LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY Allegation of research misconduct against Professor David Latchman and Dr Anastasis Stephanou Report of the Screening Panel Background 1 Following receipt of an allegation of research misconduct and undertaking the initial assessment required under the UCL procedure for investigating and resolving allegations of misconduct in academic research (‘the procedure’ hereinafter), the UCL Registrar (Wendy Appleby), the Named Person for the procedure, determined that a Screening Panel should be convened to consider the allegation in question. 2 The allegation of research misconduct related to an allegation of fraud in relation to fabrication of data that had been sent anonymously from the e-mail address clare.francis1946@googlemail.com (‘the Complainant’) and was made against Professor David Latchman CBE, Master of Birkbeck, who also held a 0.1 FTE appointment at UCL Institute of Child Health (ICH), and Dr Anastasis Stephanou, ICH ('the Respondents'). The alleged fraud related to 28 articles that had been produced by the Latchman Research Group dating back to 1997. All 28 articles included Professor Latchman in the authorship list, with Dr Stephanou named as co-author on 14 of them. 3 Under the Initial Assessment stage of the procedure, the former UCL Registrar (Tim Perry) liaised with the Dean of the Faculty of Population Health Sciences at UCL to seek an expert academic opinion on the allegation to help determine whether the matter fell within the definition of misconduct in research under the procedure. Professor Mark Marsh, Director, UCL’s MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, was commissioned to take an initial scrutiny of the allegation and prepared a report on his findings to both the Dean and the former Registrar. The current Registrar determined that the allegation fell within the scope of the procedure and that it proceed to the Screening Panel stage for consideration. 4 In accordance with the procedure, at least three senior members of UCL staff from the Department or Faculty concerned, nominated by the Registrar for approval by the Vice-Provost (Research), were appointed to serve as members of the Screening Panel. The membership of the Screening Panel was as follows: Professor John Hardy (Institute of Neurology) (Chair) Professor Buzz Baum (MRC Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology) Professor Gudrun Moore (Institute of Child Health). 5 According to the procedure, the Screening Panel’s role was to: • review the allegation and supporting evidence submitted by the Complainant; • • • • 6 review the evidence and supporting documentation from the Respondent, who should be given the opportunity to respond to the allegation, set out his/her case and present evidence; review any background information relevant to the allegations; and interview the Complainant, the Respondent, and other individuals who might provide relevant information to assist the Panel; determine whether the allegation of misconduct in research: i. was mistaken, frivolous, vexatious and/or malicious; or ii. should be referred directly to UCL’s relevant disciplinary process or other internal process; or iii. had some substance but due to a lack of intent to deceive or due to its relatively minor nature, should be addressed through education and training or other non-disciplinary approach rather than through the next stage of the procedure or other formal proceedings; or iv. was sufficiently serious and had sufficient substance to justify a Formal Investigation. All members of the Screening Panel had in accordance with the procedure declared that they: • • • • • would adhere to the principles of the procedure; would abide by the procedure as it affects the work of the Screening Panel; would work within the Terms of Reference for the Screening Panel (which were to consider the allegations set out at paragraph 2 above); had declared any links to the research and/or the individuals involved in the allegations or any interests which might conflict with the principles of the procedure; and would maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings throughout the work of the Panel and afterwards unless formally sanctioned by UCL or otherwise required to by law. 7 Meetings of the Screening Panel to consider the allegation and supporting evidence and documentation took place on 22 August 2014, 22 September 2014, 30 September 2014 and 17 November 2014. At the meeting held on 30 September 2014, the Screening Panel conducted separate interviews with the Respondents, Professor Latchman and Dr Stephanou (the latter was interviewed by Skype), and one other person (Dr Shanie Budhram-Mahadeo, ICH) in accordance with the procedure. The Panel also met with Dr Stephanou in person on 17 November 2014. The Complainant was contacted, via their email address, to confirm whether they wished to meet with the Panel in person; no response was received to this invitation. 