THE JOHN CURTIN SCHOOL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Telegrams 'Curtinschool'								P.O. Box 334
Telephone (02) 6125 2596								Canberra, A.C.T.
2601
 Fax (02) 6125 2595  		       Division of Immunology &Cell Biology

Dear Mr Carter :						March  20  2001

Re : Formal submission to Senate Inquiry into "The Capacity of Public Universities to Meet Australia's Higher Education Needs"  by  Dr.EJ Steele             (formerly Associate Professor at Wollongong University)

My New Scientific and Contact Addresses : I refer to your acknowledgment letter of 19 February 2001 which arrived on 22 February  2001 at my old professional address, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong. My formal scientific address is now in the letterhead : The John Curtin School of Medical Research where I am a Visiting Fellow (Honorary) in the Division of Immunology & Cell Biology. My postal and e-mail contacts are therefore different from my previous correspondence; for quick communication and correspondence purposes leading up to the Inquiry my contact address is : 

Dr. EJ Steele
164 - 168 Derribong Drive 
Cordeaux Heights, 2526
NSW
Tel:  02 715 628
Mobile :  0404 132 257

Summary of the Two Key Issues (I will return to these points in detail):

*  Role of Experts in Grading Research Theses : -Upgrading of BSc/ B.Biotech Honours Theses Against Expert Opinion and Assessment:
This submission is primarily about the process by which the Honours theses of two students I supervised in the field of molecular immunology & evolution (Student A, 1997; Student B, 2000) within the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, were upgraded from Fail/Borderline pass to mid-range pass (Hons 2 II) to PhD entry level (Hons 2 I ) against the expert opinion and evaluation of two experts : myself as their supervisior and the external examiner ( Professor Robert V Blanden, ANU; see his separate submission to this inquiry ). Student A, in the four year B. Biotech program,  was a full fee paying overseas student ; Student B,  a recent B.Sc graduate of the department,  was a local HECS paying student. The upgrading process was accomplished by non-experts ( in the research discipline) within the Department of Biological Sciences, providing much higher marks, which on averaging with the much lower expert score, generated a highly inaccurate assessment of the scientific ability ( and thus future research potential) of the students in question -  these non-experts and the rest of the Honours assessment committee (all non-experts apart from myself, the supervisor) had the discretionary power to value highly the expert evaluation but chose instead to ignore it, thus treating the expertise of myself and Professor Blanden with contempt.
 
* Academic Freedom of Speech for  Research Scientists to Speak The Truth as They see it in their Research Discipline : This submission is also about academic freedom of speech and my right to prepare a submission to this inquiry without fear of reprisal. It is now a key issue because I have since been summarily dismissed without notice (February 26 2001) from my tenured/continuing appointment at Wollongong University for publicly blowing the whistle on this flawed Honours assessment process ( during the period January 9 2001 through to February 26 2001) .

Professor Robert V Blanden , the External Examiner of the Honours  Theses  in Question :  This formal submission should be read in conjunction with the submission of Professor Robert V Blanden, Division of Immunology & Cell Biology, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University.

My  Academic and Scientific Credentials :  A summary of my academic/scientific career can be found in my up-dated CV ( Mar 6 2001, enclosed) and in the summary document I have prepared " EJ Steele: Biography of Scientific Achievements". 

I am an expert in the field on the origin of genetic diversity of immunoglobulin variable genes (the research area of the two theses in question). More specifically I am an internationally recognised leader in the related subfields of genetic mechanisms which generate both somatic and germline diversity in immunoglobulin variable genes (as is Professor Robert V Blanden).  If necessary  I can call on expert scientific witnesses to testify to the truth of these statements.

It is very important to state up front that none of the Honours theses readers, and other Honours assessors, in the Department of Biological Sciences at Wollongong University have any credentials at all in these cutting edge research areas. 

My "Preliminary Submission" of  5  February 2001 and my Summary Dismissal from Wollongong University three weeks later on 26 February 2001 : Since I      e-mailed my  outline of submission to you on 5.2 01 (hereafter I refer to this document as my "Preliminary Submission", or "Prelim Sub" ) I have since been summarily dismissed without notice ( February 26 2001) from my tenured/continuing academic appointment at Wollongong University by the Vice -Chancellor Professor Gerard Sutton (see enclosed copy of his letter of dismissal without notice).

As it turns out, the specific details I will cover here in my submission to this Senate Inquiry appear to me to be the same facts and events which appear to constitute the main reasons for Vice-Chancellor  Sutton's summary dismissal of me from Wollongong University.  Further,  VC Sutton has claimed in an e-mail press release that  I "..knowingly (spread) false allegations undermining the essential fabric of the employment relationship and put(ting) at serious risk the good name of the University.." ( see a copy of his e-mail press release Tuesday  27 February 2001). 

