Sue dysan - made up expert

[AUB]

What a stupid and sad way to end a career. I do health research ethics approvals for a living (for research on humans) and really, it’s not that complicated getting the approval (or a statement that approval is not needed, which you then send in with the article when you’re ready to publish). It just takes a while but you of course plan for that.
Even with country differences and all I can’t imagine it being more difficult to obtain approval when the subjects are animals. After all you dont really need to worry about informed consent etc…

Of course she has faked her approval or the letter stating she didn’t need approval knowingly, but with what I know of her as a scientist - I was a vet student for 5 years before law school and my old study buddy did her ph.D under Sue - I’m more thinking that this is a case of “not one more vet”. She must have cracked under the pressure or something and I hope she gets the help she needs and doesn’t do something that can never be undone…

 

[brighteyes]

Well said @AUB I hear a lot of condemnation and not a lot of support here. Yes, rules were broken and that needed addressing on the wider front of rules being broken, but I feel this is a very out of character occurrence. Not once have I heard - and about time, she's been cavalier for donkeys' years.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The whole episode is very sad. The committee found that Sue Dyson did not seem to show genuine remorse for what she had done wrt its impact on the veterinary profession as a whole. Had she done so, and been seen to do so, just maybe she may have escaped being struck off.

'Furthermore, Dr Dyson has failed, in the Committee’s view, to demonstrate adequate insight into her disgraceful conduct. It was clear from her correspondence with individuals in the months following the discovery of her fraudulent letter that she recognised the seriousness of what she had done in relation to creating the letter and the impact it was having on her. However, she appeared to have limited genuine insight into the wider impact her actions were likely to have on public confidence in veterinary surgeons and the profession as a whole. In addition, the Committee took into account Dr Dyson’s failure to demonstrate genuine remorse for her disgraceful conduct.'

 

[Renvers]

Could we consider her removal from the list considered final?

I remember a local vet to me John Williams was struck off for falsifying documents for SJ's to travel and he has been reinstated. His reputation around here was never great beforehand and his contribution to the Veterinary profession has not been as widely influential as Sue Dyson's has.

Maybe she can redeem herself?

 

[Frumpoon]

Could we consider her removal from the list considered final?

I remember a local vet to me John Williams was struck off for falsifying documents for SJ's to travel and he has been reinstated. His reputation around here was never great beforehand and his contribution to the Veterinary profession has not been as widely influential as Sue Dyson's has.

Maybe she can redeem herself?

Absolutely this

As I posted above there are quite a few terrible vets who never even face infractions, then there are those that do and are treated very leniently despite deliberately harming animals and knowingly putting people at risk of injury or death.

Sue has never done any of these things. We know animal studies are flawed for many more reasons [sample size, randomisation, measure of impact etc etc etc] than simply whether there was permission to stick a thermometer up a bottom or not.

I'd very much support this being a temp measure.

Stress induced psychosis is a real possibility - you can only be the very best in any profession for so long before the pressure takes it's toll

 

[MuddyMonster]

Well said @AUB I hear a lot of condemnation and not a lot of support here. Yes, rules were broken and that needed addressing on the wider front of rules being broken, but I feel this is a very out of character occurrence. Not once have I heard - and about time, she's been cavalier for donkeys' years.

I'm not sure I've seen pure condemnation here.

I posted saying how sad it was & that MH sounded like it was likely a factor, that I hoped she had support & seen other posts in a similiar vein.

But, she still impersonated a HO official and there has to be consequences to that regardless of the reasons why. Because otherwise, where does one draw the line?

There's no winners here - the industry has lost a great leading vet and a great facility has been lost - and SD has lost personally.

I hope there's a way she can still be involved in some capacity in the future (perhaps as some kind of independent, non veterinary role) as losing her knowledge would be a huge shame. Whether that's allowed or not (or even wants to), is another question.

 

[Fransurrey]

Terrible end to a distinguished career it seems like one seemingly little lie can just snowball.

To any researchers here, is the paperwork etc for a Home Office licence really onerous? Would filling it in, or accepting they had made a mistake and just starting again have been so terrible?