8 Prior to the meetings above, all members of the Screening Panel had been sent the following documentation: • • • • • 9 a copy of UCL's Procedure for Investigating and Resolving Allegations of Misconduct in Academic Research; copies of the emails sent by the Complainant dated 20 December 2013, 24 December 2013, 25 December 2013 and 27 December 2013; copies of the 28 articles covered by the allegations; a copy of the report prepared by Professor Marsh; and individual statements in response to the allegations submitted by the Respondents. Subsequent to its meeting held on 22 August 2014, the Panel sought written responses from a number of co-authors, where traceable, on some of the articles concerned in the allegations. All the written responses received were shared with 2 Professor Latchman, and only those that covered articles on which Dr Stephanou was named were shared with him. 10 Ahead of the interviews, both the Respondents and Dr Budhram-Mahadeo were supplied with a copy of an article titled ‘What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation’, by Mike Rossner and Kenneth Yamada Journal of Cell Biology (2004) 166:11-15 at the Panel’s request. All parties were also informed of the individual articles that the Panel wished to discuss with them in detail at interview in advance. 11 At the start of each interview, all parties were supplied with a short document prepared by the Panel that set out some guiding principles about the ultimate responsibility for the integrity of the data in any paper resting with the senior author and the types of data misrepresentation drawn from the article above (Rossner and Yamada 2004). Findings of the Screening Panel 12 Having considered the evidence at paragraphs 8 and 9 and interviewed the Respondents together with Dr Budhram-Mahadeo, the Screening Panel determined that some of the Figures within some of the articles covered by the allegations had indeed been fabricated. 13 In reaching its decision, the Screening Panel made the following findings in relation to the articles covered by the allegations: ‘STAT-1 facilitates the ATM activated checkpoint pathway following DNA damage’, Journal of Cell Science, 2005, 118, 1629-1639 13a The Panel considered that the allegations made in respect of Figures 4, 5, and 6 in this article had substance and that the article should be retracted. During the interview Dr Stephanou accepted that, given the original primary data from which he had prepared the Figures no longer existed, the paper needed to be retracted due to fabrication and duplication of bands for different experiments and proteins. ‘KATP Channel Gene Expression Is Induced by Urocortin and Mediates Its Cardioprotective Effect’, Circulation, 2002, 106, 1556-62  13b The Panel considered that the allegations made in respect of the Actin panels in Figures 2 and 3A and the accompanying Kir6.1 panels had substance and that the article should be retracted. This was accepted by Professor Latchman during interview given that the original primary data concerned, from which the authors had prepared the Figures, no longer existed. Professor Latchman agreed the paper needed to be retracted due to fabrication and duplication of bands from different experiments. 'Different Signaling Pathways Induce Apoptosis in Endothelial Cells and Cardiac Myocytes during Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury’, Circulation Research, 2002, 90, 745-748 13c The Panel considered that the Actin loading control in Figure 2 appeared identical in lanes c and d and was of the view that the data had been copied and pasted. This was not considered to be acceptable as they related to two different experiments. The Panel also noted the similarity of the Actin blots in this Figure. This was accepted by Professor Latchman. However, the Panel was told during the interview that the Figure was prepared by one of the other authors. Professor Latchman was named as last author on this paper and therefore held ultimate responsibility for the data. The Panel considered that the allegations made on this article had substance and that it should be retracted. This was accepted by Professor Latchman during interview. 3 13d Subsequent to his interview with the Panel, Professor Latchman informed the Panel Secretary that the Italian collaborators had found the original data for Figure 2c and d. Professor Latchman explained that this showed the work was repeated twice with the appropriate result for cytochrome translocation and Bid processing. In addition, a Figure containing the apparent duplication of the actin data (identical to that published) was present in the Italian data showing, according to Professor Latchman, that this error arose there rather than in his laboratory. The Panel considered that the original data did not alter its findings above and that the article be retracted. 