A scientist just won a major lawsuit over his legal rights to his research and findings on the topic of peanut allergies.
At a glance:
- Oxford University has lost a legal battle as Dr. Amin Moghaddam wins an appeal, challenging his dismissal and accusing a colleague of taking credit for his groundbreaking peanut allergy research.
- Dr. Moghaddam alleges Professor Quentin Sattentau unfairly claimed lead authorship on a 2014 study that found dry roasted peanuts more likely to trigger allergic reactions than raw peanuts.
- The case will now return to tribunal, where Dr. Moghaddam’s claims of whistleblowing discrimination and unfair dismissal will be reconsidered following the appeal ruling.
Oxford University faces continued legal scrutiny after losing an appeal involving a bitter dispute between two academics, Dr. Amin Moghaddam and Professor Quentin Sattentau, over credit for pioneering research into peanut allergies. Dr. Moghaddam has successfully challenged an earlier tribunal’s ruling that rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing.
Dr. Moghaddam, a research scientist who worked at the university for 16 years, played a pivotal role in a 2014 study that concluded dry roasted peanuts were more likely to trigger allergic reactions than raw peanuts due to chemical changes during roasting. However, he accuses his colleague, Professor Sattentau, of wrongfully claiming lead authorship of the study, which was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Dr. Moghaddam further alleges that his whistleblowing about this incident led to professional retaliation, including the failure to secure research funding and his eventual dismissal when his fixed-term contract ended in 2019.
The Employment Tribunal (ET) had originally ruled against Dr. Moghaddam, stating that his dismissal was due to a lack of funding rather than any wrongdoing. However, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) overturned that decision, with Judge Murray Shanks stating that the original panel had made flawed findings and failed to properly address whether Dr. Moghaddam’s whistleblowing contributed to his dismissal.
Dr. Moghaddam’s legal battle began when his relationship with Professor Sattentau deteriorated over accusations of plagiarism, culminating in the latter being named lead author on the 2014 paper and a 2018 review, which Moghaddam claims was based on his own work. This feud intensified as Moghaddam accused his colleague of breaching academic authorship guidelines.
Judge Shanks noted that the ET had failed to consider whether the breakdown in Moghaddam’s relationship with his colleague, along with his allegations of plagiarism, had influenced the university’s decision not to renew his contract. The judge ruled that these factors needed further examination, sending the case back for a new hearing.
The tribunal will now reconsider whether Moghaddam’s claims of whistleblowing and academic misconduct played a role in the decision not to renew his contract. The fresh hearing will also review whether the university could have found alternative work for Moghaddam once his fixed-term contract ended.
The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how academic institutions handle disputes over research credit and the treatment of whistleblowers.
Hey, without obscure research like this we wouldn’t know half of the useful things we do today. So at least this guy got justice!