Professor Steven Newmaster of the University of Guelph (UG), whose effectiveness of the work is being discussed by a survey published in the journal Sciencehas not committed scientific misconduct, graduated from a committee of inquiry mandated by the University.
Steven Newmaster received media attention in 2013, following the publication of an article on BMC Medicine which showed that herbal supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label.
This article sent shockwaves through the herbal medicine industry. The researcher has become an authority on food ingredient verification. He even created validating companies that supplement manufacturers quickly sought to validate their products.
The experts filed a complaint
In June 2021, eight experts sent a letter to UG outlining the issues identified in the study and two more pieces of research by Prof Newmaster and his team.
The signatories, including two co-authors of suspicious articles claiming to have been deceived by the researcher, explained that the data on which this work was based was based on incomplete, misleading or even plagiarized information. They also accused Steven Newmaster of not disclosing all of his financial interests in his articles.
In a letter sent to the complainants on June 1, the committee appointed by the university to study the complaint considered that it was not possible to clearly establish intentional misconduct in Steven Newmaster’s work.
There is insufficient evidence to support specific claims against Drs. Steven Newmasterdocument notes John Walsh, the committee leader and acting associate dean of Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics from the University of Guelph.
The decision disappointed researcher Ken Thompson, who first questioned Prof Newmaster’s work in 2020. He said he was surprised to see misconduct claims thrown out because of lack of records and data.
” Our complaint is that Prof. Newmaster lied about his results and he had no data to reach his conclusions. The lack of data is the heart of our complaint. “
No surprises
If the decision disappoints Ken Thompson, current postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University, it doesn’t surprise him.
Early in the process, he was surprised that the committee had not consulted him further, except for a brief meeting early in the process to establish the alleged facts.
” It told me that they had no intention of conducting their investigation in good faith, and that they were not interested in knowing the truth. “
Academic integrity is at stake
Ken Thompson thinks this case demonstrates the importance of an impartial discipline committee.
If there is a lesson to be learned from this case, responsibility for reviewing allegations of research misconduct should be removed from universities and given to an independent and qualified authority. Universities are in a conflict of interest and are unable to perform their duties impartially.believes Mr. Thompson.
Nothing to blame, but …
The committee reviewing the complaint did not go so far as to blame Professor Newmaster for its initial decision, but it still slapped the botanist on the knuckles.
Defendant demonstrated a lack of judgment and failed to apply the standards expected in his research discipline.states the letter from the committee, which also qualifies the researcher’s conduct as suspiciousaccording to UG’s methods of responsible research conduct.
Source: Radio-Canada