'STAT1 interacts directly with cyclin D1/Cdk4 and mediates cell cycle arrest', Cell Cycle, 2010, 9(23), 4638-49 13e The Panel discussed this paper in detail at interview with Dr Stephanou. The Panel found that in relation to Figure 1, the numbers in the corresponding text were different to the Figure it referenced. The Panel queried the blot intensities in Figure 2a and noted that in Figure 2b, lane 5, the 3 pattern of bands in lanes 5 and 6 of 2b were identical to those in lanes 1 and 2 of Figure 2c even though they represented different types of experiment. The Panel also found that in Figure 3A, the p-STAT bands in the input were identical to those in the STAT1-GST, even though the STAT-GST protein in the latter panel was made in bacteria, where no phosphorylation was expected to take place. The Panel learnt that this article was based on the PhD thesis of the first author who was formerly primarily supervised by Dr Stephanou and who had prepared Figure 3A. The Panel also found that the GAPDH panels in Figure 4 were identical to the bands from the control in Figures 5a and 5c, and contained a floating pasted arrow. In addition, Figure 6 contained a number of instances of splicing as if assembled using extensive Adobe Photoshop manipulation. The Panel considered that the allegations made on this article had substance and that it should be retracted due to fabrication and duplication of bands and controls for different experiments, and this was accepted by Dr Stephanou and Professor Latchman during interview given the original primary data concerned no longer existed that could have been used to confirm the Figures. 'Antiapoptotic activity of the free caspase recruitment domain of procaspase-9: a novel endogenous rescue pathway in cell death', Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2002, 277, 13693-9 ‘Apoptosis of endothelial cells precedes myocyte cell apoptosis in ischemia/reperfusion injury’, Circulation, 2001, 104, 253-6 13f Professor Latchman accepted the two allegations made in respect of Figure 1d in the J Biol Chem article above with Figure 2d in the Circulation article as it appeared that the same Figure had been used in both articles. The Panel considered that the allegations made on these articles had substance and that the articles should be retracted. This was accepted by Professor Latchman during interview given that the original primary data concerned, which could have been used to confirm the data presented in the Figures, no longer existed. 13g Subsequent to his interview with the Panel, Professor Latchman supplied the Panel Secretary with the original data that had been found for the experiment in Figure 2d. Professor Latchman explained, via email, that the data showed the work was repeated twice (independently of the published figure) with the appropriate result showing caspase 3 processing. The Panel considered that the original data did not alter its findings above that the article should be retracted. 4 ‘Urocortin increases the expression of heat shock protein 90 in rat cardiac myocytes in a MEK1/2-dependent manner’, Journal of Endocrinology, 2002, 172, 283-93 ‘Cardiotrophin-1 can protect cardiac myocytes from injury when added both prior to simulated ischaemia and at reoxygenation’, Cardiovascular Research, 2001, 51, 265-74 13h The Panel briefly discussed the set of papers above with Professor Latchman who noted that it was common previous practice to insert a line within a panel and prior to that to use markers. Professor Latchman said that researchers within his Lab were trained not to seamlessly splice data to generate Figures, and considered that the allegations related to practice at the time concerning the presentation of the Figures. The Panel determined that there was no prima facie evidence of research misconduct in relation to these articles and that the allegations could not be pursued further. The Brn-3b POU family transcription factor represses plakoglobin gene expression in human breast cancer cells’, International Journal of Cancer, 2006, 118, 869-78 ‘Activation of CDK4 Gene Expression in Human Breast Cancer Cells by the Brn-3b POU Family Transcription Factor, Cancer Biology and Therapy, 2004, 3, 317-23’ 13i The Panel found that the allegations made in respect of the above two articles had been raised separately by ‘Clare Francis’ with the Editor of the Int J Cancer earlier this year. The journal had sought information from Professor Latchman and were satisfied with the response supplied and closed the case. The Panel determined that the allegations did not need to be pursued further. 'The Brn-3b transcription factor regulates the growth, behavior and invasiveness of human neuroblastoma cells in vitro and in vivo', Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2004, 279 (20), 21617-27 13j The Panel invited Dr Budhram-Mahadeo to interview to discuss the article above and the one below at paragraph 13k. The Panel was impressed by the written response supplied by Dr Budhram-Mahadeo to the Panel’s request for information about both these articles and confirmed that the allegations were not made against her. As indicated in her written response, Dr Budhram-Mahadeo accepted that there had been errors with the cells in relation to Figures 4 and 4B in the J Biol Chem (2004) article and that the images were for different experiments. However, the Panel advised that unless an experiment was repeated the researcher could not be certain that the data shown was correct. The Panel considered that the allegations made on this article had substance and that it should be retracted, rather than the individual Figure alone being corrected, since there were multiple errors and it was hard to justify to a journal that multiple errors in a Figure be corrected simply by way of a correction. The Panel indicated that it would be able to comment on any draft retraction statement. 