Research misconduct allegations? Ooh!
Various professors at NTU, NUS, and A*STAR were accused of research misconduct this week by a former NTU staff member. Spicy stuff!
Allegations were hurled at NTU, NUS, and A*STAR this week accusing them of a wide variety of heinous deeds ranging from unethical animal research practices, plagiarism, reusing data, and more. Their accuser is Dr. Mohamed Helmy, a former NTU staff member, and honestly, this is the kind of drama I live for.
Now, all the institutions accused have denied all the allegations, and NUS and NTU have even conducted an internal investigation, finding no fault (allegedly).
The phrase has already been beaten to death in Singaporean discourse, but it seems rather fitting here… ownself check ownself?
(original NTU statement linked here; I can’t find the other statements, which is probably why I’m writing pseudonymously online rather than as a journalist for the Straits Times)
Anyway, NTU have apparently issued cease and desist letters, which seems to me like Dr. Helmy’s opening salvo has been replied to in kind. I await future exchanges with bated breath.
It would be unfair to the respective institutions to say all this without providing adequate context. Two Singaporeans had their PhDs revoked by NTU in 2017 after a misconduct investigation found they had made up data. Seemingly as a result of the incident, the Singapore Institutional Research Integrity Offices Network (SIRION) was set up to help root out future cases of research misconduct.
Interestingly enough, SIRION’s website provides policies on how to respond to complaints of research misconduct, written by none other than NTU! In it, they document established procedures in place for various things such as:
3.1.1 Initiation of the Investigation
3.1.1.1 Upon receipt of the Allegation/ Complaint, the RIO or a nominated person from Senior Management is to undertake a preliminary inquiry into the matter that has been reported. In cases of Allegations/ Complaints related to research ethics, an Investigation Committee (consisting of IRB or IACUC members, and facilitated by RIEO) is set up to review evidence available, and a preliminary report will be sent to the RIO.
[…]
3.1.1.4 All findings of any Investigation must be documented in an investigation report, and all reports needs to be archived for a minimum of 10 years. The Respondent (where applicable) and Whistle-blower/ Complainant (where known) should be informed of the outcome of any investigation.
Well, they certainly informed Dr. Helmy of the investigation outcome, alright! Cease and desist letters go brrr…
Also interesting is the fact that any findings must be documented in an investigation report. I’m sure since the preliminary investigation already found no documentary proof of research misconduct, the report must be fine to release to the public, just to prove it and truly discredit Dr. Helmy’s claims, you know? He had the audacity to air his concerns in public, hit back with yours in public as well!
Speaking of cease and desist letters, NTU also helpfully defines the meaning of retaliation:
k) Retaliation: Any action that adversely affects the employment or other institutional status of a person that is taken at NTU, because the person has made an Allegation/ Complaint; […] notwithstanding that such Allegation/ Complaint shall have been made […] in good faith. Under the NTU Whistle Blowing Procedure, "Whistleblowers may at any time submit, in good faith and without fear of dismissal or retaliation of any kind any incident or concern that falls within the scope of the Whistle Blowing Policy". [italics mine]
Oops. By this definition, the C&D letters certainly sound retaliatory, and whistleblowers are supposed to be subject to “retaliation of any kind”. Unless, of course, NTU is implying that the allegations weren’t issued in good faith. Conveniently, that’s defined too.
e) Good Faith Allegation: An Allegation/ Complaint made with the honest belief that Research Misconduct […] may have occurred. An Allegation/ Complaint is not made in good faith if it is made with reckless disregard for or wilful ignorance of facts that may disprove the Allegation/ Complaint.
Wow, tough. Must feel bad to be Dr. Helmy right now, apparently he’s being accused of being “wilfully ignorant of facts”. It’s a real feat to manage to be ignorant of facts in a 294-page report so dry and technical I fell asleep reading it. It’s an even greater feat to prove that ignorance in a four-sentence statement; one would imagine that would probably require an equally lengthy report displaying all the facts… something like, say, an Investigation Report?
3.2 Record Keeping and Retention and Reporting
3.2.1 After completion of an Investigation […], the RIO will prepare a complete file, including the records of any Investigation or Inquiry and copies of all documents and other materials furnished to the RIO. The file, after completion of the case, will be deposited in NTU's archives and be held for a minimum of 10 years, to permit later assessment of the case as necessary. Additionally, significant findings arising from preliminary investigations will be sent to the Office of Human Resources.
It seems rather impolite to simply state that Dr. Helmy is ignorant of the facts without providing the requisite facts to back up this claim of wilful ignorance, but I’m not the NTU Research Integrity Officer, so what do I know.
Anyway, it’s impressive how swift the investigation was completed; according to the CNA article, the website was up on Saturday, and the investigation concluded that Thursday! I guess SIRION and the NTU Research Integrity and Ethics Office are doing their job very efficiently. Considering the number of professors supposedly implicated, as well as the number of former undergraduate students involved, tracking them all down within a week and then meeting them all is a true logistical feat that deserves the highest of commendations. Well done, NTU!
In conclusion, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the way Singapore’s most upright public institutions have conducted themselves, and very clearly demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all of Dr. Helmy’s claims are entirely false.
Also, I can’t wait for the next episode of this still-unfolding drama to come out.
Sometimes I wonder when something I write will get me in trouble somewhere. Though, I suppose that would be a good problem to have, since it implies people of import are actually reading what I have to say.
Also, starting next week, I’ll be posting subsequent issues of Kai’s Soapbox on Saturday night! This is for a few reasons:
I have a job now, which means I can’t afford to stay up dreadfully late Sunday nights writing.
This would be fine if I could plan my time and start writing earlier, but…
Also, because Saturday night’s alright for fighting.
Catch you all next week Saturday!
~ Kai