Oxford University academics are locked in a nutty court fight over claims a row about research into peanut allergies led to one of them being unfairly sacked.
Dr Amin Moghaddam, 54, says 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.
However, the scientist has accused Oxford professor, Quentin Sattentau, of stealing his ideas and unfairly claimed to be the lead author of the landmark paper.
The two research medics, who had worked closely alongside each other in the same lab, fell out after Dr Moghaddam accused his supervisor of plagiarism and taking credit for his work.
Dr Moghaddam left the university in March 2019 – after 16 years at Oxford – when his fixed-term contract ended and he failed to secure more funding.
Dr Amin Moghaddam (left), 54, claims he was the brains behind a ground-breaking 2014 study and that Professor Quentin Sattentau (right) had ‘unfairly’ claimed credit for his research after naming himself as the lead author of the scientific paper
The study suggested that dry roasted peanuts are more likely to trigger an allergic reaction than raw peanuts – but the research has sparked a legal debate between academics at the University of Oxford (file picture)
He 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 initially lost his case in 2022, but is now battling to have the ruling reversed on appeal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal heard Dr Moghaddam is a highly gifted research scientist and expert in immunology, who came to the UK from his native Iran and began working at Oxford in 2003.
He says he was responsible for ground-breaking 2014 research on peanut allergies which made headlines with the discovery that dry-roasted peanuts posed 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 populations, where boiled, raw or fried nuts are a more common part of the diet than roasted ones.
Prof Sattentau was named as the lead author on the paper.
Dr Moghaddam, in his Employment Tribunal case, complained that Prof Sattentau failed to support his career and instead ‘used his fixed-term career status and reliance on grant funding for his research as a means to appropriate Dr Moghaddam’s scientific ideas, results and projects’.
The scientist went on to accuse Prof Sattentau of ‘scientific misconduct,’ but the ET rejected his claims that he had been unfairly treated by his boss or that there was misconduct on his part.
He also accused the university of race and disability discrimination, and claimed ‘whistleblowing’ about Prof Sattentau’s alleged plagiarism resulted in loss of his job.
Dr Moghaddam left the university in March 2019 – after 16 years there – when his fixed-term contract ended and he failed to secure more funding (pictured is a file image of the University of Oxford)
In September 2022, the tribunal dismissed his case on all fronts, but he is now fighting on, claiming the tribunal judge ‘failed to resolve’ whether his whistleblowing complaints about alleged plagiarism ultimately caused the loss of his plum post at Oxford University.
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.
On top of that, he argued that the tribunal judge should have found that Dr Moghaddam was a disabled person – and so entitled to special consideration – in the period before his post was ended in May 2019.
Mr Crozier highlighted his client’s acute mental health problems at the time, which he said left Dr Moghaddam feeling ‘suicidal’.
His severe depression and anxiety had ‘long-term effects’, said the barrister, such that he ‘narrowly avoided catastrophe’.
But Jennifer Danvers – representing the university and Dr Moghaddam’s two former colleagues – said the Employment Tribunal judge rightly decided that he and Prof Sattentau ended up having an unworkable relationship in the lab.
Prof Sattentau had viewed his colleague as ‘hostile and abusive’ and felt he did not want to collaborate with him or ‘participate in joint supervision sessions,’ said the barrister in written submissions.
‘It is clear the tribunal found there was a breakdown in relationship, which was the whole reason for no further funding applications being made,’ she added.
After a day of legal argument, Judge Murray Shanks reserved the appeal tribunals’s ruling in Dr Moghaddam’s case.