'Brn-3a transcription factor blocks p53-mediated activation of proapoptotic genes Noxa and Bax in vitro and in vivo to determine cell fate', Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2005, 280 (12), 11851-8 13k The Panel considered that there were a number of issues in relation to the Figures in this article and found that there had been a mix up with the gels as well as incorrect labelling. In relation to Figure 4, the Panel and Dr Budhram-Mahadeo agreed that the right Actin lanes were identical to the left Actin panel. In summary, the Panel considered that this article should be retracted; this recommendation was accepted by Dr Budhram-Mahadeo at interview. As above, the Panel indicated that they would be able to comment on any draft retraction statement. 5 13l Although not a Respondent in this matter, Dr Budhram-Mahadeo considered the Panel’s recommendations at interview and explained that (i) the articles at paragraphs 13j and 13k above were circulated to all authors for checking prior to submission, (ii) any errors made in relation to these articles were unintentional and (iii) she was unaware of them upon their publication. The Panel noted that Dr Budhram-Mahadeo had accepted responsibility and was satisfied by this explanation given in mitigation. The Panel subsequently noted that these articles have not been retracted. ‘The Brn-3a Transcription Factor Induces Neuronal Process Outgrowth and the Coordinate Expression of Genes Encoding Synaptic Proteins’, Molecular and Cellular Biology, 1997, 17, 345-354 ‘Inhibition of Neuronal Process Outgrowth and Neuronal Specific Gene Activation by the Brn-3b Transcription Factor’, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1997, 272, 13821388 13m The Panel noted that both the above articles were published back in 1997 and that the allegations made related to one Figure that was not cross referenced between both articles. Professor Latchman explained that the he had tried to publish both papers as a single article but the journals concerned considered that there was too much information for a single article. The Panel suggested that the experiment could have been repeated and that it should have been clearly referenced, as it was not acceptable to present the same image without a reference. Whilst Professor Latchman accepted the Panel’s comment, he argued that while this might not be optimum practice he did not consider it to be bad practice. The Panel determined that the allegations lacked substance and did not need to be pursued further. 14 The Panel also considered the remaining allegations made by ‘Clare Francis’ on the other 14 articles and determined that there was no clear-cut prima facie evidence of research misconduct that needed to be pursued further. Response by the Respondents 15 During interview, Professor Latchman also made the following points in mitigation: • • • • • Professor Latchman explained that he considered the tone of the emails sent by the Complainant to be vitriolic towards him personally and that he did not accept that he was a ‘fraudster’ as had been stated within one of the Complainant’s emails. Professor Latchman noted that the number of articles covered by the allegations represented a small part of his total research output produced during his academic career to date (some 250 papers). Moreover, some of the articles that had been examined dated back to 1997 and it was likely that there had been some 25 breakthrough papers on the research concerned subsequently. It was noted that the data image technology and software now available was far more advanced than that available at the time that the older articles covered by the allegations were produced. Professor Latchman was made Head of Department of Molecular Pathology at UCL in 1991, and moved to ICH to become Director in 1999, and as part of that appointment he secured a lectureship post that was now filled by Dr Budhram-Mahadeo. Dr Stephanou was employed as a post doctoral researcher and led the cardiovascular biology group in the Latchman Group. Professor Latchman was keen to develop the research careers of his colleagues and started to use corresponding author status on work produced by Drs Budhram-Mahadeo and Stephanou. He subsequently became last 6 • • 16 author on their work so as not to hinder their academic development. However, Professor Latchman noted that Dr Stephanou still included his name on his publications, although his role as last author was advisory given the work concerned was developed independently. Professor Latchman accepted that whilst it might be mistaken for him to continue to be named as last author, he did so to help both Dr Stephanou and Dr Budhram-Madaheo in their applications for grant funding and promotion. Professor Latchman did not personally prepare any of the data in the articles covered by the allegations, nor did he directly supervise all researchers in his Lab. Professor Latchman remains as Head of the Medical Molecular Biology Unit at ICH, located at the Rayne Institute at UCL, as having Head status allowed him to sign off grant applications by researchers in his Lab. He was also both Drs Stephanou and Budhram-Mahadeo’s line manager. As indicated in his written response and at interview, Dr