‘They wanted our WhatsApps’: Staff claim culture of fear at Florey

In December 2024, researchers at the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health were called into a meeting with senior leadership.

Recollections differ about the tone of the meeting, but the message was clear.

Taxpayer-funded research grants are the lifeblood of independent research institutes – and the Florey was not winning nearly enough.

“At a time when most researchers were devastated at finding they were unsuccessful after spending months preparing applications,” one said, leadership “got up in front of everyone and berated us for not doing good enough”.

“After that meeting, everyone was walking around chatting to colleagues saying ‘can you believe it? I can’t believe that happened’.”

Yesterday, an investigation by this masthead revealed the venerable institute – which the Rockefeller Foundation helped establish and was named after penicillin pioneer and Nobel Laureate Howard Florey – had become embroiled in chaos as it faced financial strife and an exodus of top research talent.

Today, the investigation focuses on the scientific fallout from that turmoil – numerous complaints about the culture inside the Florey and the string of court cases in which it is now embroiled.

This masthead has spoken to 22 former or current Florey staff – very few willing to be identified publicly for fear of retribution – to build a picture of a once-great institution under extreme financial pressure and facing accusations of building an unhealthy atmosphere for a workforce trying to solve dementia, Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, MND and mental health conditions.

“They’ve created this culture: the scientists are the ones to blame for the problem they are in. A pure toxic culture has developed,” said a current researcher, speaking under condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

“They have taken the option to go completely corporate. You can’t do that with a research institute because you’re just going to end up getting rid of most people – and the rest are going to want to leave.”

A Florey spokeswoman said falls in grant income “reflect[ed] a tightening national funding environment” and “notably, funding for dementia reduced by 48% over the same time period” according to the National Health and Medical Research Council, website and annual disease funding statistics.

They denied anyone had been “berated” about grant success rates, and said the meeting discussed “low national success rates”.

“This was a constructive discussion that identified other grant schemes that our researchers could apply to.”

But a confidential Florey presentation from February 2025 lamented “limited grant success in 2024 funding round, below expectations, partly due to inconsistent and inefficient grant support”.

“Every funding round was just a constant disappointment,” said a former staff member.

In response to poor success rates, the institute proposed implementing an internal vetting system before grants could be submitted.

“The result is less grants being submitted in order to artificially inflate the apparent success rate, a metric which has absolutely no impact on researchers,” said a former researcher.

A spokeswoman for the Florey said it was “committed to attracting and retaining the brightest minds in medical research, while supporting professional development and opportunities across the medical research sector”. The institute does not prevent researchers from submitting grant applications, she said.

Three current and two former researchers said the turmoil, staff losses and cost-cutting at the institute made it hard to do quality science.

“It’s so sad. Seeing the good these scientists want to do and can do, but at the top there’s this group that is so focused on money, nothing else really matters,” said a former staff member.

“And that’s the most disappointing thing. There was this obsession with monetising anything they could – the science got lost, it really got lost.”

‘Nickel-and-diming everything’

Yesterday, this masthead’s investigation into the Florey revealed it had been running multimillion-dollar deficits since 2022, while commercial revenues – crucial to the Florey business model – have nearly halved since 2022.

“We need to continue to look at all measures that can help The Florey’s ongoing financial sustainability,” a confidential presentation from February 2025 reads.

In an effort to cut costs, “they are nickel-and-diming everything”, said a current researcher. “Every penny gets fought over.”

In early 2024, Florey scientists were told they would be asked to pay “bench fees”: thousands of dollars per researcher for using the Florey’s laboratory benches to do science.

Staff have been limited from accessing machines and ordering chemicals essential to basic experiments, two current researchers said.

‘They took their phones and laptops. They cut their access to the building. They asked someone to export all their WhatsApp chats.’

Researcher

“They have brought in lots of different costs. They are charging extra things, and making it almost impossible to do research,” said a current Florey scientist, speaking anonymously due to fear of retribution.

“Can you tell me any organisation in research that’s able to work on a cost-recovery basis? That’s not how it works.”

