full investigation. Back
| 
