vtitle graphic
 

Background to this page

  

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is a British Research Council that provides government funding for grants to undertake research in engineering and the physical sciences, mainly to universities

On 9th July 2015 the EPSRC wrote to Manchester University requesting that they address concerns relating to the conduct of the EPSRC funded PedSALi project and a subsequentUniversity enquiry into complaints about the PedSALi research..

Ten weeks later the University responded by providing a spurious excuse for not carrying out an enquiry.

Courtney was very disappointed that Manchester University was abusing the scientific method in this way. So when he sent his response to the EPSRC he decided to copy in

(i) Members of the University Senate

and

(ii) Members of the Manchester University Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation.

This is what he wrote:

 


 

Dear Ben,

This email refers to allegations of three types of fraud at Manchester University.

(i)               Research, fraud,

(ii)             Financial fraud,

(iii)           Formal enquiry fraud.

The core evidence is published online at

www.cheshire-innovation.com/sali/pedsali.htm

and

www.cheshire-innovation.com/sali/CrashSALi-Project.htm

 

On July 9th 2015 you wrote to Professor Georghiou at the University with regards to the EPSRC interest in these allegations.

Your email on behalf of the EPSRC is reproduced below.

Professor Georghiou has now responded to the EPSRC, but in a most unsatisfactory manner.

 In your email to the University, you wrote,

“Although it may take some time and resource it is clearly important that the University addresses the questions raised in an open, impartial and transparent manner. In doing so it will be necessary to re-examine the basis on which certain statements were made and to produce the evidence to justify the some of the conclusions reached in the report; it may also be necessary to review whether correct procedure was followed and to demonstrate that proper and impartial account was taken of all the evidence available at the time.”

 However, instead of complying with your request, Professor Georghiou has simply ignored it.

Furthermore, he has resorted to a trick used by his Manchester University predecessors over the last twelve years. That is, he casts doubt on my professional competence as the whistleblower who has exposed the frauds.

[For the convenience of other readers of this email, a copy of the document you were referring to is attached. This is titled, Response to Ben Ryan EPSRC. Also for their convenience, a duplicate copy of Professor Georgiou’s letter to you titled “EPSRC response re Courtney” is attached.]

 As a British scientist I believe very strongly that I have a duty to expose research fraud and I will not be intimidated by Professor Georgiou’s veiled threats to my professional life.

My evidence of fraud will remain online until such time as the issues are addressed and strategies for preventing similar frauds at Manchester University are adopted. A facsimile of this email and its attachments will be added to the body of online evidence.

I am copying this letter to members of the Manchester University Senate because they should be aware that a tiny number of their colleagues have created false evidence to hide a fraud that may have cost thousands of pedestrian lives on European roads.

[Members of the Senate can:

(i)   Discover why this EPSRC funded research was fraudulent at www.cheshire-innovation.com/sali/pedsali.htm.

(ii) Read about the European pedestrian significance of this research by consulting the parliamentary records, Hansard at ttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011025/text/11025w18.htm]

 

As I make clear on my web pages, I am a “Manchester Man” who recognises that the vast majority of staff at the University are doing outstanding work we Brits can be proud of. But my loyalty to Manchester comes second to my loyalty to science. So I am not prepared to collude with the University in hiding embarrassing research fraud.

The fact that I voluntarily signed over 50% of potential royalties from the PedSALi project to Manchester University is testimony of my loyalty as a “Manchester Man.”

Professor Georghiou is aware of the generosity of my gesture because I sent him details in an email dated 21 August 2015. A copy of this email is attached. (Email to Professor Georghiou 21 August 2015.)

 Please copy me into any response that the EPSRC makes to Professor Georghiou.

 Thank you,

 Bill Courtney

Below: Original email from the EPSRC to Manchester University

Dear Professor Georghiou,

 I am writing to you in your role as Vice President for Research and Innovation at the University of Manchester to ask you to address a number of serious complaints referred to us by Mr Bill Courtney. Mr Courtney contacted us in March of this year to express his concerns, and the attached file ‘RE_Bad research into car bumpers that may have cost pedestrian lives.pdf’ contains the subsequent direct correspondence we had with him up to the point at which he provided us with the attached document ‘Response to Ben Ryan EPSRC Re PedSALi project’.

As you will see, Mr Courtney’s complaints stem from an investigation undertaken by the University in 2010 and the multiple concerns  he had raised over an extended period of time in relation to research conducted at the University into ‘SALi Technology’ (concerns which that investigation was intended to address). The ‘Response to Ben Ryan…’ document raises serious questions about the conduct/scope of the enquiry, including that available evidence was not properly considered, that relevant witnesses were not consulted, and that the report’s conclusions are based on assertions unsupported by evidence. The document also raises questions about the response by the University to Mr Courtney’s complaints since the enquiry took place.

 Although it may take some time and resource it is clearly important that the University addresses the questions raised in an open, impartial and transparent manner. In doing so it will be necessary to re-examine the basis on which certain statements were made and to produce the evidence to justify the some of the conclusions reached in the report; it may also be necessary to review whether correct procedure was followed and to demonstrate that proper and impartial account was taken of all the evidence available at the time. Because Mrs April Lockyer is directly referred to in parts of Mr Courtney’s response it is of course inappropriate that she should now be involved other than when required as a witness.

 Please let Mr Courtney know how you plan to take this forward and the anticipated timescale, and please copy us when you do so. If you prefer not to respond to Mr Courtney directly please explain to us why not so that we may keep him informed of progress.

 Looking forward to hearing further from you in due course,

 Ben

 Ben Ryan

Senior Manager, Research Outcomes

EPSRC

 

Aftermath

As recorded on this linked web page, the Manchester University Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation has made strenuous efforts to ignore evidence of unethical conduct within its own parent University. So it came as no surprise that all members of the Institute copied into the above email rejected it.

Here is the evidence:

  

The PedSALi project page

 

Cheshire Innovation Home page