Latest news with #Associationof
Sydney Morning Herald
25-07-2025
- Science
- Sydney Morning Herald
The cancer drug, the faked data and the superstar scientist
On camera, Smyth looks nervous and drawn – a scientist out of water. But in recorded lectures to scientific colleagues, he looks far more assured. Dressed in black with his gelled grey hair, answering technical questions off the cuff, he is a man in command. 'He was a little bit aloof, he had a high opinion of himself. He saw himself as an upper-level person. But he was a nice-enough fellow,' said Brett*, a former colleague who spent time with Smyth outside work and, like others, requested anonymity to avoid professional repercussions. 'His arrogance comes across very quickly,' said a second. 'He had an ab-fab reputation,' said a third, who would later be charged with investigating him. 'That, more than anything else, is the biggest puzzle of all to me. He was not trying to achieve that level of reputation – he'd already achieved it. Why did he feel it was necessary to try for even higher acclaim than he'd already got?' From the outside, Smyth was a rising star, winning awards, publishing important papers, and being showered in millions of dollars of taxpayer research funding. But inside his lab, from the earliest days of his career, concerns were emerging. Selena*, who worked closely alongside Smyth during his time at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, said he only ever wanted to know the good news – even though science is littered with negative results. He 'did not want to hear about things that weren't working. He wanted to see finished results. He did not want to know how it was being done,' she said. 'You'd present raw data, and he'd say, 'You can just leave those points out – they are outliers'.' Other scientists sometimes could not reproduce his results. But rather than question Smyth, they often questioned themselves. 'Maybe he's got better hands than I have. Or maybe the mice are different,' said Brett*. 'There are all these variables.' In 2004, Smyth was the senior author on a paper in top journal Nature Immunology, which was such a sensation that his co-author was nominated for a National Association of Research Fellows award, where Professor David Vaux was secretary. Vaux, 65, is one of Australia's most important cancer researchers, past deputy director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and winner of as many prizes as Smyth. He is also one of the very few researchers willing to take on the scientific establishment when he believes someone is committing research misconduct. A third thing to know about Vaux: when he goes to the doctor, he loves to read the Australian Women's Weekly. The puzzles where you have to spot differences between two images are his favourite. Vaux had first come across Smyth in 1995 when he was asked to comment on a paper the young researcher submitted. He came across paragraphs that seemed similar to Vaux's own work. But when the paper was published, those paragraphs had disappeared. Still, Vaux kept half an eye on the rising star. Years later, he found himself flicking through a 2004 paper Smyth had co-authored. It contained rows of flow cytometry plots of immune cells. Each dot is meant to represent a cell. 'I just looked at them, fused the images, and it was immediately clear they had been duplicated and altered,' said Vaux. The dot pattern kept repeating, as though someone had cut and pasted together the same images in a different order. Each plot contains 10,000 cells. 'The chances of two plots having the same pattern of dots would be 1 in 10 to the power of 1000.' Vaux emailed the paper's authors. 'I can clearly see the problems – one dotplot has been duplicated and modified and used for at least 6 of the plots presented in that revised figure. I still haven't been able to track Mark down,' one wrote back. 'I feel sick.' Nature Immunology launched an investigation and in 2006 retracted the paper because 'it contains a number of errors, including duplications of some flow cytometry plots'. To this day, it is not clear if it was Smyth who duplicated the plots. But a retraction is an enormous black mark on a scientist's career. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre put in place compulsory research integrity training, including a seminar entitled 'Scientists Behaving Badly: Fraud & Misconduct'. This was only the start of Smyth's troubles. In 2014, a thin unmarked envelope was slipped under David Vaux's office door. Inside, under a cover note from 'a concerned scientist', was a copy of a secret Peter Mac investigation into Mark Smyth. The investigation started in 2012, when one of Smyth's PhD students was running a cancer experiment in mice. But the data wasn't good. It looked like another negative experiment. Then, according to the student's evidence, Smyth provided him with a new spreadsheet. It contained records of 20 mice Smyth claimed he had kept as a 'side project'. Smyth said he'd been running the same experiment – with better results. He suggested