UCL Human Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 2018

Strictly Private 8- Confidential

Prolessor David Latchman

Dear Prolessor Latchman.

Re: 

 

nary Hearing under Statute 18 0' UCL's Charter and Statutes

I am writing to coniirm the outcome oi the disciplinary hearing you attended on Friday. 7 September 2013 at
9.30am. The meeting was held in the UCL HR Department. 2m Floor Bidborough House. 33-50 Bldborough
Street. London 931'.

I chaired the meeting and was supported by Donna Dairympie [Head oi HR. School oi Liie is Medical
Sciences) who provided HR advice. The management case was presented by Prolessor Ros [Institute
Director. UCL institute oi Child Health) and Jenniler Asebl-Antwi took the notes oi the meeting.

You attended the meeting unaccompanied. but you were aware that you could be accompanied by a trade
union representative or work colleague it you so wished. We heard evidence irom your witnesses: Prolessor
Tony Segal and Dr Shanie Budhrun>>Mahadeo who attended in person: Dr Mattia Calissano and Prolessor
Paul Townsend who participated by telephone.

This disciplinary hearing was conducted in accordance UCL's Procedure ior Disciplinary Hearings. which
can be iound at: -aooendix>>c>>
The options ior possible lormal outcomes available to me were as
detailed in UCL's Statute ta. Part ill. a copy oi which can be iound at: 


The purpose ol the hearing was to consider the alleged misconduct that:

. Your lailure to manage the laboratory appropriately. together with your involvement as senior author
or co-author on the publications where misconduct was identilied. amounted to recklessness in the
conduct oi an aspect oi a research project. which the misconduct research identilied in the
investigations:

1. Investigation into research misconduct in respect of 32 papers published between 1990 and 2013
by researchers based at the UCL Institute of Child Health:

2. investigation into research misconduct in respect oi seven papers published by researchers
based at the UCL institute oi Child Health between 2002 and 2003

Alter reading all the evidence. hearing the UCL case and your response. and considering the witness
evidence. my decision is that no lormal disciplinary action should be taken.

University College Londun.
Gower Street. London wci EST
Tel '44 mm 7579 zoom
ac uknir

 

There are also a number of recommendations that I would like to make arising out of the evidence that was
presented:
1) Consideration by UCL should be given to difficulties in leading a research unit, when the PI can only
spend a relatively small proportion of his/her time supervising and monitoring the research. Although I
have not found that the management of your research programme was inadequate, nevertheless I
recommend that careful consideration be given to the problems which may arise when PIs of large
complex research programmes have additional demanding commitments.
2) Senior group leaders should give careful consideration as to when they cease to be co-authors of
publications when the management of the research in question has largely passed to former group
members who are now independent.
3) More generally, there is a need for the scientific community to recognise that scientific fraud may be
difficult to detect, even in well run teams; and there is a clear need in the training of early career
scientists to inculcate the highest standards of research ethics, while making clear the consequences
of fraudulent behaviour.
4) I propose that these general recommendations be considered by the Vice-provost Research.

As no formal action is being taken, this now brings a close to this disciplinary process.
Yours sincerely,

Professor Richard Catlow, FRS
UCL Chemistry
Cc:

Professor Ros Smyth