(i) Tolerating or covering up research fraud is more convenient than confronting it.
He came to this conclusion after approaching approximately 200 persons and institutions with his evidence and being ignored by all of them.
This suggested that the key problem for the Committee to address was not reducing research fraud, but discouraging the cover-up culture that allowed it to thrive.
(ii) This cover-up culture extended to include the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO)
Courtney presented evidence that the UKRIO had colluded with Manchester University, creating false evidence to hide research fraud at the University. This collusion was particularly serious because the UKRIO is widely seen as the guarantor of Briyish research integrity.
The report says in paragraph 50,
'We recommend that the Government and Universities UK write jointly to all universities to encourage them to engage with UKRIO and consider subscribing to its services.'
As a business victim of these ‘services’, Bill Courtney is aware of the damage the UKRIO has caused by sacrificing business to protect academic reputations.
This may be an unwanted truth for the Committee at a time of Brexit negotiations because the original research fraud may have caused unnecessary pedestrian deaths on European roads.
When Bill learned that the Government Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation; and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser were going to appear before the Committee, he informed them of the UKRIO corruption issue.
But the Committee did not discuss the role of the UKRIO with them. Nor did these witnesses choose to raise the issue.
Courtney called upon the Science and Technology Committee to withdraw its report because its implementation will discredit democracy as well as British science.
This call was dismissed by the chair of the Committee.
Courtney also wrote to the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation via his MP, but for some reason the letter was not forwarded for eleven weeks. By this time the Minister was on the verge of resigning. So his failure to respond is not surprising.
Trust nobody!
After 12 years of evasion by the university research establishment, Bill Courtney tried a different approach. He appealed to the Science and Technology Committee to investigate his evidence that Manchester University researchers had misused public funds and done bad research that may have cost European pedestrian lives.
He did not receive a reply. Click to see his submission.
(ii) 28 December 2016.
For over a year, Bill Courtney’s website had been publishing evidence of the collusion between Manchester University and the UKRIO to hide research fraud.
When the editor of the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry (JBPC) read this, he contacted Bill. He was independently becoming concerned about the behaviour of the UKRIO. So he invited Bill to write up his experiences and conclusions in a two part JBPC paper.
['A private researcher’s struggles against research fraud Part 1, A case study', JBPC Vol. 16, No. 3. – Click to follow a hyperlink to this paper.]
Part One offered a victims view on the central research integrity problem.
This is it in a nutshell.
In order to improve research integrity, the key people whose behaviour needed to change were not the relatively small number of bad people involved in committing research fraud, but the far larger number of good people who yield to group conformity by hiding or tolerating research fraud.
For example, Bill had approached over two hundred research professionals and organisations, but nobody was prepared to step out of line and stand up for research integrity.
In one instance a Nobel laureate gave his initial support, resulting in a formal inquiry in which the UKRIO participated.
In Section 22 of Part One of the JBPC paper, Bill lists the key players who chose group conformity ahead of integrity. Some of the names will surprise you.
(iii) 3 March 2017
Courtney made his first formal submission to the research integrity inquiry. This built on the case study described in Part One of his paper. He hoped his contribution would be of unique value to the Committee because it offered an insight from his perspective as a victim of research fraud and as a whistleblower. Click to see a copy of his submission.
(iv) 4 October 2017.
This submission was an update following the publication of Part Two of Courtney’s paper sub-titled, 'Suggestions for reducing the fraud problem’ JBPC 17 (2017) 81–88.
First he provided additional evidence which emphasised that the core problem was the pervasive cover-up culture that allows research fraud to thrive. Then he provided a hyperlink to Part Two of his paper, which offers proposals for discouraging the cover-up culture.
Click here to see Bill’s submission to the research integrity inquiry.
Click here to see a copy of Part Two of his JPPC paper.
(v) 14 February 2018
In his earlier evidence, Courtney had alerted the Committee to the role of the UKRIO in hiding research fraud. .
Courtney had also written to Sir Bernard Silverman, Chair of UKRIO’s Trustees, and James Parry, the UKRIO Chief Executive on several occasions, calling upon the UKRIO to investigate the corruption within its own ranks that was damaging his technology business. But his appeals fell on deaf ears.
Consequently Courtney was very disturbed when he saw video evidence that Silverman and Parry had appeared before the Committee declaring that the UKRIO was embarking on a research programme to identify how serious the research fraud problem really was.
This was highly dubious because those who are actively hiding research fraud have a vested interest in creating research data that whitewashes the problem.
Courtney wrote to the UKRIO Chairman, Trustees and Chief Executive, challenging them to legitimise their research by investigating integrity failings within their own organisation.
Nobody from the UKRIO took up this challenge.
This means that when the UKRIO research is finally published it could mislead decision makers on research integrity policy for many years to come.
So Courtney wrote to the Committee, warning them of this pending problem.
Click here to see Courtney’s letter to the Committee providing evidence that they were being misled by the UKRIO..
(vi) 16 May 2018.
