teapot
Well-Known Member
It's well worth reading to the end.
Sue dysan - made up expert
- Thread starter Gingerwitch
- Start date
Sossigpoker
Well-Known Member
I understand the reasons why she was struck off. I just can't understand why she did it.
ihatework
Well-Known Member
What a sad sad state of affairs.
I think the whole proceeding has been conducted well though, kept relatively quiet and private but without sweeping it under the carpet - difficult to do with such a big name.
I think the whole proceeding has been conducted well though, kept relatively quiet and private but without sweeping it under the carpet - difficult to do with such a big name.
teapot
Well-Known Member
Some big name character witnesses too.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
One unfathomable action, basically makes all of her research on shaky ground. Now everyone will be wondering if she cut corners in other areas.
I wonder why she made it up though? Did she know it wouldn't pass?
I wonder why she made it up though? Did she know it wouldn't pass?
TPO
Well-Known Member
Probably a stupid question but when have I ever let that stop me ?
Does the fact that the reviewers considered that the project needed Home Office licensed "prove" that those who know a lot of stuff consider heavier riders an ethical issue because of pain that could be inflicted? Or is it solely because of rectal temperatures being taken?
Does the fact that the reviewers considered that the project needed Home Office licensed "prove" that those who know a lot of stuff consider heavier riders an ethical issue because of pain that could be inflicted? Or is it solely because of rectal temperatures being taken?
Frumpoon
Well-Known Member
And yet there is a vet near me who regularly commits acts of fraud, financial dishonesty and terrible clinical practice and the RCVS refuse to take complaints seriously at all...not to mention the lovely David Smith in Kent who has been barred more times than a ballerina but still turns up doing clinical work one way or another
teapot
Well-Known Member
It's more basic than that - I believe any research relating to animals must be approved, regardless of topic.
Academic research papers even for the Arts have quite tight rules too. A friend of mine was working on a 1920s history based paper and because there could be direct people still alive, it became a bit more complicated.
TPO
Well-Known Member
Thank you, I didnt know that.
I had assumed that someone of Dr Dyson's experience would have known that from the very outset so why even try to wing it if it would always be a no-go. She had published numerous papers prior to this so a numpty like me would assume she therefore needed HOL for every one of them? Seems strange to even consider a letter saying "it's fine, you dont need approval" would fly with the reviewers?
teapot
Well-Known Member
I think you may have hit the nail on the head. She would of course known, and no doubt something she would have hammered into her students. But do as I say, not as I do...
Research ethics isn't a long winded process either, just something you do as part of the journey to getting published, it's so standard these days.
bouncing_ball
Well-Known Member
I read it as both factors and mainly the heavier riders. I didn’t read it that every study needs HOL.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
What a terrible end to a stellar career. Did it also bring down the AHT because they folded just after she left when she knew she'd been found out?
I fear there will now be people dismissing the possibility that their horse is in pain and/or lame. "Oh but that was just Sue Dyson".
.
I fear there will now be people dismissing the possibility that their horse is in pain and/or lame. "Oh but that was just Sue Dyson".
.
Last edited:
Frumpoon
Well-Known Member
What a terrible end to a stellar career. Did it also bring down the AHT because they folded just after she left when she knew she'd been found out?
I fear there will now be people dismissing the possibility that their horse is in pain and/or lame. "Oh but that was just Sue Dysan".
.
Even without this we have users on here boasting about riding ponies at 85-90kg like it’s some kind of achievement
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Certainly in my time research institutions usually have a home office licence to do a certain amount without specific individual project approval but it is not my area of expertise (all of mine were dead). I need to read it again but only saw referenced to the taking of temperatures.
Given some of what was written it gives the impression that she thought the reviewer who brought it up was being ridiculous, she was annoyed/frustrated about that (ergo the you'll never believe it but. . . ) - I get that, reviewers are there to be annoying and thought she could just fob them off and it not be questioned?
Given some of what was written it gives the impression that she thought the reviewer who brought it up was being ridiculous, she was annoyed/frustrated about that (ergo the you'll never believe it but. . . ) - I get that, reviewers are there to be annoying and thought she could just fob them off and it not be questioned?
brighteyes
Pooh-Bah
This is the only thing I could glean and thought wtaf, they deliberately inflict laminitis on horses and ponies and other sorts of research where the horse or pony is euthanised to find the effects of xyz.
What a dreadful shame, is all I can say and I hope she doesn't 'do' anything in her remorse.
windand rain
Well-Known Member
I think the result was because she showed no remorse and it was a planned act of deception but maybe I mis understood that, however her crimes were rather more a crime against society as apposed to a crime against the animal welfare but sadly in criminal court too those crimes often carry the heaviest penalties. I am sure she did not falsify any research even though it was badly flawed but it does call into question that all her research was equally flawed
ester
Not slacking multitasking
The trouble is researchers are somewhat relied on to be trustworthy with regards to the data they publish. This scuppers that completely.
hollyandivy123
Well-Known Member
research using animals is very controlled within the UK/EU,
to take a rectal temp as part of veterinary treatment is part of welfare, to take it as part of research study requires ethical assessment both from the internal review panel and the home office inspector.
for an owner/rider to put a saddle on with a pressure panel and use this to ascertain whether the saddle fits etc does not require permission from the home office
for a researcher to do the same does require permission from the home office under UK/EU legislation as the procedure needs to be assessed etc etc. to make up a letter saying its ok is so wrong on so many levels and unfortunately does start though doubt into her research............