combining the data, making the results much more positive. At Peter Mac, mice were tracked closely on its Mighty Mouse database, which recorded their births, deaths and every experiment. The student could find no record of Smyth's additional mice on Mighty Mouse. He told Smyth, who suddenly advised tossing the new data. Instead, the concerned student went to Peter Mac, which launched a preliminary investigation. Smyth's personal lab book contained 'not entirely convincing' partial records for 14 of the mice, 'crowded into unlikely spaces', the preliminary investigative report, also obtained by this masthead, says. A further six mice were recorded in a book belonging to a lab assistant. But she told the inquiry she had no memory of monitoring the mice or writing the data in her lab book. She said the handwriting was not hers. 'The animal technicians are right on the ball. If they say a cage of mice, that they know Mark is talking about, never existed – it's not really possible,' one investigator told this masthead, speaking under condition of anonymity to detail confidential information. Peter Mac's preliminary investigation found no independent evidence the mice ever existed and concluded Smyth had a case to answer. 'I thought it wasn't marginal,' said the investigator. 'I thought at the time: 'This guy is in serious trouble here'.' But under an unusual arrangement, the University of Melbourne is responsible for conducting research misconduct investigations at Peter Mac. The sandstone institution would conduct the full investigation. A finding he had made up mice could end Smyth's glittering career. But Smyth's luck turned. On the day of his hearing in front of an expert panel, a Peter Mac employee produced a new datasheet. It was apparently written by Smyth and then 'mislaid'. The employee said they found it while clearing out his office. It contained an error-riddled record for the 20 mice. A handwriting expert brought in by the inquiry determined both this rediscovered loose sheet of paper and the records in the lab assistant's lab book – the ones she said she did not write – were likely written by the same person. That person may have been Smyth, the panel was told. But the expert couldn't be sure. Smyth claimed the central database that recorded mice was often faulty and not fit for purpose. Two of Smyth's colleagues told the panel they had similar problems with the database. One of those colleagues was the person who found Smyth's 'mislaid' data sheet. The other, Robert*, now says the panel misconstrued his evidence. 'When they asked me directly if the mice in question could have existed, I was very clear and responded with a 'no',' he said. 'It does haunt me that my statements have been twisted to allow Mark to escape punishment.' The panel concluded Smyth did not make up the data. He was in the clear. 'It's very hard to understand how Melbourne University could say he wasn't fabricating the data, making it up, and then six or seven years later he's done exactly the same thing at QIMR,' Robert told this masthead. 'Melbourne University needs to take some accountability for allowing Mark to continue misleading scientists and patients.' A senior Australian scientist with close knowledge of the case, speaking anonymously due to restrictions in their employment contract, is absolutely scathing. 'As they'd done with a number of integrity cases, [the University of Melbourne] … concluded there was nothing to see here,' they said. 'The institutional lens is: we have to avoid any suggestion the University of Melbourne has dodgy people, so let's find him not guilty and move him on.' University of Melbourne deputy vice chancellor Professor Mark Cassidy said in a statement that all complaints and allegations were taken seriously and addressed in line with the appropriate guidelines. GSK said its oncology research and development program was 'robust'. 'Our investigations of Nelistotug in combination with other therapies is always based on the full breadth of scientific evidence available,' it said. Smyth was hired by QIMR in 2012, before the Peter Mac allegations were made, and left to join the Queensland-based institute in 2013 - before the investigation was concluded. The allegations he faced soon became the subject of water-cooler gossip, both in Victoria and in Queensland. 'It was a pretty open secret at Peter Mac that Mark Smyth was fudging data,' said a former Peter Mac PhD student. 'No one believed it. It all looked fake.' Smyth himself has never spoken publicly about the saga, he left QIMR and this masthead was not able to confirm where he was now working. Approached recently at a house in a leafy Brisbane suburb a few minutes' drive from his former QIMR lab, he said he was 'not interested' in responding to the allegations, immediately turning down a printed list of questions as he unpacked golf clubs from his car. 'No thanks, I've been asked … a million times,' Smyth said. Asked twice if he stood by his work and research, he said: 'Can you please just get away. I'm not interested. See you later.'