When Courtney learned that the Committee chairman, Norman Lamb MP was going to speak at the 2018 UKRIO annual conference he saw this as an opportunity for Lamb to witness the cover-up culture at first hand. So he wrote to Mr Lamb urging him to defend science by raising the issue of corruption within the UKRIO while at the conference. He wrote similar letters to the other billed speakers where he could find their email addresses.
Mr Lamb did not reply, nor did any of the other speakers. This suggested that all the speakers, including Mr Lamb he had become participants in the cover-up culture.
Bill’s letter to Norman Lamb is reproduced in Appendix 2 below.
(vii) 28 May 2018
In order to check his suspicions of complicity, Courtney wrote to Mr Lamb and the other speakers asking if they had raised the issue of the UKRIO involvement in cover-ups when addressing the UKRIO conference.
His suspicions were confirmed indirectly, because none of the speakers including Mr Lamb replied. Bill’s letter is reproduced in Appendix 3 below.
When Courtney learned that the Rt Hon Sam Gyimah MP, Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation and Dr Patrick Vallance, Government Chief Scientific Adviser were going to appear before the Committee, he wrote to them both.
He advised them to swat up on the UKRIO misbehaviour problem, in case they were asked difficult questions about it during their interviews. In the event, the Committee did not raise this matter with the witnesses.
See Appendix 4 below for proof of Courtney’s communication with Gyimah and Vallance.
The Parliamentary Research Integrity Report is published
[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/350/350.pdf]
(i) Courtney had supplied the Science and Technology Committee with evidence of corruption within the UKRIO and the refusal of the UKRIO’s trustees to investigate it. So he was disturbed to read that the report included the following statement.
This recommendation makes a mockery of research integrity. The Science and Technology Committee are encouraging universities to financially support the UKRIO, an institution with a track record of colluding to create false evidence and hide research fraud.
(ii) The Committee urges all universities to publish an annual statement on research integrity (Page 52 of the report). But this will only help to hide the real problem, if we fail to change the cover-up culture first.
Reputation is everything in the fierce battle to win research grants. So the temptation will be for universities to release misleading integrity statements that continue to hide the most serious cases of misconduct (such as those witnessed by Courtney), while creating credibility by honestly reporting trivial ones.
(iii) Also on page 52 the Committee writes,
'The available data on misconduct investigations suggest that serious research misconduct is rare, but it is impossible to be certain without better data.'
But Courtney’s evidence of his 15 year battle to expose research fraud should have taught the Committee that obtaining better data will be impossible until we tackle the bigger problem of a fraud cover-up culture.
based on his 15 year battle to expose research fraud
Bill Courtney has written to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee and the Government Minister Sam Gyimah calling for the retraction of the report. Click to see a copy of the letter.
4. Courtney’s experience suggests that putting resources into eliminating the cover-up culture is just as important as tackling the fraud problem.
5. A deep commitment to research honesty must be instilled in young researchers before they become skilled in the arts of research deception. This education must begin in the school science laboratory and be constantly reinforced throughout the working lives of all researchers. Courtney taught pre-university science for 25 years. In his Part Two JBPC paper he offers suggestions for achieving this lifelong learning goal.
6. The new culture must also include instruments that make cheating far more difficult. Again, this must start in the school science laboratory.
Courtney offers the Committee suggestions for these instruments in his Part Two paper on research fraud.
This cover-up culture and self delusion mindset is not unique to academia. Here are some recent British examples.
(i) A parliamentary committee has identified a similar ‘self-delusion’ problem in the international aid sector (Oxfam and others.). [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45013078]
[https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hillsborough-shameless-smears-lies-cover-11245354]
Pupils start doing basic science from their earliest years in school. If pupils are inadvertently taught to manipulate their experimental results, to please their teacher and impress their friends, then we are training them in transferable cheating skills. But the reverse is also true. If we plan school science lessons in a manner that discourages cheating, this honesty may also be transferable.
Techniques for encouraging this pre-university scientific honesty are discussed in the JBPC paper, Part Two.
The Chairman of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Research Integrity
Dear Mr Lamb,
I am writing to you in your role as a named speaker at the 2018 United Kingdom Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) annual conference.
I am sending a similar letter to the other advertised speakers.
My experience, as a small company owner and victim of university research fraud, is disturbing.
The fraud took place at Manchester University and the UKRIO was complicit in hiding it.
This case suggests that, unless urgent remedial action is taken, academic corruption will handicap our ability to grow as a technology based nation after Brexit.
The fraud has cost me personally £140,000 and the opportunity to develop two patented inventions, one of which could have saved pedestrian lives. The fraud also squandered £292,000 of public funds.
In addition, European citizens lost out, because my pedestrian protection invention provided the European Commission with the only technical solution to a legislative problem at the time.
[See Hansard for details: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011025/text/11025w18.htm]
No other solution to the pedestrian safety problem was available, so the EU postponed its legislation in 2003, but planned to reintroduce it in 2012, if a solution to the problem could be found.
‘The problem’ is explained in the website article referred to below. However, as you will also read, the UKRIO helped to deliver two blows against European pedestrians. First it colluded with Manchester University to create a dishonest fraud investigation report, and then the dishonest report undermined a funding bid by Cardiff University, to do the pedestrian safety research correctly, to meet the 2012 deadline.
