Research misconduct and the INTERGROWTH-21st study

On Oct 20, 2016, a statement appeared on the WHO website, announcing that " An independent review commissioned by WHO has found that research ethics misconduct occurred in a study on foetal growth standards. " 1 The study in question was the INTERGROWTH-21st study, led by researchers at the University of Oxford, UK, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and reported in several journals, including our own. 2–5 Such a judgment by the world's foremost global health agency was serious, casting damaging light on a study of international importance. Director of the Offi ce of the WHO Director-General, to request a copy of the review report, but were told that it was confi dential and had been supplied only to the University of Oxford, BMGF, and the UK General Medical Council, which was considering whether to open an investigation of its own. at the University of Oxford, to request their response to the review's fi ndings. We subsequently received a letter from the University's Registrar, Ewan McKendrick, reiterating the history of the dispute, which (as we were aware) dates back to 2008 and has been the subject of previous investigations by the University of Oxford, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and other journals. In brief, the dispute surrounds allegations of plagiarism and disputes over intellectual ownership concerning two research protocols with joint origins: those of the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st) and the WHO Multicentre Study for the Development of Growth Standards from Fetal Life to Childhood. Both protocols were drawn up in response to a 1995 WHO Expert Committee report 6 that recommended, among other things, " Assessment and development of fetal growth reference data suitable for international applications ". Both protocols also built on the methods of the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study, 7 which produced growth curves for children from birth to 5 years. Much of the bases of the protocols are therefore in the public domain. Kennedy and Villar are accused of having plagiarised the WHO Multicentre Study protocol in developing the INTERGROWTH-21st protocol and of obtaining rival funding while still involved with the WHO work. McKendrick's responses to us, on Nov 29, 2016, and Dec 13, 2016, were robust. It is clear from this response that the University of Oxford looked into these serious allegations at a high level, methodically dissected the claims, closely examined …