Stephanou explained that he no longer had any primary data prior to 2010. This was due in part to the move of the Unit to the Rayne Institute in 2012. He stated that this had significantly reduced storage space, and that some of the experiments were carried out by former researchers in the Group who had taken some of the data with them upon their departure to complete their part of the manuscript. Dr Stephanou was aware that primary data should be kept for 10 years in line with UCL policy and accepted that he should have kept the primary data for longer and would do so now onwards. Professor Latchman noted that he had spoken to Dr Stephanou in the past about keeping primary data, as this was an area of concern. Dr Stephanou added that he had published over 100 peer-reviewed manuscripts and he accepted responsibility as senior author on those papers where errors had been found by the Panel. In fact, it was noted by the panel that he was Editor in Chief of a journal that enforced such a policy (see paragraph 22 below). While Dr Stephanou stated he would follow the Panel’s recommendations, he appeared unable to assess the clear duplication of the data in the papers at his first interview, stating “bands and blots often look very similar”. Culture in the Latchman Group 17 The Panel was interested in the culture within the Latchman Group. It was noted that the Latchman Group consisted of about 20-25 persons in total that were divided into sub-groups of about 5-7 people. The Panel found that postdoctoral researchers were given projects and had regular fortnightly meetings with their respective supervisor to discuss progress on their work. Professor Latchman stated that he looked at every piece of primary data produced by the Lab and encouraged his researchers to start their articles with a primary data image as he considered that to be the best science practice to encourage both the researcher and reader to develop skills to look at primary data. In terms of the replication of experiments, researchers in the Lab were made aware that they must conduct a minimum of three replications. Operation of the Procedure 18 The Panel considered that the report prepared by Professor Marsh that was commissioned by the former UCL Registrar at the Initial Assessment phase of the procedure was extremely helpful. However, as confirmed in its interview with Professor Latchman, all Panel members had spent some considerable time and effort analysing each article and the figures therein covered by the allegations and had not relied on Professor Marsh’s report in determining its consideration of the allegations. Moreover, the Panel had identified other errors outside those identified by both the Complainant and Professor Marsh. 7 19 The Panel also noted that it had found the Rossner and Yamada article very helpful in its consideration of this matter concerning data fabrication, and was of the view that the definitions of research misconduct contained in UCL’s procedure at Annex 2 required revision and expansion. Other findings 20 The Panel also noted Professor Latchman’s request that any retraction make clear the Figure(s) that required correction in the article concerned so that any potential damage to the reputation of the co-authors could be limited. 21 During interview, Professor Latchman noted that he had been contacted by one of the authors contacted by the Panel for information who was distressed by the matter. The Panel confirmed that, given the seriousness of this matter, authors on papers that were not recommended for retraction would be informed by the Panel Secretary that the allegations would not be taken further to allay their concerns. 22 The Panel also found that Dr Stephanou was Editor in Chief of JAK-STAT. The editorial team included Professor Latchman and other co-authors of the papers in question including Knight, Scarabelli and Townsend. Moreover, all published articles together in the journal. 23 The Panel noted that this might be just the tip of the iceberg, since much of the data in the papers senior authored by Dr Stephanou and co-authors was not presented in primary form, preventing an assessment of its validity. Moreover, it was noted that while there were no other clear indications of fraud in the other papers covered by the allegations that were not recommended for retraction, the work in many of those papers from the team was deemed to be very sloppy and the conclusions of papers were not always supported by the data presented. Conclusions 24 While the Screening Panel noted that it was not its role to determine whether the allegation against the Respondents was proven or unproven, it was nevertheless able to conclude on the basis of evidence presented to it that prima facie evidence of misconduct in research of fraud as defined within Annex 2 of the procedure as ‘deliberate deception (which may include the invention or fabrication of data) or other misuse of research funds or research equipment’ had occurred in relation to eight of the articles covered by the allegations. In light of the seriousness of the matter, the Panel considered that the matter should be referred directly to UCL’s relevant disciplinary process or other internal process and bypass the Formal Investigation stage given the Respondents had accepted at interview that the articles be retracted. 