My experience highlights an unspoken research corruption within British science that is damaging us as a nation.
The corruption
Once academic misbehaviour becomes so bad that it has serious financial implications, or threatens the reputation of British science, the normal rules for exposing research fraud break down.
Instead, the science establishment protects itself by creating a false narrative to hide the original offence.
In my case, the narrative gained credibility beyond question because the UKRIO was involved in its creation.
Here is an outline of my case
For the last fifteen years I have been fighting to expose a serious case of research fraud at Manchester University that may have cost pedestrian lives on European roads. The University has been presented with my evidence of fraud on many occasions, but has chosen to ignore it1.
There was one exception to this indifference, when I submitted my evidence via a Nobel Laureate. This resulted in a Formal Investigation being triggered.
At this stage the UKRIO became involved. But instead of their representative assisting in exposing research fraud, he helped to hide it.
He did this by colluding with fellow Formal Investigation Panel members to create a false narrative that misled innocent readers of the Investigation Report. This narrative was so bizarre that it defied the basic laws of physics.
But, it served its purpose in hiding the fraud and protecting the Manchester University reputation.
I have published detailed evidence to support these claims on my website, www.cheshire-innovation.com. Please scroll down the home page to the story titled, “How the UK Research Integrity Office is corrupting British science”. [NOTE: Cheshire Innovation website readers can click for a direct link to this page.]
You will find two reading options in this section. To save reading time, I suggest that you choose the second option.
I have previously drawn attention to this abuse of UKRIO power to participants at the 2016 and 2017 UKRIO annual conferences. But nobody has been prepared to step out of line by addressing my evidence.
I hope that, in the best interests of British science, you will be prepared to break this taboo by raising my case at the 2018 conference.
As you can see, I am copying in James Parry, the Chief Executive of UKRIO, and Professor Sir Bernard Silverman, Chair of UKRIO. They are already aware of this issue because I have been writing to them repeatedly for several years.
I invite them to respond by telling you their side of the story.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Courtney
1 My evidence has been presented to approximately ninety (90) members of staff at Manchester University, including senior management, research integrity ‘champions’ and members of the University Senate.
The letters to the 90 staff members at Manchester University (and replies, where they have been received) can be found on the Cheshire Innovation website www.cheshire-innovation.com. But, because there is so much evidence, it will take you a long time to read through it.
You will also find details of my attempts to raise the case at the 2016 and 2017 UKRIO conferences.
Cheshire Innovation / Latent Power Turbines Ltd17 Vale Road, Timperley, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA15 7TQ, UK
Dear Messrs Lamb and Charlesworth, Ms Corti, Professors Hutton and Thomson, Drs Kolstoe, and Oates,
On May 16th 2018, I wrote to you all in your roles as speakers at the 2018 UKRIO annual conference.
I provided verifiable evidence of corruption within the UKRIO and requested that you raised this issue at the conference.
This corruption took the form of the UKRIO colluding with Manchester University to create a false narrative in a Formal Investigation Report.
This narrative hid research fraud instead of exposing it.
When confronted with my evidence, both the UKRIO and the University have hid behind a barrier of silence.
You will recall that in my earlier email, I invited the Chief Executive and Chair of the UKRIO to present their side of the story. But, to the best of my knowledge, they have remained silent.
Perhaps they contacted you while excluding me.
If so, was their rebuttal of my allegations convincing and supported by verifiable evidence?
I wrote as a small British business owner whose attempts to develop a pedestrian friendly car bumper, to meet EU requirements, was thwarted by research fraud followed by a dishonest University/UKRIO Formal Investigation Report.
This Report sabotaged an attempt by Cardiff University to gain funds, to do the research correctly.
It saved face for Manchester University, but European pedestrian lives may have been lost as a consequence.
As a business victim of the University/UKRIO cover-up, I also warned that Britain’s economy will be damaged if the UKRIO continues to protect its funding universities, at the expense of research integrity.
For example, in the coming era of driverless cars, there is renewed interest in making vehicles pedestrian friendly.
Britain could take the lead here with my smart car bumper invention. But this cannot happen until my professional name has been cleared and the fraudulent research and Formal Investigation Report have been retracted.
Fifteen (15) years has already been wasted trying to clear my name and expose the fraud.
During the last eight (8) years, this task has been made more difficult, due to the involvement of the UKRIO.
A lot of pedestrians have been killed by cars, or maimed for life, during that time.
This raises the interesting ethical question, “How many pedestrian lives are worth sacrificing in order to protect the reputation of the UKRIO?”
Were any of you concerned by my evidence of moral failings within the UKRIO, and did any of you raise the corruption issues as I requested?
If so, then can you provide me with feedback on the reaction of the UKRIO management and other participants at the conference?
Thank you,
Bill Courtney
Copied to: James Parry, the Chief Executive of UKRIO, and Professor Sir Bernard Silverman, Chair of UKRIO.
Cheshire Innovation / Latent Power Turbines Ltd17 Vale Road, Timperley, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA15 7TQ, UK
Appendix 4
