Medical council to investigate alleged research fraud

The General Medical Council this week began an investigation into alleged research fraud relating to a study published in the BMJ five years ago. The principal author, Dr Mohammed Naeem Shaukat, then a British Heart Foundation research fellow, is accused of serious professional misconduct in handling research data dishonestly and misleading his coauthors and the BMJ.

The article presented research into cardiac outcomes among patients at Leicester Royal Infirmary and concluded that patients of Indian origin fared dramatically worse after a first heart attack (BMJ 1997; 314:639-42)

In January 1998, 10 months after the article was published, the BMJ received a letter signed by the article's six authors, including Dr Shaukat, which stated: “Further examination of the data on which this paper was based, in the context of another project, has revealed important inaccuracies such that the conclusions of the paper cannot be sustained. We therefore wish to withdraw it unreservedly.” The letter was duly published.

Leicester University Medical School, which employed all of the authors, began an investigation but kept its findings from the BMJ, instead reporting Dr Shaukat to the GMC.

The dean, Professor Ian Lauder, has told the BMJ: “I wouldn't want to comment while the case is actually under way, but I can confirm that the complaint came from this office. We contacted the GMC about a year ago.”

Of the authors, only Dr Shaukat is accused of impropriety. One of the authors has since died, and two are still at Leicester Medical School. The analysis found that incorrect recording of deaths led to a consistent overestimation of mortality among patients from South Asia.

Dr Shaukat, who is no longer employed by Leicester University, admits failing to consult with the other authors after publication when discrpancies came to light, but denies the charges of dishonesty and breach of scientific integrity. He also denies that he was in sole control of the original study database.

The BMJ's editor, Richard Smith, said: “I understand that the whole matter was effectively sub judice while Leicester investigated it. It's a pity this has taken so long. Since 1997 we haven't been able to explain to our readers what was wrong with the research in this article.”

Professor Lauder said: “The complexity of a case like this is incredible. The amount of data that must be reviewed compares to a major fraud case.”