The Age
25-07-2025
- Science
- The Age
The cancer drug, the faked data and the superstar scientist
On camera, Smyth looks nervous and drawn – a scientist out of water. But in recorded lectures to scientific colleagues, he looks far more assured. Dressed in black with his gelled grey hair, answering technical questions off the cuff, he is a man in command. 'He was a little bit aloof, he had a high opinion of himself. He saw himself as an upper-level person. But he was a nice-enough fellow,' said Brett*, a former colleague who spent time with Smyth outside work and, like others, requested anonymity to avoid professional repercussions. 'His arrogance comes across very quickly,' said a second. 'He had an ab-fab reputation,' said a third, who would later be charged with investigating him. 'That, more than anything else, is the biggest puzzle of all to me. He was not trying to achieve that level of reputation – he'd already achieved it. Why did he feel it was necessary to try for even higher acclaim than he'd already got?' From the outside, Smyth was a rising star, winning awards, publishing important papers, and being showered in millions of dollars of taxpayer research funding. But inside his lab, from the earliest days of his career, concerns were emerging. Selena*, who worked closely alongside Smyth during his time at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, said he only ever wanted to know the good news – even though science is littered with negative results. He 'did not want to hear about things that weren't working. He wanted to see finished results. He did not want to know how it was being done,' she said. 'You'd present raw data, and he'd say, 'You can just leave those points out – they are outliers'.' Other scientists sometimes could not reproduce his results. But rather than question Smyth, they often questioned themselves. 'Maybe he's got better hands than I have. Or maybe the mice are different,' said Brett*. 'There are all these variables.' In 2004, Smyth was the senior author on a paper in top journal Nature Immunology, which was such a sensation that his co-author was nominated for a National Association of Research Fellows award, where Professor David Vaux was secretary. Vaux, 65, is one of Australia's most important cancer researchers, past deputy director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and winner of as many prizes as Smyth. He is also one of the very few researchers willing to take on the scientific establishment when he believes someone is committing research misconduct. A third thing to know about Vaux: when he goes to the doctor, he loves to read the Australian Women's Weekly. The puzzles where you have to spot differences between two images are his favourite. Vaux had first come across Smyth in 1995 when he was asked to comment on a paper the young researcher submitted. He came across paragraphs that seemed similar to Vaux's own work. But when the paper was published, those paragraphs had disappeared. Still, Vaux kept half an eye on the rising star. Years later, he found himself flicking through a 2004 paper Smyth had co-authored. It contained rows of flow cytometry plots of immune cells. Each dot is meant to represent a cell. 'I just looked at them, fused the images, and it was immediately clear they had been duplicated and altered,' said Vaux. The dot pattern kept repeating, as though someone had cut and pasted together the same images in a different order. Each plot contains 10,000 cells. 'The chances of two plots having the same pattern of dots would be 1 in 10 to the power of 1000.' Vaux emailed the paper's authors. 'I can clearly see the problems – one dotplot has been duplicated and modified and used for at least 6 of the plots presented in that revised figure. I still haven't been able to track Mark down,' one wrote back. 'I feel sick.' Nature Immunology launched an investigation and in 2006 retracted the paper because 'it contains a number of errors, including duplications of some flow cytometry plots'. To this day, it is not clear if it was Smyth who duplicated the plots. But a retraction is an enormous black mark on a scientist's career. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre put in place compulsory research integrity training, including a seminar entitled 'Scientists Behaving Badly: Fraud & Misconduct'. This was only the start of Smyth's troubles. In 2014, a thin unmarked envelope was slipped under David Vaux's office door. Inside, under a cover note from 'a concerned scientist', was a copy of a secret Peter Mac investigation into Mark Smyth. The investigation started in 2012, when one of Smyth's PhD students was running a cancer experiment in mice. But the data wasn't good. It looked like another negative experiment. Then, according to the student's evidence, Smyth provided him with a new spreadsheet. It contained records of 20 mice Smyth claimed he had kept as a 'side project'. Smyth said he'd been running the same experiment – with better results. He suggested combining the data, making the