As an academic researcher, most of my time is consumed by deskwork and meetings. Hence, it was quite a surprise when I became involved in a legal case. It felt as if I were a scientist in a thrilling TV show. An individual had reached out to me to analyze some simple data. The results were crystal clear- the data revealed deaths and emergency admissions to the hospital due to a known environmental toxin.
The authorities were warned about this toxin, but they brushed the problem aside and dispelled public concerns. However, my findings prompted the local residents to push for a public legal inquiry, and I was asked to testify. To prepare myself for the experience, I decided to arrive at the inquiry a day before to observe from the public viewing area. I was keen on the proceedings but was also interested in how lawyers would cross-examine me.
To my surprise, it was a sensational day. A few days after my findings were public, the authorities hired another academic from a prestigious university to contradict my results. The lawyer representing the local residents cross-examined the academic and staff from the authorities and pieced together how they worked together to create results that suited the authoritys agenda.
Initially, I was quite angry. The authorities had made a mistake by reacting slowly to the discovery of the environmental toxin. Instead of admitting their error and losing face, they decided to prove that their inaction at that time was the right decision by hiring another academic to reinterpret the data. There was even an email trail discussing how the first set of alternative results were disappointing and how the second set were better. This reminded me of the scandal surrounding the "sexing up" of the Iraq dossier.
After hours of questioning, I knew the academics career was over because they had emailed admitting that their analysis could be manipulated to suit the authoritys agenda. The phrase "he who pays the piper calls the tune" is entirely contrary to science.
When the inquiry ended, I spoke with a colleague from the same university as the mercenary academic. They assured me that senior staff knew about the incident and were unhappy. I presumed that there would be a full internal inquiry and that the transcripts from the publicly available inquiry would be enough to terminate the academics position.
I felt good about this. Though people have families to feed, academics willing to bend data for profit should be expelled from the scientific field.
Years afterwards, at a national meeting of scientists to set research policy in the future, I was in for a rude awakening. The fraudulent academic was in attendance. They hadnt been terminated; instead, they had been promoted and invited to share their opinions about research on an equal footing with colleagues whom I admire. I was shocked.
How did this happen? I strongly suspect that the academics university had no intention of launching an inquiry that could harm their reputation, considering their failure to prevent his wrongdoing. I now regret not filing a formal complaint about malpractice at the time, which would have forced them to take action.
Although it is a difficult and potentially unpleasant process, I wish I had a time machine to go back and file that complaint. I am saddened at the thought of research performed by this academic-for-hire and the money they receive from deserving researchers.
