Faculty members in conflict with the university president

This story is definitely a reminder of similar things. It involves a famous materials scientist in Tohoku University, Inoue, who also serves as the president of this university. The clouds originate at four papers bearing his name in the 1990s, and could not abate even today, as told by Nature [http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/470446a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110224]:

The controversy has been simmering for more than three years, during which critics have repeatedly questioned the results of the four papers^1–4 by Inoue. An internal committee at the university assessed the criticisms and ruled that a formal investigation was not warranted. In the committee's December 2007 report, senior officials questioned whether the criticism was motivated by "malice" and "divorced from a pure concern for academic development". Since then, university faculty members have repeated the criticisms and raised others. But Inoue, a prolific specialist in an unusual form of alloy called metallic glasses, told Nature that his team has unique skills and experience in producing the alloys, which could explain why other scientists have failed to reproduce some of his lab's results.
.......

But in May 2007, a series of anonymous letters began arriving at Tohoku University and other places alleging that the four papers^1–4 co-authored by Inoue in the 1990s contained inconsistencies in the way that the data were presented. The letters also alleged that others in the field had been unable to reproduce the results.

In response to these allegations, Tetsuo Shoji, the university's executive vice-president for research affairs at the time, formed a five-person committee to decide whether a full-scale investigation was warranted. In December 2007, the committee issued a 12-page report that said there were "no rational grounds" for a full investigation. On the problem of irreproducibility, the report said: "various factors including the purity of materials … the cooling method, the protocols, temperature control, moisture control and time control can bring about differences in results, making it easy to imagine how problems in reproducing work might exist among researchers."

Nine metallic-glass experts outside Japan contacted by Nature generally lauded Inoue's contribution to the field. At least one, however, had specifically tried to produce some of the metallic glasses described in the papers^1–4 under discussion but had failed to achieve the large dimensions reported by Inoue. Two others were unable to reproduce other metallic-glass results from Inoue's laboratory.

..........

Omura and other critics also point out, however, that the committee included three people (Shoji, Makoto Watanabe and Keiichi Noe) who had been promoted to their current positions as executive vice-presidents by Inoue since he became university president in 2006. Inoue denies any influence over the committee's make-up. Shoji says that he and other committee members discussed the problem of conflict of interest but decided they would "be able to fairly evaluate the situation". Some critics believe that actual fairness is not enough, and that such a committee must also be seen to be free of any potential conflicts of interest.

In April 2008, university officials rebuffed Omura's letter, defending both the committee's operations and its conclusions.

But in July 2008, 11 researchers from Tohoku's Institute of Multidisciplinary Research for Advanced Materials sent a petition to the university calling for further explanation of the investigating committee's initial report. Attached to the petition was a covering letter by the institute's director, Fumio Saito (who had not signed the petition himself). Then, just over a month later, Saito sent a letter to all university divisions apologizing for implying in his covering letter that the petition expressed "the collective opinion of the institute". Saito's apology added to the controversy.

In yet another twist, in April 2009 a university committee chaired by Inoue temporarily postponed the granting of emeritus status to two retiring faculty members who had been involved with Omura on a website that collects information about the dispute. Emeritus status is customarily granted to retiring professors who have been at the university for at least seven years, as both had been. According to Yukihisa Kitamura, an executive vice-president at Tohoku University, it was a "rare" measure taken while the two were under investigation for allegedly "dishonouring the university" by being involved with the website. In June, with the investigation still under way, the university granted the two emeritus status.

The unrest looks set to continue. During April and May last year, three key science-funding agencies — the science and education ministry, the Science and Technology Agency and the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization — all asked Tohoku University to evaluate accusations raised by Omura and three others. Citing confidentiality rules, a lawyer representing Inoue and Tohoku University declined to say what actions the university would take in response to the requests. Zhang has not responded to Nature 's request for further comment.

..............

Japan has no external body, akin to the US Office of Research Integrity, for investigating alleged scientific misconduct, despite calls for one from some quarters¹⁶. Only the minister of education has authority over a university president, and Kosaku Okada, a representative from the ministry's division familiar with the case, says that the ministry will not get involved. "We see the president as just another scientist and so we leave it up to the university to do any investigation," he says. But an independent investigation may be the only way to silence the critics.