that UBC had not contacted it about the investigation, but that it was not concerned by the findings. The foundation has supported Dunn for years, says Executive Director Gloria Cuccione, and she has done “unbelievable work.” None of the 12 papers identified by investigators has been retracted, but one journal, Molecular Pharmacology, recently published an “expression of concern” By Ana Komnenic, Retraction Watch were unsuccessful.) For nearly 15 years, about one of the papers, citing UBC’s inDunn ran a lab at UBC’s Experimental vestigation. Breast Cancer Research, a n early 2013, scientists working in a Medicine Program, where she worked on journal that published two of the papers, laboratory led by a prominent cancer new treatments for aggressive brain and confirmed that UBC had informed it of the researcher at the University of British breast cancers. Dunn, once featured on an investigation’s findings. Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada, expert panel organized by the Canadian Although UBC has no legal obligation to were getting worried. They were unable Breast Cancer Foundation, secured at least publicly disclose details of its misconduct to reproduce results from several of the CAD$1.1 million in government funding beinvestigations, it is required to notify fedresearcher’s experiments, and suspected tween 2009 and 2015. She left the university eral funding agencies of misconduct findsome of the original work was fraudulent. in 2015, after UBC concluded its investigaings against researchers that the agencies An investigation by UBC ultimately contion, to run Phoenix Molecular Designs, a have supported. The agencies can then defirmed their fears: In 2014, invescide whether releasing the name tigators identified 29 instances of is in the public interest. In 2011, scholarly misconduct, 16 of them agencies started requiring all “serious,” including falsification funding applicants to consent to and fabrication of data, accordhaving their names publicized if ing to university correspondence they committed a serious breach obtained by Retraction Watch. Inof agency policy. Dunn’s funding vestigators found that the tainted predated the 2011 policy, however, work had been included in and so far the policy has not led 12 papers published in six jourthe agencies to publicly name any nals between 2005 and 2012 and offending scientists (although one had drawn financial support from agency recently named an offender more than a dozen government under a different set of rules). and private funders. Some Canadian researchers To the dismay of some scienwould like to see their funding tists familiar with the case, howagencies follow the lead of the U.S. ever, UBC never publicly released Department of Health and Human the damning report or named the Service’s Office of Research Integresearcher, who has since left the rity, which does name researchinstitution. Canadian policy does Officials at the University of British Columbia say privacy laws prevent them ers it concludes have committed not require the university or fedfrom naming scientists found to have committed misconduct. misconduct. (The U.S. National eral funding agencies to disclose Science Foundation does not.) the researcher’s name. And a spokesperson company based in Richmond, Canada, that Current practices in Canada are “nothing for the university says its hands are tied she founded in 2012. The company says it debut a cover-up with the excuse of privacy by British Columbia’s privacy laws, which velops cancer therapies, and lists charities— laid on top of it,” argues Amir Attaran, a prohibit it from disclosing personal inforincluding one supported by the parents of a law professor and biologist at the University mation unless it is “clearly” in the public child who died of cancer—among its “partof Ottawa. interest. But critics say the case highlights ners and supporters.” Research institutions face a tricky task in a troubling lack of transparency in Canada’s Many of Dunn’s past and current private balancing the need for public transparency system for policing scientific misconduct. funders may not be aware of UBC’s miswith the right to privacy, says Paul Hébert Some believe the secrecy allows unreliable conduct findings. The UBC corresponof the University of Montreal in Canada. papers to remain in circulation, and could dence lists 15 outside funders that directly Misconduct findings can be “extremely disenable researchers to continue to raise or indirectly supported Dunn’s work, and ruptive,” he says, and there’s a danger that funds from donors and investors who may recommended that UBC contact them “as colleagues of the offending researcher can be not be aware of misconduct findings. necessary.” Retraction Watch tried to con“painted with the same brush.” Still, Hébert The university is “obviously trying to limit tact the funders; of the 10 that responded, would like to see Canada improve its misdissemination of information,” and that is a only one—the C17 foundation in Edmonton, conduct monitoring system. As it stands, he “huge mistake,” says UBC biochemist Ivan Canada—said it was aware of UBC’s invessays, there is too little transparency and “no Sadowski, a member of the three-person tigation. Some of those who had not been policing. … Universities as research institeam that made the misconduct findings. notified said they would not expect to be tutes investigate themselves.” j The researcher at the center of the case is informed, as they had not directly funded Sandra Dunn, according to the UBC docuDunn. And one current funder, the Michael This story is the product of a collaboration ments. (Repeated attempts to contact Dunn Cuccione Foundation in Vancouver, said between Science and Retraction Watch. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
In Canada, case spurs concern over misconduct secrecy
PHOTO: PETERSPIRO/ISTOCK
I
SCIENCE sciencemag.org
16 DECEMBER 2016 • VOL 354 ISSUE 6318
Published by AAAS
1361
Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on December 15, 2016
Government, universities should name offenders, critics say