I must say here that I held the view I went public with sincerely, and at no time did I say anything publicly other than what I sincerely believed to be the truth.

As I indicated to you in my "Prelim. Sub." of 5.2.01, I submitted it in haste because " ..the possibility of threats, reprisals and intimidation by Wollongong University officers and some staff  (was) very real .. ".  Indeed I submitted that e-mail to your office in order to secure some measure of protection by the Australian Parliament under Clause 8 of the document you sent me Re: "How to make a submission to a Senate Committee inquiry". I should also point out that my key summary e-mail which I made public on 31 January viz. "Response to Ultimatum" ( see my  "Prelim. Sub." ) was copied to a member of this Inquiry Committee, Senator Kim Carr (as well as a number other politicians, academics and scientists, as well as the NSW Ombudsman). 

It is clear that the matters of public importance I have raised concerning the unwarranted upgrading of BSc/B.Biotech Honours thesis evaluations (of two of my former students) - which I was in the process of preparing for submission to this Senate Inquiry  - have led to my summary dismissal. In his press release the Vice-Chancellor Professor Gerard Sutton viewed them as evidence of my spreading "..knowingly false allegations..".  

I categorically deny this libellous assertion by Vice-Chancellor Professor Sutton - in my view I knowingly exposed and spread truthful information about a sham process of Honours evaluation in the two specific cases that I witnessed directly in my capacity as the expert supervisor of both students within the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong : which allowed students who were assessed as  Fail/Borderline pass by experts in the research field to be upgraded to mid range pass ( Hons 2 II, Student A, 1997) or to qualify for  PhD entry (Hons 2 I, Student B, 2000 ) . 

The Public Nature of the Debate and my Summary Dismissal : My public statements on these issues puts me in direct contradiction of Vice-Chancellor Sutton's public statements and actions (eg. my summary dismissal). Furthermore, I wish to point out that the entire episode, January 9 through to February 26 , has taken place totally in the public domain, both on the open e-mail system at Wollongong University ( and many off campus recipients) , and in the news media, particularly The Sydney Morning Herald  (in articles written by the Higher Education Writer, Aban Contractor) and to some extent The Illawarra Mercury  ( in articles by Michele Tydd, Anne Bransdon, and Lisa Sewell).   Indeed it was my genuine view, which I honestly held throughout the period in question ( and still do) viz.  Jan 9 through to the NSW Ombudsman report (Feb 1 and after) that I was engaged in a serious public debate about falling academic standards in Australian universities, as represented by the specific case of my two Honours students. It came therefore as an immense shock to me (and my ANU collaborator Professor Blanden) when I was dismissed without notice. 

Thus apart from  initial letters from Professor Sutton dated Jan 9 and Jan 11 2001, and then his dismissal letter 6 weeks later, I thought I was discussing, and thus vigorously  debating  and exposing matters openly,  either with the recently appointed Head of Biological Sciences, Assoc. Professor Mark Walker or the former Head, Professor Robert Whelan (and in one case the NSW Ombudsman's office)  - although I did make it clear to all and sundry that the letters both Walker and Whelan signed were clearly written and largely composed by others (which I assumed includedVice-Chancellor Gerard Sutton and/or his advisors). 

The chronological record of this debate is in the attached folder, and all documents to which I refer  can be found in that folder.

My Statutory Declaration of January10 2001: Role of Experts in Scientific Research : The key issue throughout, to which I have repeatedly returned, has been the role of experts in assessing specific scientific research areas and what the final Hons grade means in terms of further progression of the student to a PhD degree.  

The best way to describe this situation to a general lay audience is via our common understanding of the Master/Apprentice relationship in a variety of trades, and the role of experts, in general, in many other technical fields.  For example an allegory might help explain my position and that of the external expert Professor Blanden :  

A small airline operator flying Cessnas out of Tamworth has his planes inspected by a CASA expert who grounds the fleet as unsafe to fly. Yet two hang gliders drop in and declare to the operator that in their opinion the planes appear perfectly safe to fly. It would be absurd for the operator to ignore CASA's advice would it not!

Similarly,  consider how a student apprentice is judged in one of the applied trades - the immediate boss/supervisor's opinion and evaluation would be the most valuable indicator that the student is capable of practising in that trade, as well as other experts in the trade who are in possession of the necessary detailed technical knowledge. 

