Research Governance in Australia: exposing empirical deception
A case series of three ethical breaches within research institutions
The replacement of genuine moral reflection by procedures and protocols finally paralyses people’s
capacity for moral reflection... Padmasiri De Silva
Geoff Kirwood, firstname.lastname@example.org
A case series of three ethical breaches within research institutions. The absence of audit for
purposes of Quality Control, so as to curtail undue industry influence or investigator deceit, damages
confidence in the medical evidence base. A history of research misconduct scandals exposed in the
Australian media is unfortunate recourse to redress deceptions, and publicly disparaging to a field of
mostly altruistic and dedicated scientists.
Method. Ethical failures by Victorian researchers, uncovered in the course of Clinical Research
studies, were investigated between 2015 and 2017. No recourse is made to privileged information,
but reliance is wholly upon published incriminatory facts. Three institutional and three government
regulatory governance bodies were tested for integrity per declared responsibilities, in three cases
for concern. Correspondence was sought from authors, their affiliated institution, and then
misconduct allegations escalated to funding bodies and finally, governmental regulators.
Results. A journal publisher declined to comment on a fabricated report; research Sponsors were
satisfied with progress of a study despite nothing having been published two and a half years
subsequent to final data collection; Federal Ministers were unconcerned by misappropriated grants;
and the only Institution conceding prima facie case for misconduct did so under cover of
Confidentiality. This concealment also applies to Australian Research Integrity Committee reporting
of that and all other cases.
Conclusion. Minimal evidence of accountability in Australian research was apparent in six regulatory
bodies’ ethical failures. Published statements as to ‘doing the right thing’ aside, the performance
record of both the institutional ethical governance and the national integrity authorities should be
reported upon. This would forewarn potential whistleblowers of not only career jeopardy, but also
the impossibility of redressing wrongdoing. Further investigation as to the extent of fraudulent,
fabricated or buried study reports is required before policy redress is undertaken.
A well-publicised exposé through national Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio and TV
documentary of allegations over two years of ongoing scientific misconduct, fraud and fabricated
studies at University of New South Wales (UNSW) resulted in a finding by Vice-Chancellor Rory
Hume of errors of judgement warranting censure (Van Der Weyden (2004). Charges against Bruce
Hall, who is still a research Professor at UNSW, had been found proven by external inquiry under Sir
Gerard Brennan, onetime High Court Chief Justice. Hume resigned two years into his five year
tenure, and backed independent St James Ethics Centre inquiry’s recommendation (News, 2005) for
a US-style Office of Research Integrity (ORI), so as to remove responsibility for investigating research
misconduct from the funding bodies.
A decade later, again consequent to ABC coverage (Scott, 2013), UNSW’s failure to twice adequately
address allegations against Levon Khachigian of manipulated cancer cell images, caused National
Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to withdraw $AUD8.4m in funding to the team,
pending an investigation. The resultant internal review stopped short of using the descriptor
‘misconduct’, but conceded that their Code of Conduct had been breached albeit apparently
inadvertently. Professor Khachigian was reinstated, and funding resumed, but the whistleblower Dr
Ying Morgan was not re-employed (Scott, 2013; UNSW, 2015; Israel and Drenth, 2016). This followed
UNSW’s confidentially twice dismissing allegations at both a preliminary and a subsequent review by
external panel insisted upon by Dr Morgan. The histology expertise of Prof David Vaux helped to air
the matter, and his subsequent article (Vaux, 2016) considers the spectrum of misconduct from
error through to intentional falsehood - putting not only trial participants at risk but, by inference,
including future iatrogenic harm through a corrupted evidence base. Repercussions of convicted US
felon Scott Reuben’s fabricated trials weren’t redressed by retraction alone, since there’s 21
systematic reviews to amend, and clinical protocols that may never be rewritten (Marret et al.,
The Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) would appear to function as an ORI equal to
those of the US or UK, but lacking statutory powers. Their charter is to “Review the process by which
a nominated institution has managed an allegation of research misconduct”
(AustralianResearchCouncil, 2011) and inform the appropriate CEO of either NHMRC or translational
science funding body, the Aust Research Council. ARIC discloses their activity as a paragraph in the
parent body annual report. These past five years consistently report a de-identified finding of:
“…several weaknesses in an institution’s investigative process. The NHMRC CEO subsequently
communicated with the institution on the matter”(Brent, 2014). There are no mentions of retraction
or other repercussion.