I think of how many times HHO posts referred to her other research as a benchmark for improving some aspect of horse welfare. If that work is now tainted by association it will be really sad just because they couldn't/wouldn't do one step in the process.

Yes, it is, but you can't get round it if the AWERB at your institution has any doubts or if there's a clear cut requirement for an ASPA licence. For someone working with animals routinely in research, though and as a vet, too, I'm very surprised she wasn't on first name terms with the HOI!

 

[Shilasdair]

No condemnation from me.
I make plenty of mistakes in life myself - being struck off seems a harsh penalty for an error of judgement regarding procedures.
Having read the report it seems to comment a lot on personality attributes - her 'attitude' etc which reminded me of the age old complaints of men against strong women.
I am starting to wonder if there were elements of both misogyny and professional jealousy from colleagues.

 

[teapot]

Think it depends on what you hear/who you talk to - I have heard many stories regarding her that had an element of 'don't you know who I am', and she made a mistake an undergrad student could/would be hung, drawn and quartered for, she should know better. There are mistakes, and there are faking letters from the Home Office/Govt official mistakes.

Her character witnesses are not just John and Bob from the pub either, if having Richard Davison and Roly Owers behind you isn't enough...

 

[Renvers]

No condemnation from me.
I make plenty of mistakes in life myself - being struck off seems a harsh penalty for an error of judgement regarding procedures.
Having read the report it seems to comment a lot on personality attributes - her 'attitude' etc which reminded me of the age old complaints of men against strong women.
I am starting to wonder if there were elements of both misogyny and professional jealousy from colleagues.

I suspect that whatever your mistakes you possibly haven't yet impersonated a Home Office Official?

I wonder if the possible pressure from HO to RVC if they didn't punish that action might get very political and so she had to be made an example of. Although not without there own problems, HO also has a strong woman in charge, I wonder how much of her bad reputation is being a bolshy woman is a 100 times worst than some of her male predecessors who were "tough on crime" etc.

 

[Shilasdair]

I suspect that whatever your mistakes you possibly haven't yet impersonated a Home Office Official?

I've not needed to impersonate a Home Office official yet...but there's still time!

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

I actually feel sorry for her. As far as I can tell, the original ethics committee felt a licence from the Home Office would not be needed. So she went ahead and did the study in good faith. Only for a peer reviewer to then say the licence might be needed after all.

What then? Abandon the project, or invent some conversation some time ago that 'oh this wasn't needed in this situation'. I think she probably felt and still feels that there was never any need for a licence as the ethics committee had said.

Having been stuck myself between different panels involved in NHS research and being told AFTER completing research that some steps had not been taken, which another panel had said were not needed, I can feel my blood pressure rising in sympathy already!

When the reviewer asked for a letter though she needed to then stop. Forging letters is obviously a few dozen steps too far. But I don't think she should have been in that position in the first place and that this is not a case of falsifying research - but of doing what it took to get that research published in the end.

It can't be totally clear cut that a licence would have been needed as the initial ethical panel did not think it would and the letter raised no eyebrows which it would have done had it said something clearly wrong.

 

[SusieT]

There's making a mistake, in a 3 day mental health crisis.
And there is making a mistake, then covering it up for months, then showing no remorse when you are caught and blaming mental health.

 

[Roasted Chestnuts]

I see someone decided to be petty and report my post ? reposted with an a sweet treat instead of a star since the star was so offensive ? the sentiment is still the same ?


Having read that report from start to finish she pretty much left them with no option.

She fudged up royally, lied, deceived then came out with some story to try and get off with it. Requested it be over looked, and really did herself no favours.

Regardless of all the good that was done by her previously she undid it all with this one stupid arrogant act.

I am another who believes the paper was flawed.

 

[Annagain]

I suspect that whatever your mistakes you possibly haven't yet impersonated a Home Office Official?

I wonder if the possible pressure from HO to RVC if they didn't punish that action might get very political and so she had to be made an example of. Although not without there own problems, HO also has a strong woman in charge, I wonder how much of her bad reputation is being a bolshy woman is a 100 times worst than some of her male predecessors who were "tough on crime" etc.

I have close friends who work at the HO. Her behaviour is far far more than being a 'bolshy woman'. She's an out and out bully.