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2014.0210#d3e590
this is a paper which asks the question whether mice in the wild will use a running wheel...the researchers in this paper had to fulfil an internal ethical assessment, it was decided that as they were free range it did not need a permit.
"All our experiments are evaluated by the Animal Experiment Committee of Leiden University Medical Centre and performed only after receiving their explicit permission. Since these experiments consisted solely of passive registration of the behaviour of free-living animals in the wild, no permits were required."
This type of assessment should have occurred at the AHT for Sue Dysons study and her study should have been sent for scrutiny by the home office...............it is surprising it didn't, did the AHT know about the study?
to take a rectal temp as part of veterinary treatment is part of welfare, to take it as part of research study requires ethical assessment both from the internal review panel and the home office inspector.
for an owner/rider to put a saddle on with a pressure panel and use this to ascertain whether the saddle fits etc does not require permission from the home office
for a researcher to do the same does require permission from the home office under UK/EU legislation as the procedure needs to be assessed etc etc. to make up a letter saying its ok is so wrong on so many levels and unfortunately does start though doubt into her research............
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2014.0210#d3e590
this is a paper which asks the question whether mice in the wild will use a running wheel...the researchers in this paper had to fulfil an internal ethical assessment, it was decided that as they were free range it did not need a permit.
"All our experiments are evaluated by the Animal Experiment Committee of Leiden University Medical Centre and performed only after receiving their explicit permission. Since these experiments consisted solely of passive registration of the behaviour of free-living animals in the wild, no permits were required."
This type of assessment should have occurred at the AHT for Sue Dysons study and her study should have been sent for scrutiny by the home office...............it is surprising it didn't, did the AHT know about the study?
Last edited:
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
How can anyone now be sure that she has not falsified details/results previously? We can't.
What a mess.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
I had to have numerous FCO licenses for my work in Antarctica (and I work on inverts so easier then vertebrates). I have to list them and prove them when I publish. How did she get away with publishing without a proper license?
Mind boggles
Mind boggles
TPO
Well-Known Member
Yeah good point, how was this paper published and in the public domain? Someone other than her must have agreed something at some point surely?
SEL
Well-Known Member
I don't think I was expecting 'struck off', but then when you read all the details you realise that that was the only option they really had. I could sort of understand starting a project without the right licence, but once that had been flagged by a reviewer then falsifying an email is unforgiveable.
By falsifying an email saying she didn't need a licence for this particular project!
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
That sums it up .
Somewhat Off The Way
Well-Known Member
She was proven to have impersonated a Home Office Inspector. That's an incredibly serious form of misconduct and she's probably fortunate not to be facing criminal charges.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
I know it mentions other people at AHT and their ethics background also thinking they didn’t need a licence.
But if they did need one it was too late to do anything about it as all the data had been collected (and it would be a bit pointlessness granting licenses retrospectively)
So they either had to get confirmation they didn’t need one (prob best option), not publish,or submit it to another journal and hope their reviewers weren’t different and didn’t notice.
Saying she already had a letter means option A would have been tricky because any confirmation letter wouldnt have been backdated
But if they did need one it was too late to do anything about it as all the data had been collected (and it would be a bit pointlessness granting licenses retrospectively)
So they either had to get confirmation they didn’t need one (prob best option), not publish,or submit it to another journal and hope their reviewers weren’t different and didn’t notice.
Saying she already had a letter means option A would have been tricky because any confirmation letter wouldnt have been backdated
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Then she has been very very bad, and struck off probably was the only option. I still can't understand why she did it all though. She could have asked for a licence and started it again, her sample size was tiny the first time so it wouldn't have taken her years to have done it again.
brighteyes
Pooh-Bah
So, she gets struck off and all the questionably ratioed riders:their horses heave (no pun) a sigh of relief. Their horses, however...
Fransurrey
Well-Known Member
Agree. What a stupid, stupid thing to do.She's been struck off
It was the only option after she did what she did. What a sad and ignominious end to such a distinguished career.
I don't think anyone will. Arrogance, maybe? Hoping a letter would not be questioned on account of her name? Most reviewers wouldn't question it - I bet he locks his windows...!
Anything invasive, including rectal, that is not performed under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, requires input from the HOI. I had a study approved a couple of years ago involving a similar technique. Definitely not ASPA in our opinion, but we had to have official clearance from the HO as something entered the body.
This is what makes me annoyed. There's a lot of scientist bashing about anyway and this won't help. I agree they had no option but to strike her off. It's fraud at the end of the day, even if it didn't affect the study outcome. I feel sorry for her colleagues, being tainted with the same scandal.
DabDab
Ah mud, splendid
Wow, that's a whopper of a lie, and in writing ?. Not like a little fib blurted out in the heat of the moment.
Unfortunately like a lot of others no doubt, I would be dubious about the honesty of her other work now. To jump straight from being whiter than white to a deception like that would be unusual...
Silly silly woman
Unfortunately like a lot of others no doubt, I would be dubious about the honesty of her other work now. To jump straight from being whiter than white to a deception like that would be unusual...
Silly silly woman
ester
Not slacking multitasking
It was cited as the intern’s project so I guess redoing it might not have been possible for her but yes.