Methods and Rationale
Testing of institutions is poorly tolerated in academia, making this report novel. Quality
Management in organisations is prescribed by ISO9001, which follows a ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’ model.
Quality Assurance establishes process frameworks, then Quality Control checks upon their success,
and acts appropriately. However research institutions wholly focus on guidelines as preventative of
ethical failure, and lack precedents for robust methods of detection or remedial action.
The following examples of hitherto unreported misconduct detailed were encountered in the course
of studies at Deakin and Monash Universities. None meet the definition of ‘whistleblow’ in that
privileged information isn’t leaked, rather the allegations are reliant upon facts which are publicly
available. The concern is that there was no forum available to dispute research conduct. The three
exemplified situations involved repeated institutional Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)
apathy to complaints from this non-faculty member author. These tests of integrity were further
applied to three regulatory authorities.
Allegations of an ethical breach were raised to, first the designated corresponding author (p.o.c) and
Principal Investigator (PI), then second the institutional ethics approvers, and third multiple
independent bodies – grant funding and/or government regulators, or journal editors and/or
ethicists at contributing author’s universities.
1. ‘Relationship Between Mental Health and Foot Pain’
NHMRC funded a cohort study on obesity and osteoarthritic knee pain (Berry et al., 2010), data from
which and with additional support from Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) resulted in
this offshoot study (Butterworth et al., 2014) published in journal Arthritis Care and Research
(AC&R). The authors comprised rheumatologists, podiatrists, and bariatric physicians. The above title
and Conclusion: “Mental health is associated with changes in foot pain” are at odds with data
presented. Table 1 of the article reveals a non-significant p=0.08 association between chronic pain
non-improvers and poor mental health. However, the significant association of Vitality as measured
by SF-36 with the outcome (p=0.02) is overlooked. Both PI , p.o.c. in Monash School of Public Health
& Preventative Medicine (SPHPM), and her NHMRC rheumatology grants Assigner co-author
declined to acknowledge the complaint, and subsequent NHMRC trial funded by grant 1083664 of a
TriCyclic Antidepressant to treat pain sensitisation in that population concluded in 2018 and awaits
report. This matter was brought to the attention of an ARIC member and onetime NHMRC
Commissioner of Unanswered complaints who co-presented at SPHPM seminar ‘Why very few
patients benefit from the drugs they take and why many are harmed by them’, on 6th Feb 2015 and
again on 8th Jun.
NHMRC Director of Grants repeated their response deferring accountability to Monash HREC on 17th
April, stating: “To reiterate, we would anticipate that the institution would manage the allegation of
research misconduct in accordance with Part B of the Code [Australian Code for the Responsible
Conduct of Research (NHMRC, 2007a)] … If you are not satisfied with the liaison you have had with
the institution… One option is lodging your complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman”.
A complaint was made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, whose reply conceded systemic faults:
“… the NHMRC's response of 12 May 2015 to your complaint, indicated that the NHMRC referred you
to other bodies to pursue your complaint, in particular the researcher's institution. In my view this
was not an unreasonable response. I am aware, however, that your approaches to other bodies,
including the researcher's university, have been unsuccessful to date” (Baragry, 2015). The editor of
AC&R was contacted 24th April 2015, as were publishers American College of Rheumatology, but
without reply. SPHPM Research Governance Officer was contacted on 19th May, with this third
instance complaining of ethical breaches within the department, but only the two matters previous
were acknowledged even if not pursued. Monash HREC was then notified on 21st May, and
acknowledged on 29th October 2015, but took no action and stopped corresponding. Complaint
made to Manager of Research at RACP Foundation was answered 4th Aug with “… the College does
no enter into correspondence regarding its decisions” (Winne, 2015).
