Unlike many other countries, the nation does not have an independent body to oversee such probes; instead, universities and research institutes carry them out themselves. Several high-profile misconduct cases are bolstering criticisms of the current system, and momentum is building to set up an independent research-integrity body — but university leaders are divided over whether one is needed.
Researchers in Australia are currently referred to ethical guidelines set out in the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)’s Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. In some cases, the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) reviews university investigations, but its scope is limited.
Two proposals for a national research-integrity body are being discussed. The first, by former head of South Australia’s Independent Commission Against Corruption, Bruce Lander, was published last September. According to Lander’s proposal, most investigations would still be carried out by the institution in which the alleged misconduct occurred, or by investigators commissioned by the institution. But unlike the ARIC, the integrity body would oversee the investigations and would have the power to designate who conducts the investigation and how.
Similarly to the Lander proposal, Chubb envisages that most investigations into research misconduct would be conducted in-house, but the national integrity body would oversee those investigations and ensure that the institution adhered to any resulting recommendations. Chubb's proposal is wider-reaching than Lander's. Chubb says that a national body should be able to oversee investigations into research misconduct for all publicly funded research, including grants and tax concessions awarded to the private sector.
How soon either proposal could take shape isn’t clear. And so far, Australia’s wider research community remains split on whether a national integrity body is needed.