How Failed/Borderline pass Hons students were upgraded – The Process :-       I have outlinedthe coercive nature of the Honours meetings of 1997 and 2000 in my Statutory Declaration of January 10 . On January 11 and in other e-mails Professor Rob Whelan has given his view of the process. As indicated above         (and in my Jan 31 "Response to Ultimatum" ) the Honours assessment committee had the discretionary power to value the expert advice highly, but they chose not to do so, thus allowing the upgrade to proceed. I was incensed as I witnessed what was going on and said so forcibly. Indeed in the most recent case ( Student B, 2000) I pointed out the consequences - that I was most likely now to receive a phone call from any one of a number of  reputable Sydney biomedical research institutes offering a PhD scholarship to Student B. This duly took place and I told the truth about Student B to the prospective new supervisor ( from Westmead Hospital). During the meeting I recall A. Prof David Ayre dismissing Professor Blanden's detailed evaluation as " vague and not specific enough"  and I recall Professor Whelan saying "We clearly do not have a top rate student here, so let the next supervisor ( if he were to do a PhD) beware". I was extremely upset by these dismissive comments: Professor Whelan is an expert in the ecological consequences of bush fires, and A. Prof Ayre is an expert in ecological/population genetics of marine invertebrates - neither has any credentials at all in my research area. 

Reasons for My Summary Dismissal by VC Sutton/VC Sutton Prejudged Situation : The specific charges made against me which caused my dismissal are outlined in VC Sutton's letter (26 Feb 2001) and in some other places, particularly the "Ultimatum"  letter of A. Prof Walker of Jan 24 . However VC Sutton had formed a view of the matter well before his Feb 26 letter of dismissal. I reprint what I have stated in my e-mail  of Jan 31 " Response to Ultimatum" :

EVENTS OF TUESDAY 9th JANUARY  2001 - VC SUTTON PREJUDGES ISSUE 

On this day a story appeared on page one of the "Sydney Morning Herald"  entitled "High school" classes for fee-paying uni students" . This story, as I have indicated in my Jan 23 e-mail (below) reflected my view " that I certainly felt that I had been instructed to elevate marks from FAIL/borderline pass to mid-range pass or PhD entry at the Honours assessment meetings of Nov 1997 and 2000." The words I used in the interview with the journalist (Aban Contractor) were "upgrading" of marks. As far as I was concerned her story did not misrepresent what I had experienced in the Honours assessment meetings (see Stat. Dec).

At 3.05pm-3.10pm on the  9th January I received a hand delivered letter from VC Sutton in an envelope marked Confidential addressed to Associate Professor E Steele, Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, which read :

"Dear Associate Professor Steele, 
I read with concern in today's Sydney Morning Herald that you have been told to increase the grades of Honours students. This is a very serious matter.
Would you please provide me with the names of those students, who instructed you to increase the grades and other associated details that would allow me to take appropriate action.
Yours sincerely
GR Sutton
Vice-Chancellor"

However VC Sutton had prejudged the issue because he had a letter submitted for publication that SAME day to the editorial office of " The Sydney Morning Herald". This letter was published in its letters page on Thursday 11th January and it read :

"Statements attributed to Associate Professor Ted Steele
 regarding increasing grades for honours students ("Herald",
 January 8) are not supported by departmental records from
the discipline in which Professor Steele is employed.

"They reveal that the one honours student supervised
by Professor Steele over the past year is an Australian
resident with HECS payments. Records show that the
 student performed consistently throughout the year
 and there were no adjustment to the student's marks

Professor Gerard Sutton
Vice-Chancellor
University of Wollongong, January 9."

VC Sutton's facts were incorrect. There were two students involved and one was a full fee paying overseas student (which he would have discovered if he had waited for my response of Wednesday 10 January, sworn as a Statutory Declaration. His reference to "Herald" January 8 should read January 9).

This public act by the Vice-Chancellor is extremely revealing; it tells us he was not interested in the facts of the matters surrounding the upgrading of marks of my two Honours students - he was simply interested in a rapid public denial; and he turned out to be wrong.

It is clear that I was convicted in advance by Vice-Chancellor Sutton before he had any idea of what the facts of the matter were. He had clearly prejudged matter on January 9.  I know this because after I had read his letter to me at about 3.10pm I then immediately phoned Aban Contractor , Higher Education Writer of The Sydney Morning Herald who had Gerard Sutton’s letter in her hands ie. the letter ultimately published in The Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday January 11 2001.

 Indeed VC Sutton himself has no qualifications at all to evaluate the scientific research ability of any of my students.  His summary dismissal of me, given all the aspects of the matter which were in the public domain, was a clear denial of natural justice - and indicates that I was removed from the University because the truth as I saw it was harmful to the public image of the university eg its "University of the Year" status etc ( see his press release of 27 Feb 2001).