2. ‘PT056 Pharmacological Restoration of Mood In Heart Failure (Pro-Heart): Rationale
And Design’ (Hare et al., 2014)
PRO-HEART enrolled the first participant in the 6-month trial of anti-depressant escitalopram in Oct
2010, the same year that the manufacturer pleaded guilty to allegations of “off-label promotion of
the drugs and various forms of illegal remuneration for doctors, including cash payments disguised as
grants or consulting fees, preceptorships, speaking fees, expensive meals and lavish entertainment
and other valuable goods and services” (Office-PublicAffairs, 2010). The study p.o.c. and PI both
declined to answer a concern raised on 3rd June 2014, and sent again on 9th July 2015, regarding the
worsened risk of hyponatremia in the studied population, an association which was later proven
(Leth-Møller et al., 2016).
A German trial’s finding against the use of escitalopram in heart failure (Angermann et al., 2016)
should have been raised by the team with their Ethics Committee per Section 12.8(e) of NHMRC
guidelines (NHMRC, 2007b), but Austin Health refused a formal Freedom of Information Act request
of 19th July 2017 as to whether this adverse event was envisaged or ever communicated. Their
grounds given being (Stephens, 2017) under Trade Secrets and Information Communicated in
Confidence where “Disclosure may impair our ability to acquire such information in the future”. This
commercial confidentiality was despite funding having come from two public charities.
The sponsors forecast a completion year of 2014 (BeyondBlue, 2007) and final data was collected
Feb 2018. The CEO of BeyondBlue stated on 18th August 2017 that she was “satisfied with its
progress”, and chair Julia Gillard declined to comment to absence of a report two and a half years
later. Funding partner Heart Foundation’s manager of executive services responded 9th July 2015 on
behalf of the CEO, to advise that “Safe-guarding the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in
research during the tenure of Heart Foundation funded research is the responsibility of the awardee
and of the institution in which the award is held". Another author on the protocol (Hare et al., 2014)
was approached, answering on 4th September 2017 of: “Im not involved in this trial. If you have any
problems with this trial please direct your inquiries to Austin Health ethics committee”. Austin Health
Research manager ignored the latest challenge to buried results, in July 2020, having declined a 2018
offered right-of-reply to this article’s draft.
3. ‘The Feasibility of Embedding Data Collection into the Routine Service Delivery of a
Multi-Component Program for High-Risk Young People’ (Knight et al., 2017)
A UNSW Professor was serving on the NHMRC GRANTS committee when $AUD386,771 was awarded
to his brother’s business BackTrack, for a trial proposing to provide cognitive based therapy to
teenage abusers of alcohol (Shakeshaft, 2015). The BackTrack manager’s prior experience was as a
dogcatcher (Meldrum-Hanna, 2011), and there are no skills in delivery of psychotherapy among the
staff. Indeed, operations as documented in an observational PhD includes physical abuse, and the
manager has been caught Driving Under the Influence of alcohol (Pastor, 2015). The published
report (Knight et al., 2017) contains only survey data, and neither the PI, Bernie Shakeshaft, nor
p.o.c. (lead author, qualification being BA and Bach Business) responded to a request for details of
the claimed intervention. BackTrack runs a residential farm, offering inmates free board and
(unaccredited) farm skills training in return for labour to neighbouring properties. Both Indigenous
and white juvenile (14-17yo) miscreants are recruited when presenting at Armidale Magistrates
Court, when custodial sentencing appears to be the only option due to prior record. The first three
principles of ‘the Code’ (NHMRC, 2007a) are violated, being: respect the rights of those affected;
manage conflicts of interest; and adopt methods appropriate for proposal aims.
