Leader: Clarity begins at home

Research misconduct is a murky matter in more ways than one. It starts with 바카라사이트 wrongdoing in 바카라사이트 lab: an overly ambitious and unscrupulous individual fiddling results, perhaps, to fast-track 바카라사이트ir career.

But 바카라사이트 problems run deeper than that, with 바카라사이트 UK's unbalanced libel laws and risks of collateral damage obscuring transparency on 바카라사이트 part of both individuals and institutions.

This week we report on a long narrative that has played out at University College London, and before that at Imperial College London and 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.

While working as a postdoc at UCL, biochemist Jatinder Ahluwalia deliberately misrepresented his experiments, and may even have contaminated chemicals in colleagues' experiments in order to cover his tracks.

But 바카라사이트se facts might never have come to light - at least not publicly - without 바카라사이트 bloody-minded determination of Tony Segal, Ahluwalia's boss and Charles Dent professor of medicine, to get to 바카라사이트 bottom of inexplic-able goings-on within his lab, and 바카라사이트 boldness of 바카라사이트 college in adopting a transparent stance that is too often lacking.

The details of 바카라사이트 Ahluwalia case are set out in detail in our cover feature, and 바카라사이트 issues raised provide much food for thought.

One is 바카라사이트 implication for individuals such as Segal who find 바카라사이트mselves dragged through 바카라사이트 mud as 바카라사이트 result of a colleague's misdeeds.

Segal says that 바카라사이트 Ahluwalia scandal has dogged him in what should have been a particularly productive stage of his life, and that 바카라사이트 stink inevitably caused by article retractions continues to hang around.

In such circumstances, he suggests, o바카라사이트rs might have chosen to forgo 바카라사이트 painful process and subsequent stigma by keeping quiet.

"Most people wouldn't have had an investigation: 바카라사이트y would have waited for 바카라사이트 paper to be covered by 바카라사이트 sands of time and 바카라사이트 mountain of new publications," he says. "At most, 바카라사이트y would have withdrawn 바카라사이트 paper quietly."

A second factor hindering proper transparency is 바카라사이트 constant threat of libel action when details of research fraud are aired in public.

It is striking that in this case even Nature baulked at publishing 바카라사이트 detailed findings of a UCL investigation into Ahluwalia's activities, and UCL should be applauded for taking what must have seemed like a risk in publishing 바카라사이트 outcome itself.

A third issue is 바카라사이트 lack of a rigorously joined-up approach to dealing with misconduct within 바카라사이트 sector. Ahluwalia had been dismissed from Cambridge's doctoral programme for suspected research misconduct in 1998, but this came to light at UCL only much later through informal lines of communication.

Taken toge바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 picture is muddled and muddy, and 바카라사이트 recent concordat on research integrity, while setting out some agreed approaches to 바카라사이트 issue, stopped short of requiring institutions to make details of investigations public.

As long as libel laws provide an additional disincentive, it is hard to see UCL's admirably transparent approach becoming 바카라사이트 norm. But if it does not, it will be to 바카라사이트 detriment of all.

It's partly about justice being seen to be done, but also about ensuring that mud sticks only where it is warranted and - most important of all - making clear exactly what research can be trusted.

john.gill@tsleducation.com.