Research integrity concern? Call the Office for Students

It’s undeniably a good thing that UKRI is not bounced into commenting on every case of research security, integrity, controversy or malpractice which makes the papers or catches politicians’ eyes. To be obliged to fashion a quick line on everything from a fresh case of the Chinese state influencing what researchers can and cannot do, to the latest flashpoint in climate research, or whatever else is generating controversy in any given week, would embroil the funder in a viper’s nest, and leave it without much headspace to do anything productive.

The question is what would happen were UKRI to find itself in the position of being forced to pronounce on things more often.

From where we’re standing here in 2026 it feels verging on certain that governments in years to come will want to intervene in research more, not less, and that the media environment will get harsher, not more forgiving.

For example, former education secretary Michael Gove – now Spectator editor and member of the House of Lords – has recently suggested that “any future inquiry” will conclude that the University of Cambridge education faculty should be shut down.

The thrust of his argument revolves around his reading of a book written by the current faculty head, and objections to its epistemology, methodology, and referencing practices. It’s always a concern to see politicians base a critique on one particular research output, but Gove is here relitigating issues which he is well-versed in. This debate, stretching back more than a decade, previously saw him coin the term “the blob” to describe university education research. It’s believed by many that this battle of ideas eventually resulted in the Department for Education under the Conservatives intervening in the English teacher training system to weaken universities’ role.

Speaking of the DfE getting involved, another member of the Lords – Toby Young, also head of the Free Speech Union – has been asking the department to “consider giving the Office for Students power to investigate serious allegations of academic misconduct.”

(Both of these interventions, if it was not immediately apparent, represent a broadening out of the Jason Arday case to wider scrutiny of the university research ecosystem.)

Young wasn’t alone in wanting a more active regulator – in the same parliamentary debate, Baroness Gohir asked what the Office for Students could do to address

“the exploitation of junior academics, particularly women and minority-ethnic academics, by older academics who sometimes force their names on to papers to which they have not contributed, use the work of junior academics to secure millions of pounds of research funding and then discard them from projects.”

For the government, minister Jacqui Smith was at least clear in her answer that this particular issue did not rightly sit with the English university regulator – even if in the wider debate her line was largely that the Office for Students does indeed have powers over “academic standards” of the sort that her interlocutors were (supposedly) calling for.

But what has been notable in its absence in much if not all of this discourse has been any recognition that research misconduct, research careers and research quality shouldn’t be issues for the government’s education department and its watchdog.

There is already a state body that pronounces on the quality of UK research: UKRI. It might not do this in the same way that other arm’s length regulators and inspectorates assess, rank and pronounce. But as an institution it (through Research England) is the main mover behind the Research Excellence Framework, which has already delivered a form of – very positive – judgement on Cambridge education research. Through its funding councils, UKRI organises the processes, if not the judgements, through which grants are awarded to the best applications. And it has specific policies on research integrity matters.

So if there was an arm of government that peers and media commentators should be calling on to get involved in questions related to research misconduct, or a university department which has supposedly gone rogue, surely it should be UKRI? (or at the very least it’s sponsoring department, which – at time of writing – is BIST.)

Does it not feel significant, in a way that is difficult to exactly pinpoint, that it almost never is? The funder appears to have kept its role in the system distinct from a regulatory or evaluative role, in the political imagination if not in reality. Coming back to our original observation about the political and media direction of travel, it’s not difficult to imagine this state of affairs changing.

Speaking about how the quality and integrity of research is ensured – and why this is best served independently of direct government control – is straightforward enough when it’s a case of general boosterism around growth and progress. But it’s a pretty thankless task when the issues involved grow fraught and complex. Still, UKRI might need to learn to play more of a role. 

Spotted a politician meddling in the research system? Or a blurry line between academia and government? Email the man himself: haldane [at] researchagenda [dot] news