NHMRC Ethics and Governance memo of 17th May 2017 advised: “Your allegations of misconduct
would need to be addressed by raising your concerns with the research institution through which the
research was conducted. NHMRC has no remit to independently investigate allegations of research
misconduct or breaches of the Code”. Director of Integrity at UNSW had acknowledged the complaint
sent 5th May 2017, and committed to respond to the alleged conflict of interest within three weeks.
A reminder was sent when this lapsed, along with assertion of criminal fraud – in that money was
claimed for works not performed. UNSW advised on 29th Jun 2017 that another week was needed
for answering “very serious and complex” concerns, and two years later on 14th Feb 2019 sent a
‘Strictly Confidential’ letter finding a prima facie case of Research Code breach, but not one of
Research Misconduct owing to not being ‘multiple and continuous’.
Australian Federal Police disclaimed jurisdiction: “Under the Australian Government Investigations
Standards, Commonwealth entities have their own anti-fraud or investigative components, and have
the primary responsibility for investigating fraud involving their agencies” (Witchard, 2017). Of the
two AFP suggested agencies, the Fraud Section in Dept of Prime Minister & Cabinet didn’t reply, and
the Ombudsman sent a case closure letter (Hill, 2017) stating: ”I suggest that you raise this matter
with the UNSW again.” On 13th Aug 2017 a formal Request for Review form was submitted to ARIC,
and four days later notification received that a response should be had within three weeks. A status
request was answered on 19th Oct with an update from the ARIC Chair of “still under investigation”
by UNSW (Brent, 2017).
77 American Institutional Research Integrity Officers were interviewed for a report on process,
where it was found that 23% of complaints were lodged by post-doc level or below, and 71% by
Scientist or Professor (Bonito et al., 2012). This could indicate that seniority imbued greater
confidence to break rank, even when given statutory protection. That is one of several factors, along
with institutional supportiveness, mooted as being predictive of complaint effectiveness (Malek,
2010). Risk vs benefit steers the moral compass for most placed in such a dilemma. The Dalai Lama’s
call for moral responsibility despite the presence of dirty business and dirty science is described as
‘muscular compassion’ (Goleman, 2015), and reliant upon an inner strength outside of any
The US independent ORI is envisaged, on the basis of researcher survey, to handle 2300 cases p.a.,
yet receives at most a hundred allegations (Bonito et al., 2012). The scale of the problem is
perceived as being two dozen times bigger than the effort to expose it. Over the last decade
misconduct findings by ORI have averaged 11 p.a., and twice as many more complaints were not
pursued or lacked evidence (Partin, 2017).
The ARIC and SPHPM member to whom complaint was made of the false mental health and pain
conclusion has opined that whistleblowers are undervalued and lack support, while auditing was
overly costly (Breen, 2016). He’d earlier authored a chapter with mention of the Hall affair: “The
Code places an onus on institutions to ensure that researchers are trained in research ethics and
research practices according to the Code, the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research and related documents, and places an onus on researchers to make themselves familiar
with these documents. One study of the staff of a large research institute suggested that clinician
researchers were the group least informed about these documents” (Breen, 2010), entrusting
guideline compliance to a self-regulatory model and putting blame on clinicians for ignorance (Babl
and Sharwood, 2008). On the one hand organisational stonewalling blocks individuals making an
ethical stance, yet on the other reform is being suggested from the bottom upwards.
A Medical Journal of Australia editorial (Van Der Weyden, 2004) on UNSW’s Prof Hall itemised these
needs: External inquiry upfront; Statutory powers; Panel expertise; Transparency rather than
confidentiality; Universal process; and Prevention rather than detection. Two years later the current
Monash SPHPM Governance Officer and Head of School co-authored a document endorsing their
internal audit process (Poustie et al., 2006), citing the MJA editorial but mentioning neither these six
lessons nor the merit of an ORI.
