The Australian Academy of Science has created a code of conduct, which is very good indeed. But there is no mention of a top problem in science ethics – research misconduct.

The new code is a big deal indeed, complex to negotiate and it’s a first, some suggest for the STEM sector in that it applies to staff, fellows and volunteers.

Overall it is straightforward and sensible, staff among many other things, are required to “maintain the highest standards of professionalism” and “foster a culture of respect, dignity, collaboration and support for co-workers.” Fellows have numerous obligations, they must “use their standing as senior scientists and fellows of the Academy to ensure that this code is upheld by others; for example, by intervening in cases of bullying, discrimination, harassment or inappropriate language.” They must not claim to be experts in areas where they aren’t, as well as declaring real or potentially perceived conflicts of interest.

Good-oh, but there is no mention in the code of addressing research misconduct, which seems strange given that fellows are required to, “uphold the reputation and standing of the Academy within the community as an independent, authoritative body comprising a fellowship of Australia’s leading scientists.”

Yesterday the Academy told CMM that it; ““does not itself directly undertake scientific research. Any alleged case of research misconduct would initially be investigated by the employing institution. The findings of such an investigation would then be considered by the Academy.

“While research misconduct is not explicitly mentioned in the code of conduct, the Academy now has a mechanism to consider and handle alleged breaches.”

So why not define it? Perhaps because the Australian Research Council doesn’t. The 2007 edition of the ARC code did, but not the update. The expert committee responsible decided it was just too hard given, “there is no internationally agreed definition of research misconduct, and that the definition in the current code has been problematic in its application to an investigation outcome and findings, particularly in relation to enterprise agreements and current approaches to the management of behaviours that may require corrective action,” (CMM June 19 2017).

So, the Academy is covered, for as long as there is no research scandal where some fellows decide others’ research is not jolly good.