‘Weak’ handling of disputed study risks trust in science

We face a similar problem here in the UK. For the last ten years I have been lobbying a British university to tackle a serious case of engineering research fraud that may have cost many European pedestrians their lives. In 2009 the university held a formal enquiry into my complaints but managed to clear itself by citing the prior findings of a ghost committee that never existed. Freedom of Information requests have failed to unearth any documents relating to its existence and one named member has written to me denying membership. I can’t say for certain who created this ghost committee but there were three researchers whole behaviour should have been investigated. One was chosen as a scapegoat and the other two were allowed to testify as “independent witnesses” on his behalf. Is it pure coincidence that the same university boasts of its ambition to become one of the worlds top twenty five research universities by 2020? Is it also pure coincidence that the enquiry panel was chaired by a head of department, two of whose members were strongly tipped to win a Nobel Prize later that year? As a last resort, I have published the evidence of research and formal enquiry panel fraud online. To see this, visit the Cheshire Innovation web site, www.cheshire-innovation.com and scroll down to the “Soft bumpers to save pedestrian lives” story.