results much more positive. At Peter Mac, mice were tracked closely on its Mighty Mouse database, which recorded their births, deaths and every experiment. The student could find no record of Smyth's additional mice on Mighty Mouse. He told Smyth, who suddenly advised tossing the new data. Instead, the concerned student went to Peter Mac, which launched a preliminary investigation. Smyth's personal lab book contained 'not entirely convincing' partial records for 14 of the mice, 'crowded into unlikely spaces', the preliminary investigative report, also obtained by this masthead, says. A further six mice were recorded in a book belonging to a lab assistant. But she told the inquiry she had no memory of monitoring the mice or writing the data in her lab book. She said the handwriting was not hers. 'The animal technicians are right on the ball. If they say a cage of mice, that they know Mark is talking about, never existed – it's not really possible,' one investigator told this masthead, speaking under condition of anonymity to detail confidential information. Peter Mac's preliminary investigation found no independent evidence the mice ever existed and concluded Smyth had a case to answer. 'I thought it wasn't marginal,' said the investigator. 'I thought at the time: 'This guy is in serious trouble here'.' But under an unusual arrangement, the University of Melbourne is responsible for conducting research misconduct investigations at Peter Mac. The sandstone institution would conduct the full investigation. A finding he had made up mice could end Smyth's glittering career. But Smyth's luck turned. On the day of his hearing in front of an expert panel, a Peter Mac employee produced a new datasheet. It was apparently written by Smyth and then 'mislaid'. The employee said they found it while clearing out his office. It contained an error-riddled record for the 20 mice. A handwriting expert brought in by the inquiry determined both this rediscovered loose sheet of paper and the records in the lab assistant's lab book – the ones she said she did not write – were likely written by the same person. That person may have been Smyth, the panel was told. But the expert couldn't be sure. Smyth claimed the central database that recorded mice was often faulty and not fit for purpose. Two of Smyth's colleagues told the panel they had similar problems with the database. One of those colleagues was the person who found Smyth's 'mislaid' data sheet. The other, Robert*, now says the panel misconstrued his evidence. 'When they asked me directly if the mice in question could have existed, I was very clear and responded with a 'no',' he said. 'It does haunt me that my statements have been twisted to allow Mark to escape punishment.' The panel concluded Smyth did not make up the data. He was in the clear. 'It's very hard to understand how Melbourne University could say he wasn't fabricating the data, making it up, and then six or seven years later he's done exactly the same thing at QIMR,' Robert told this masthead. 'Melbourne University needs to take some accountability for allowing Mark to continue misleading scientists and patients.' A senior Australian scientist with close knowledge of the case, speaking anonymously due to restrictions in their employment contract, is absolutely scathing. 'As they'd done with a number of integrity cases, [the University of Melbourne] … concluded there was nothing to see here,' they said. 'The institutional lens is: we have to avoid any suggestion the University of Melbourne has dodgy people, so let's find him not guilty and move him on.' University of Melbourne deputy vice chancellor Professor Mark Cassidy said in a statement that all complaints and allegations were taken seriously and addressed in line with the appropriate guidelines. GSK said its oncology research and development program was 'robust'. 'Our investigations of Nelistotug in combination with other therapies is always based on the full breadth of scientific evidence available,' it said. Smyth was hired by QIMR in 2012, before the Peter Mac allegations were made, and left to join the Queensland-based institute in 2013 - before the investigation was concluded. The allegations he faced soon became the subject of water-cooler gossip, both in Victoria and in Queensland. 'It was a pretty open secret at Peter Mac that Mark Smyth was fudging data,' said a former Peter Mac PhD student. 'No one believed it. It all looked fake.' Smyth himself has never spoken publicly about the saga, he left QIMR and this masthead was not able to confirm where he was now working. Approached recently at a house in a leafy Brisbane suburb a few minutes' drive from his former QIMR lab, he said he was 'not interested' in responding to the allegations, immediately turning down a printed list of questions as he unpacked golf clubs from his car. 'No thanks, I've been asked … a million times,' Smyth said. Asked twice if he stood by his work and research, he said: 'Can you please just get away. I'm not interested. See you later.'
