Unaddressed consequences of research malpractice by Dr Sophie Jamal (Part 1 of 2)
References
1. Miriam Shuchman. Misconduct saga rattles bone scientists. CMAJ 2016;188:938-939.
2. The Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Jamal, 2018 ONCPSD 21. 2018:https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/cpso/getdocument.aspx?flash=check&pdfid=H2IRhspfgw%3d&id=63
3. The Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Jamal, 2020 ONCPSD 23. 2020:https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/cpso/getdocument.aspx?flash=check&pdfid=BNHOJefiOqk%3d&id=6
4. Gunsalus CK, Marcus AR, Oransky I. Institutional Research Misconduct Reports Need More Credibility. JAMA. 2018;319:1315-6.
5. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:609-13.
In March 2018, the medical registration of Dr Sophie Jamal was revoked by the College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) because of repeated professional misconduct that involved multiple instances of falsification of research data and prolonged and extensive attempts to cover up this behaviour, to deflect the blame on to her research assistant, and to lie to and deceive those tasked with investigating the events.1,2 Two years later, the CPSO reinstated her registration, with conditions, in a split 3-2 decision from the CPSO disciplinary committee, despite the College opposing reinstatement.3 In his decision, one dissenting committee member stated: “Dr. Jamal’s professional misconduct as an experienced medical researcher was profoundly disturbing. I expect that it may be the worst case of research fraud dealt with by the College in its history.” This decision noted that “… my view is that Dr. Jamal has not yet fully dealt with the professional aspects of her past misconduct.” and that her actions to that point “suggest a significant lack of insight and disregard of the professional harm caused by Dr. Jamal’s research misconduct four years earlier.”
In October 2021, searching PubMed for “Jamal SA” identified 119 publications, of which 4 are retracted publications, 2 are editorial notices related to 2 of those papers, and 1 is an expression of concern to another paper. Thus, 112 publications (>13,000 citations, Google scholar) have no indication as to whether they are valid or whether Dr Jamal also committed research malpractice for those publications. We brought this to the attention of the CPSO in March 2020, but received no response. In March 2021, we again contacted the CPSO, including notifying them that a co-author of Dr Jamal thought one of these publications was almost certainly fraudulent and (incorrectly) thought it had already been retracted. The CPSO representative replied, “I would suggest reaching out directly to the relevant journals and raising your concerns about the fraudulent research with them.” We questioned why it was the responsibility of others to deal with the consequences of Dr Jamal’s research malpractice but received no reply. Several further attempts at correspondence were also unproductive, but eventually another CPSO representative replied, “… The College cannot, however, take action with respect to information that was not part of its proceeding, nor is it able conduct an independent review of Dr. Jamal’s involvement in research that was not part of the proceedings before the College’s Discipline Committee.”
[Continued in part 2...]