25 The Panel would emphasise that it considers that a paper is only as good as the data in it. Therefore statements to the effect the data were in error, but the overall message of the paper was still OK, are not acceptable. If a single Figure in a paper can be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to have been manipulated, the Panel recommends retraction rather than correction since the conclusions cannot be deemed to be supported by the data. The Panel would also advise that retraction was an honourable action to take, rather than being shameful. However, any retraction statement should be carefully worded to explain the precise reason for retraction. Recommendations 26 The Screening Panel makes the following recommendations in light of its review of the allegations: 8 26.1 The Panel considers that there was prima facie evidence of research misconduct in some of the allegations of fraud, in relation to data fabrication. 26.2 The Panel found that there was prima facie evidence of research misconduct in relation to eight of the articles included in the allegations. The Panel noted that the Respondents, and Dr Budhram-Mahadeo, accepted at interview that the articles concerned be retracted immediately. Therefore, the Panel recommends that the following articles be retracted by the respective senior author: • ‘STAT-1 facilitates the ATM activated checkpoint pathway following DNA damage’, Journal of Cell Science, 2005, 118, 1629-1639; (Dr Stephanou) • ‘KATP Channel Gene Expression Is Induced by Urocortin and Mediates Its Cardioprotective Effect’, Circulation, 2002, 106, 1556-62; (Professor Latchman) • 'Different Signaling Pathways Induce Apoptosis in Endothelial Cells and Cardiac Myocytes during Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury’, Circulation Research, 2002, 90, 745-748; (Professor Latchman) • 'STAT1 interacts directly with cyclin D1/Cdk4 and mediates cell cycle arrest', Cell Cycle, 2010, 9(23), 4638-49; (Dr Stephanou) • 'Antiapoptotic activity of the free caspase recruitment domain of procaspase-9: a novel endogenous rescue pathway in cell death', Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2002, 277, 13693-9; (Professor Latchman) • ‘Apoptosis of endothelial cells precedes myocyte cell apoptosis in ischemia/reperfusion injury’, Circulation, 2001, 104, 253-6; (Professor Latchman)  • 'The Brn-3b transcription factor regulates the growth, behavior and invasiveness of human neuroblastoma cells in vitro and in vivo', Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2004, 279 (20), 21617-27; (Dr Budhram-Mahadeo) • 'Brn-3a transcription factor blocks p53-mediated activation of proapoptotic genes Noxa and Bax in vitro and in vivo to determine cell fate', Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2005, 280 (12), 11851-8 (Dr Budhram-Mahadeo). 26.3 That once the retractions for the above articles have been lodged, the respective senior author inform the grant funding bodies thanked in the articles concerned about the prima facie evidence of research misconduct. 26.4 That given Professor Latchman’s very senior position as Master of Birkbeck, and the likely press interest arising from the retractions of the above articles on which he is named, the Panel would advise Professor Latchman to update the Chair of the Board of Governors at Birkbeck about this matter. 26.5 The Panel recognises that Professor Latchman is a senior, distinguished scientist but considers that UCL and the Director of ICH should refer the matter directly to UCL’s relevant disciplinary process or other internal process. 26.6 The Panel notes both paragraph C44 and paragraph 5 at Annex 6, titled ‘Actions and outcomes’ in the procedure and recommends the following: • In light of the Panel’s findings, the Dean of the Faculty of Population Health Sciences should discuss with the Director of ICH whether Professor 9 Latchman’s Group within the Medical Microbiology Unit be part of UCL’s or ICH’s organisational structure, and that, once confirmed, ensure that both the Unit and its staff have clear reporting lines. • The Panel found that all the articles that had prima facie evidence of research misconduct supporting the allegations of fraud were produced by the Cardiovascular Biology sub-group headed by Dr Stephanou. In light of the Panel’s findings, the Director of ICH and Dr Stephanou’s Head of Department are invited to consider the appropriateness of his supervision of research students and whether it is appropriate that he be allowed to publish papers and write grant proposals. • That Dr Stephanou consider the appropriateness of serving as Editor in Chief of JAK-STAT given the Panel’s findings above including that two articles he senior authored be retracted, and given the involvement of his other co-editors in these papers. • That the UCL Registrar forward a copy of this report to the Director of ICH, for both Dr Stephanou and Dr Budhram-Madaheo, for information, and that the matter be covered in their individual annual staff appraisal. Concluding remarks 27 The Chair expressed thanks to all members of the Screening Panel for their help in this matter. March 2015 10