The legal and regulatory framework governing research misconduct and effective compliance systems to manage risk
By Tom Fletcher and Linh Nguyen
We have seen a number of high-profile and research-intensive universities respond to allegations of serious research misconduct in recent months against the background of significant media interest. In addition to complying with obligations imposed by funding bodies, universities must also give careful consideration to whether such allegations must be reported to relevant state bodies who are charged with enhancing community confidence in public sector accountability and its legislative obligations to protect whistleblowers. Privacy and defamation issues loom large and also need careful consideration.
From recent press coverage, it would appear that the universities involved have acted quickly and appropriately when becoming aware of research misconduct, avoiding further reputational damage that would have flowed from an inadequate response. However, the press, public, regulatory bodies, university community and ultimately funding bodies (and corporate funders of research) are likely to be less forgiving of universities whose compliance systems fail to prevent systematic contraventions of research obligations.
These high-profile cases have led to several calls for an independent body to oversee university investigations and collect data on allegations of misconduct or errors. These developments highlight the importance of universities managing these risks through a strong research compliance culture and effective research compliance systems…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Minter Ellison briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Minter Ellison
Briefings from Minter Ellison
Minter Ellison has created a quarterly update to discuss the tax issues that you may wish to raise with your board during each reporting period, starting with Q3.
In Marshall v Prescott, the NSW Court of Appeal considered the issue of common interest privilege and when insurers and insureds are likely to have a ‘self-same’ interest in proceedings.