NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

Review of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research Submission

Personal Details
First Name: 
Last Name: 
Specific comments
Specific comments: 
Principles in Code

According to the coded in the first paragraphs, quote "The Australian code for the responsible conduct of research (the
Code) articulates the broad principles that characterise an honest, ethical and conscientious research

Things that deviate from this may therefore be a breached or violation of the code and also a criminal violation of Australian laws such as those that can be found under Australian criminal laws such as


False or Misleading Information,

Falsification of Documents,


False Statements,

Good Faith,

Use of Position and Use of Information – Criminal Offences,

Conspiracy (Common Law),

Perverting the Course of Justice,

Deliberately Omitting Information,

Dishonestly Cause a Loss,

Wilful Damage


The list above which are criminal under Australian laws could cause a breach in the Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. So that one can assume in most cases where there is a breached in the code, an intentional or unintentional criminal act under Australian laws led to the breached in the Code. It is the government's uttermost responsibility to protect Australian laws. Therefore it should be the case that all breaches or alleged breach of code be reported to the  government and a register established for this. where the government see's or suspect an intentional criminal act leading to the breach in the code, the government should have the pressing responsibility to invite the police to investigate a criminal act under Australian laws.

Specific consultation questions
Question 1: Do you like the new approach to the Code, namely the principles-based document being supported by several guides that provide advice on implementation?: 
Question 2:The draft Code is intended to be used by all research disciplines. Do the principles adequately capture the expectations for responsible research across all research disciplines?: 
Question 3: The draft Guide refers to breaches of the Code rather than providing a definition of research misconduct, and states that institutions can decide whether or not to use the term research misconduct in their own processes.: 
no comment
Question 4: Do you think the process described for investigating and managing potential breaches of the Code is clearly described and practical?: 
not really because, if you study Australian laws, you will find that usually an intentional or unintentional criminal act will cause a breach in the code. The government owns the responsibility to protect Australian laws. The governments has a more higher responsibility to invite police to investigate a suspected voilation of law.
Question 5: The Code Review Committee and working group are considering what additional resources should be developed to support implementation of the Code and Guide.: 
Question 6: Are the mechanisms for review of an investigation clearly and correctly described in Section 7.6 of the Guide? If not, where are the inaccuracies?: 
see response to question 4

Page reviewed: 17 September, 2018