Oxford University loses court battle in row over nut research

Oxford University has lost a court battle in a row between two academics over who should get credit for groundbreaking research into nut allergies. 

Dr Amin Moghaddam has won his appeal against a tribunal ruling that threw out his unfair dismissal claim against the university. 

The highly gifted research scientist left the university after 16 years in March 2019 when his fixed-term contract ended and he failed to secure more funding.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal has now ruled that the original hearing two years ago had made flawed findings. It means a fresh employment tribunal will now be heard. 

Dr Moghaddam had been embroiled in a bitter row with colleague Quentin Sattentau, who he claimed had been unfairly named as the lead author of a landmark paper.

Dr Moghaddam said he was the brains behind a ground-breaking 2014 study which suggested that dry roasted peanuts are more likely to trigger an allergic reaction than raw peanuts, and accused Prof Sattentau of stealing his ideas. 

The two research medics had worked closely alongside each other in the same lab, but their relationship 'unravelled' after Dr Moghaddam accused his supervisor of plagiarism and taking credit for the work and a later 2018 review paper.

After 16 years at Oxford, Dr Moghaddam left the university in March 2019 when his fixed-term contract ended and he failed to secure more funding.

Dr Moghaddam went on to sue the University of Oxford at the Reading Employment Tribunal, as well as Prof Sattentau and his chief supervisor, Prof Matthew Freeman, claiming he was unfairly dismissed.

He accused Prof Sattentau of 'scientific misconduct', but the ET rejected his claims that he had been unfairly treated by his boss.

Dr Moghaddam came to the UK from his native Iran and began working at Oxford University in 2003.

Read More

Oxford University scientists fight over who was really behind pioneering peanut allergy research

In 2014, he says he was responsible for groundbreaking research on peanut allergies, which made headlines with the discovery that dry roasted peanuts pose a greater risk to those with sensitivities than raw peanuts.

The research, which appeared in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, concluded that chemical changes caused by dry roasting processes may prime the body's immune system, sparking future allergic nut reactions.

The conclusion was reached after experiments during which mice were exposed to peanut proteins through the skin or the stomach.

Animals given the dry roasted samples had a much stronger immune response than mice given the raw versions.

The study concluded that the findings could explain the lower allergy rates in East Asian communities, where boiled, raw or fried nuts are a more common part of the diet than roasted ones.

But Prof Sattentau was named as the lead author on the 2014 paper, which Dr Moghaddam claimed amounted to a 'breach of academic authorship guidelines'.

Four years later, in 2018, Prof Sattentau had produced a review manuscript in which he was billed as the sole senior author, with Dr Moghaddam named as 'third author,' despite his claims the document was based on 2016 work of his own.

Sketching out the rift between the academics, Judge Murray Shanks said: 'Dr Moghaddam complained that the document was based on his work and that the professor was acting in breach of academic ethics and guilty of plagiarising his work.

'The professor said that he found Dr Moghaddam's correspondence on the topic to be a 'very personal attack,' involving 'hostile and abusive language' which made it incredibly difficult for them to continue working together.'

Dr Moghaddam claimed the ET judge who initially decided his case 'failed to resolve' whether his whistleblowing complaints about alleged plagiarism ultimately caused the loss of his plum post.

His barrister, Jesse Crozier, argued that Prof Sattentau and his boss had 'deliberately failed to seek or secure funding to continue the claimant's employment,' which resulted in 'detriment' to Dr Moghaddam.

In his judgment, Judge Shanks made no findings on whether Dr Moghaddam's research work had been ended due to his clash with Prof Sattentau and his alleged 'whistleblowing'.

But he said the ET failed to properly grapple with the issue of whether his plagiarism claims triggered his downfall due to Prof Sattentau turning against him.

Read More

Academic who claimed his peanut allergy research was stolen wins legal battle over Oxford University

Dr Moghaddam alleged he suffered 'detriment because of whistle-blowing, protected disclosures based on his allegations about Prof Sattentau stealing his work', said Judge Shanks, adding that the ET failed to resolve this issue.

'The combination of the failure to make express findings on the detriments relied on and to consider whether the disclosures materially influenced them, and in particular to consider whether the breakdown in the relationship with Prof Sattentau was itself materially influenced by the disclosures or whether the manner of the disclosures...was the cause of any relevant detriment, mean in my view that this ground of appeal must be allowed and parts of the whistleblowing claim must be remitted for further consideration.'

Sending the case back to the ET, Judge Shanks said a new panel must now consider whether his whistle-blowing claims were well-founded and whether his bosses could have found alternative work for him once his contract came to an end.

Dr Moghaddam had also appealed the ET's finding that the university made 'reasonable adjustments' for depression he was suffering during his final months of work, but this appeal was rejected by Judge Shanks.