Medical experts sanctioned for review misconduct

China's National Health Commission has penalized seven experts for failing to recuse themselves from reviews of projects under a national science program focused on preventing and treating cancer and other major diseases.

The commission's Development Center for Medical Science and Technology said the experts were found to have engaged in serious misconduct during the first-round and project approval reviews for the national science and technology major program on the prevention and control of cancer, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, respiratory illnesses and metabolic diseases.

An investigation found that some experts who participated in multiple video-conference review sessions should have withdrawn from certain evaluations because of conflicts requiring recusal, but failed to do so, the center said in a recent notice.

The seven experts came from the Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Beijing Hospital, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine affiliated with Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Peking University People's Hospital.

As a result, the experts will not be invited to participate in project and research topic management activities undertaken by the center for the next three years. The individuals have been informed of the sanctions and their names have been added to the center's list of experts with records of misconduct.

The center stated that it would also incorporate and enforce any additional penalties imposed by relevant authorities in connection with the cases. The statement added that it would continue to deal seriously with misconduct in project evaluations and urged review experts to abide by scientific ethics and strengthen their sense of responsibility.

China has stepped up efforts in recent years to strengthen oversight of scientific research and funding reviews, amid moves to improve research integrity and ensure the fair allocation of public research resources.