As of Feb 2017 a substantially revised 2010 ‘NHMRC policy on actions to be taken in response to
misconduct involving NHMRC funding’ came into effect, having grown from 6 to 23 pages (Director,
2016). A major amendment was mandatory notification to NHMRC by the institution of any
investigation exceeding 56 days. Disregard of this timeframe by UNSW demonstrates the weakness
of guidelines alone. A concurrent revision to ‘the Code’ (NHMRC, 2007a), approved in 2018, was
circulated for feedback to both institutions and the largely independent Association of Australian
Medical Research Industries, with the latter submitting that (if adopted) the administrative burden
of “adhering to multiple legislative and policy instruments” would be lessened (Hilton, 2015).
Introduction to part B ‘Breaches of the Code and misconduct in research’ acknowledges calls for
holding of investigations in independent statutory tribunals, but considers the Federal Constitution
to be among the legal obstacles. A further impediment to justice came from Workplace Agreements
in academia (Van Der Weyden, 2004), so a legal Commission of Inquiry could be requisite to
Integrity means doing the right thing in a reliable way. Much is written about ethics, but the lack of
cohesion between words and actions strengthens the claim made: there is no accountability in these
institutions’ medical research governance. Three of the universities are members of the Group of
Eight, a coalition of leading Australian research universities in receipt of 60% of the NHMRC
$AUD800m budget, ostensibly robust institutions.
A global review of national Ethics Committee’s performance would be a merit-worthy study, one
that compared the record of misconduct allegations with investigational outcomes. This report
recorded failures due to stonewalling from four institutional HRECs, and two regulators i.e.
Commonwealth Ombudsman and NHMRC Ethics & Integrity. This consistent result gives confidence
to the declaration that governance in Australian research is not assured, and hence contamination of
the global evidence base is to an indeterminate degree. The prevailing attitude in Australia seems to
be that ‘what happens in the department, stays in the institution’.
Empty suggestions of further templates for best practice, or ongoing research into misconduct’s
roots, both continue the unhealthy situation of unchecked breaches. It’s been postulated that extant
mandatory training, and diligent mentoring are sufficient (Kornfeld and Titus, 2017). But without
international registries for reporting against complaints, it’s impossible to tell if the Australian
context is unique.
Institutional process documents are written on the assumption that a staff member is intending to
whistleblow, yet the three cases were submitted by a postgrad student.
Acknowledgements and Declaration
Thanks to Prof Brian Martin, University of Wollongong, whose assistance through writing critique
was greatly appreciated. The author has no conflicts-of-interest to declare, and is self-funded. This
report does not reuse any material published elsewhere.
Angermann CE, Gelbrich G, Störk S, et al. (2016) Effect of escitalopram on all-cause mortality and
hospitalization in patients with heart failure and depression: The mood-hf randomized
clinical trial. JAMA 315: 2683-2693.
AustralianResearchCouncil. (2011) Australian Research Integrity Committee Framework. In: ARC
Babl FE and Sharwood LN. (2008) Research governance: current knowledge among clinical
researchers. Med J Aust 188: 649-652.
Baragry D. (2015) Our Ref: 2015-702949. In: Kirwoods@tpg.com.au (ed). Canberra: Ombudsman.
Berry PA, Wluka AE, Davies-Tuck ML, et al. (2010) The relationship between body composition and
structural changes at the knee. Rheumatology 49: 2362-2369.
BeyondBlue. (2007) The Melbourne depression in heart failure collaborative – medication trial.
Available at: https://www.beyondblue.org.au/about-us/research-projects/research-
Bonito AJ, Titus SL, Greene AM, et al. (2012) Preparing whistleblowers for reporting research
misconduct. Account Res 19: 308-328.
Breen KJ. (2010) Good Medical Practice : Professionalism, Ethics and Law, ProQuest: Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Breen KJ. (2016) Research misconduct: time for a re-think? Intern Med J 46: 728-733.