Business Recorder
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Karachi's urban landscape collapsing institutionally
EDITORIAL: For all the death and despair it caused, the Lyari building collapse may finally have shaken the system into some action. At least nine neighbouring buildings have been marked for evacuation and demolition. A five-member committee has been formed. And for once, even the Sindh governor has publicly promised consequences and compensation. But if this tragedy is going to be a turning point, it'll have to do much more than trigger temporary outrage and a few token demolitions. This wasn't just a random structural failure. It was criminal negligence, facilitated by a culture of impunity that extends from corrupt developers to complicit regulators. The Association of Builders and Developers (ABAD) has pointed to a systemic rot – unsafe, unauthorised constructions spreading across Karachi, aided by kickbacks, ignored violations, and an administration that turns a blind eye. In fact, 12 building collapses in recent years have already killed at least 150 people. How many more have to die before this is called what it is: manslaughter by design? Even now, residents of the affected area are protesting. Not because they want to live in crumbling buildings, but because the state has given them no safe alternative. Many of them paid for these homes with everything they had – only to be told their properties were never legal, never safe, and now being bulldozed without compensation or relocation plans. It is impossible to ignore the human cost of this breakdown. And it's even harder to ignore that it stems from a chain of greed, from the illegal floor constructed with a bribe to the planning permission granted under the table. ABAD's press conference didn't pull punches. It revealed that MDA and LDA have collected more than Rs25 billion over seven years for housing schemes that were never delivered. It also accused government departments, police, and regulators of being fully aware of what's happening – and taking their cut anyway. And in what should be an indictment of the entire system, the chairman warned that many building owners now simply wait for their structures to collapse so they can reclaim the land and start afresh. The Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA), of course, issued notices after the latest collapse, and has now started a safety drive. But the question must be asked: where were these notices before 27 people lost their lives? And where was the oversight when the building was being illegally modified, sold, and occupied? Now, the state is trying to present a more humane face. Governor Kamran Tessori has promised 80-square-yard plots, six months' rent, and ration supplies for displaced families. But even if all of that is delivered, which is a big 'if', it won't fix what's broken. Karachi's urban landscape is collapsing not just physically, but institutionally. This city has become a maze of unregulated growth, hollowed out by political patronage, administrative decay, and private profiteering. If there's any silver lining to be drawn from this moment, it's the sliver of urgency now visible across officialdom. But that will mean nothing unless it's followed by structural reform. ABAD has offered to help rebuild the unsafe buildings in 700 days and construct 100,000 homes if the government cooperates. If the state is serious, now is the time to test that offer. Karachi is still growing, still building – but mostly on lies, kickbacks, and unsafe foundations. Until there's accountability from top to bottom, from the man who fakes a building plan to the officer who signs off on it, the city will keep burying its poor under the rubble of its own corruption. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
09-07-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Unsafe buildings: ABAD underscores need for comprehensive reforms
KARACHI: The Association of Builders and Developers (ABAD) has demanded for immediate legislative action and comprehensive reforms to address the growing crisis of unsafe buildings in Karachi following the recent tragic collapse of a five-story building in Lyari. Speaking at a press conference held at ABAD House, Muhammad Hassan Bakhshi said that the competent authority should take immediate legislative action and comprehensive reforms to address the growing crisis of unsafe buildings in Karachi to avert tragic incidents of building collapse in the city. Bakhshi along with Senior Vice Chairman Syed Afzal Hameed, Vice Chairman Tariq Aziz, and other said that the city has witnessed 12 such incidents resulting in 150 deaths over the past few years, attributing these tragedies to 'corruption, greed, and negligence.' The ABAD chairman also criticised the Sindh government for failing to enact proper legislation regarding dilapidated buildings, adding that a disturbing pattern where property owners deliberately wait for buildings to collapse to claim plot ownership was observed. He requested the Sindh government to find solutions for approximately 700 identified unsafe buildings across the city. 