Controversial Maties research probe delay

THE University of Stellenbosch’s investigative committee is yet to conclude a probe into a research article that found that coloured women in South Africa had an increased risk of low-cognitive functioning, five months after the public outcry.

This follows the university reporting last month that two Senate committees recommended that the university adopts the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings following the negative impact the research article had.

The Formal Investigation Committee (FIC), which was appointed by the university to investigate various aspects related to the research article, has requested an extension until the end of November to complete their task. Stellenbosch University spokesperson, Martin Viljoen said the request was granted to allow for all processes to be followed.

“It was initially expected that the investigation would be concluded by the end of September, but due to the complexity and public nature of the case, it took some time to clarify various legal issues related to the FIC membership. This has caused unforeseen delays,” he said.

Viljoen said the outcomes of the investigation would be shared with stakeholders when available.

The university came under fire in May after a research article titled Ageand education-related effects on cognitive functioning in coloured South African

women was published in an international scientific journal, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition.

The university then tasked the FIC to investigate a formal complaint lodged against the authors of the article.

SU’s research integrity officer (RIO), in consultation with Professor Eugene Cloete, vice-rector of research, Innovation and postgraduate studies, appointed the FIC in accordance with the SU Policy for Responsible Research Conduct, as well as the SU procedure for the investigation of allegations of breach of research norms and standards.

The university subsequently acknowledged in a statement that the article caused offence and injured the human dignity of many South Africans, and apologised for the severe trauma, pain and anger caused.

The editors and publishers of the journal, in consultation with the authors, consequently retracted the article.