Ultimatum of Jan 24 from Assoc Prof Mark Walker and My Response to the Ultimatum on Jan 31 : 
A careful reading of these documents will reveal that I answered all their charges. I copied this material widely on the e-mail system on and off campus. Like every other item of in this period it was placed by me in the public domain.

The Position of the NSW  Ombudsman : 
I also copied my " Response to the Ultimatum"  of January 31 to the office of NSW Ombudsman's . I did this because on the Friday 19 January Mr.  Bruce Barbour the NSW Ombudsman, encouraged academic Whistleblowers to come forward as they were protected by the NSW  Protected Disclosures Act. Indeed I released an open e-mail on that day urging other staff to go public (and at the same time I  called on VC Sutton to withdraw highly defamatory statements about my academic/scientific performance which both he and former ProVC Christine Ewan had made either on the e-mail system or local TV news media in Wollongong).

Given that I was considering lodging a formal "complaint" against Wollongong University , and that I was seeking guidelines from that office in order to submit a protected "complaint", I naively ( in retrospect) decided to copy it to the Ombudsman to a). secure a degree of whistleblower protection from the intimidation and threats of reprisals that I was experiencing , and b). alert the Ombudsman to a case in full swing  and very much alive in the media ( to prepare the ground later for a complaint).

As can be seen from my "Prelim. Sub." my actions were naive.  The Deputy Ombudsman actually considered my deposition a "complaint" and brought down a ruling on February 2 that there was nothing to investigate - and that I had "not been specifically instructed to increase marks" as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.   Of course his opinion completely missed the key issue I have repeatedly made viz. that the upgrading went ahead against expert opinion and evaluation.  Curiously he considered that all members of the Department of Biological Sciences were experts in my research discipline - this is patent nonsense!

VC Gerard Sutton used the NSW Deputy Ombudsman’s decision as a key part of his reason for summarily dismissing me. Thus in his press release of Tuesday 27 February, Sutton claimed : ‘ The NSW Ombudsman’s Office, recently announced that on the evidence supplied to its office it ascertained that there had been “ no actual instruction and no basis for a perception of being instructed..” ‘ It has to be pointed out to the Inquiry that the Deputy NSW Ombudsman Chris Wheeler is making a judgement about my perceptions without attending meetings in which I judged I was being pressured and coerced (viz the Honours assessment meetings). Since he was not subjected to the aggressive and coercive pressure from members of the Department of Biological Sciences there is no way he could form a valid judgement of my ( ie. Dr Steele’s) perception.

Indeed the respected editor  of  the intellectual affairs magazine "Quadrant" and Sydney Morning Herald columnist P.P. McGuinness - who was fully abreast of all the facts of this controversial debate and the deep history of my scientific career - calls for an "Ombudsman to oversee the Ombudsman" because he did not properly investigate the matter or consider all the facts.

I agree with the conclusion of P.P. McGuinness. The Deputy Ombudsman’s  unsolicited opinion outlined his narrow legal grounds for taking no action. He has nothing to say about the role of experts in these matters, nor was he concerned by the public mendacity of VC Sutton, nor did he not realise that discretion should have been used in those Honours assessment meetings.  Indeed he should have questioned why serious alarm bells did not go off in the minds of those present, particularly Professor Rob Whelan, given the very large discrepancy between the expert mark and non-expert marks. The absurdity of averaging such marks was not addressed.

Honours Grade and PhD Entry : But the assertion by many in my department that the "final Hons grade does not determine PhD entry" ( eg. special department meeting of January 17 2001) points to a serious problem, and how far standards have now fallen, at least at my former institution. 

On Thursday 18 January I addressed this issue in an open e-mail I entitled "The Wollongong Standard" : 

 	"And it is very important now that every one in this institution understands what the Dept of Biological Sciences (excluding myself) * have endorsed with the complete backing of VC Sutton, namely that Honours grades no longer determine entry to a PhD degree (ie. Hons grades 2nd Class I or 1st Class). This would be alarming news to Dr. Kemp, the AVCC,NHMRC, ARC and all research institutes that award PhD scholarships.
In their passion to silence me and force back downs and retractions they have now painted themselves into defending the indefensible.  This is "The Wollongong Standard" which if applied across the country would ensure the complete destruction of science and scholarship as we now it." 

Indeed at the meeting I detected a generational change in academia - many of the younger staff did not understand what the requirements for PhD entry were! This itself indicates how badly standards have dropped in this country over the past 5-10 years. 

Yours sincerely

Dr. EJ Steele