'These buildings should be inspected with the assistance of National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK),' he urged. ABAD chairman also pointed out the widespread illegal construction in the city, where additional floors are being added to existing structures without proper authorisation. 'These constructions put public life and property at risk,' he said and added that such buildings typically have a lifespan of only 15-20 years. Bakhshi alleged that local administration, police, and relevant authorities are complicit in these illegal activities, while vulnerable populations are forced to live in these dangerous structures. He urged the government to increase compensation amount from Rs 1 million to Rs 2.5 million. The chairman ABAD further revealed that over the past seven years, authorities like MDA and LDA have collected over Rs 25 billion rupees for residential schemes that have never been delivered to the public. Bakhshi proposed that ABAD could construct dilapidated buildings within 700 days and is prepared to build 100,000 houses if requested by the Sindh government, suggesting the government to collaborate with Chinese companies in this regards. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Over 700 ‘dangerous' buildings in Karachi pose threat to lives, says ABAD chairman
Around 700 dangerous and hundreds of thousands of illegally and poorly constructed buildings in Karachi continue to pose a constant threat to the lives and properties of residents of the metropolitan city, Association of Builders and Developers (ABAD) chairman Muhammad Hassan Bakshi said on Tuesday. Speaking at a press conference at ABAD House, Bakshi rejected a government-formed committee investigating the recent building collapse in Lyari, demanding that representatives from the private sector be included in the inquiry. A five-story residential building collapsed in Karachi's Lyari last week, killing 27 people. After the building incident, Sindh government removed Ishaq Khowro from his position as Director General of the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA). Shahmir Khan Bhutto has been appointed as his replacement. 'In the past five years, collapses of illegally constructed buildings have claimed 150 lives,' Bakshi said, attributing to 'corruption, greed, and government negligence'. 'Sindh government is showing no interest in developing a master plan for Karachi,' he said. 'Around 700 dangerous and hundreds of thousands of illegally and poorly constructed buildings in Karachi continue to pose a constant threat to the lives and properties of residents,' Bakshi warned. ABAD is willing to reconstruct all 700 dangerous buildings, according to its chairman, who demanded that families of those who died in the Lyari tragedy be compensated with Rs2.5 million each. Those rendered homeless should receive Rs1 million in aid, Bakshi added. He claimed that additional floors were being constructed illegally without approval, and the foundations and roofs of such buildings were only suitable for 15 to 20 years. 'Local authorities, police, and relevant officials are complicit in these illegal constructions, while residents, out of necessity, are forced to live in hazardous conditions,' ABAD chairman claimed. Construction sector: builders, developers call for 15-year tax policy Bakshi warned that in the event of an earthquake, thousands of these structures could collapse, leading to large-scale loss of life. He called for anti-terrorism charges to be filed against the builders responsible for illegal constructions and the government officials who enable them. Bakshi further criticised Sindh government for 'failing to enact effective legislation on the issue of dangerous buildings' and urged authorities to conduct a structural survey with the help of credible institutions such as NESPAK or NDMA. Bakshi identified the areas where dangerous buildings were located. The areas he claimed about including Delhi Colony, Liaquatabad, Lyari, and others. He further claimed that authorities like Malir Development Authority (MDA) and Lahore Development Authority (LDA) had collected over Rs25 billion under the guise of residential schemes but had failed to deliver even a single completed project. Meanwhile, ABAD chairman appealed to Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah to launch housing schemes in Sindh similar to those introduced by Maryam Nawaz in Punjab, noting that there is 'a severe housing shortage in Sindh, which is being exploited by the mafia'. 'If Sindh government assigns ABAD the task of building 100,000 houses, the association is ready,' Bakshi said.