Brent R. (2014) Annual Report 2013-2014. In: Canberra (ed). National Health and Medical Research
Brent R. (2017) 20171017 - ARIC reponse to Kirwood re UNSW response. In: email@example.com
(ed). Canberra: NHMRC.
Butterworth PA, Urquhart DM, Cicuttini FM, et al. (2014) Relationship Between Mental Health and
Foot Pain. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 66: 1241-1245.
Director EaG. (2016) NHMRC policy on misconduct related to NHMRC funding In: NHMRC (ed).
Goleman D. (2015) A Force for Good: Bloomsbury.
Hare DL, Toia D, Driscoll A, et al. (2014) PT056 Pharmacological Restoration of Mood In Heart Failure
(Pro-Heart): Rationale And Design. Global Heart 9: e177.
Hill E. (2017) Our ref: 2017-509009. In: Kirwoods@tpg.com.au (ed). Canberra: Ombudsman.
Hilton D. (2015) SUBMISSION TO REVISED AUSTRALIAN CODE FOR THE RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF
RESEARCH. Available at: https://aamri.org.au/news-events/aamri-news/submission-to-
Israel M and Drenth P. (2016) Research Integrity: Perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. In:
Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore : Springer Science+Business Media
Singapore, 2016. 1st ed. 2016., 789.
Knight A, Havard A, Shakeshaft A, et al. (2017) The Feasibility of Embedding Data Collection into the
Routine Service Delivery of a Multi-Component Program for High-Risk Young People. Int J
Environ Res Public Health 14.
Kornfeld DS and Titus SL. (2017) Ethics: More research won't crack misconduct. Nature 548: 31-31.
Leth-Møller KB, Hansen AH, Torstensson M, et al. (2016) Antidepressants and the risk of
hyponatremia: a Danish register-based population study. BMJ Open 6.
Malek J. (2010) To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower. Account
Res 17: 115-129.
Marret E, Elia N, Dahl JB, et al. (2009) Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the
Reuben case. Anesthesiology 111: 1279-1289.
Meldrum-Hanna C. (2011) BackTrack: Northern Tableland Saviours. In: ABC (ed). Stateline:
News A. (2005) 'No true villains' in scientific research case. Available at:
NHMRC. (2007a) Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. In: Council AR (ed).
NHMRC. (2007b) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
Office-PublicAffairs. (2010) Drug Maker Forest Pleads Guilty; To Pay More Than $313 Million to
Resolve Criminal Charges and False Claims Act Allegations. In: Justice UDo (ed) 10-1028. Civil
Partin K. (2017) ORI misconduct findings fell in 2016. Why? We ask the director. In: Watch R (ed).
Pastor H. (2015) Wild boys : a parent's story of tough love: St Lucia, Qld. University of Queensland
Poustie SJ, Taylor DM, Forbes AB, et al. (2006) Implementing a research governance framework for
clinical and public health research. Med J Aust 185: 623-626.
Scott S. (2013) Allegations of research misconduct around breakthrough cancer findings.
Shakeshaft A. (2015) Intervention trial to reduce alcohol related harms among high risk young
Indigenous Australians. Available at:
Stephens M. (2017) Freedom of Information Application (FOI Act 1982). In: firstname.lastname@example.org
UNSW. (2015) Professor Levon Khachigian. In: Integrity R (ed).
Van Der Weyden MB. (2004) Managing allegations of scientific misconduct and fraud: lessons from
the "Hall affair". Medical Journal of Australia 180: 149-151.
Vaux D. (2016) Scientific Misconduct: Falsification, Fabrication, and Misappropriation of Credit. In:
Bretag T (ed) Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore : Springer Science+Business Media
Singapore, 2016. 1st ed. 2016.
Winne Ld. (2015) Re: Misconduct. In: Kirwoods@tpg.com.au (ed). RACP.
Witchard M. (2017) Report a crime to the AFP - AFP web form submission 360369. In:
Kirwoods@tpg.com.au (ed). Aust Federal Police.