Following complaints from staff, leadership did not end up imposing the new “bench fees”; a spokeswoman said it did not operate a full cost-recovery model.

But the incident is emblematic of a new, corporate culture focused on cost cuts at the venerable institute, staff say.

The Florey receives a federal government grant to fund free testing for patients who may have prion disease, a lethal neurodegenerative condition. In February, the funding agreement was varied allowing the Florey to charge for the service.

The institute has been trying to cut down on conference travel and catering. A staff member recalled being scolded after handing out a $12 parking voucher.

“Most scientists are fed up with Florey’s lack of support and they mostly had to deal with the political atmosphere created by the senior executives, who were mostly from [the] corporate world and who are trying to corporatise the Florey,” said a former researcher.

“To do good research you need a good environment to attract and – most importantly – keep good researchers, which is not the case in recent years,” said a current researcher.

‘No one feels safe’

Four current and seven former staff said the workplace had become “toxic”, with senior management increasingly paranoid.

“They want to instigate a little bit of fear. Because that’s a very good tool to keep people’s head down, not to go to the union, not to know their rights,” said a former researcher.

A current researcher described being treated “like criminals”, and watching another team being surveilled.

“They took their phones and laptops. They cut their access to the building. They asked someone to export all their WhatsApp chats,” they said.

Another researcher confirmed the institute had tried to search WhatsApp chats.

“No one feels safe. Even when I leave my laptop on the desk, people say, take it – they don’t know if [management is] going to take it.”

Another current researcher described “a culture of paranoia”, where employees are worried the institute is using microphones on laptops to spy on them. “Every one of us now has second email accounts because we know the emails are being monitored.”

The Florey said it “rejects this characterisation of the culture of the institute”, and “does not search personal phones”.

‘They overwhelm you, and tell you ‘you are shit’, until you leave.’

Former researcher

The Florey faces another strain on its budget: a remarkable pattern of lawsuits involving current and former staff.

This masthead can reveal the institute has been embroiled in at least 10 court cases since 2024, some involving its biggest names.

“For an organisation of that size, it is a lot,” said a former staff member with direct knowledge of the legal actions.

Three former or current Florey scientists, including star researcher Bradley Turner, have appeared before the Fair Work Commission since May, according to court listings.

Its former chief operating officer took the Florey to the Fair Work Commission in December 2023; the outcome of his case was not disclosed, and he did not return requests for comment.

An institute spokeswoman said it did not comment on legal cases. The number of cases before the Fair Work Commission was “not disproportionate with other organisations of our size, in an environment where funding is tough”. No fair work rulings have been made against the Florey.

Staff members Susan Cox and Soniya Survase applied to the commission in March 2025 after their employment at the Florey ended; both were on repeatedly renewed one-year contracts, with Cox having been there for 14 years.

The commission ruled they were not fixed-term employees, and therefore rejected their claim for redundancy payments.

“There are so many cases in Fair Work,” said one former senior staff member. “They are inundated with the number of lawsuits or other legal cases,” said a current staff member.

The most critical lawsuit involves former Florey business development manager James Tran.

The Florey last year alleged, in a suit filed in Victoria’s Supreme Court, Tran stole thousands of documents, and entered the Florey late at night to delete other files.

Tran denies the allegation. He is now pursuing a separate workplace relations claim against the Florey in the Federal Circuit Court.

He told the court in September he had raised concerns at the Florey and then was accused of misconduct, threatened with termination, and placed under “sustained pressure” to resign.

The Florey’s legal representative described Tran’s remarks as “a form of tirade against a former employer”.

It is not the first time the Florey has faced allegations it forced out staff who raised concerns.

In March 2024, Hannah Hellwich, an animal technician, was sacked by the Florey following an internal investigation.

According to Fair Work Commission documents, Hellwich was then told her termination could be reclassified as a resignation, and she would get six weeks’ pay if she signed a “deed of release” – an agreement typically used to close off any future legal claims against an employer.

As part of an unfair dismissal application later that year, Hellwich told the commission she “felt pressured to sign the deed, and that she believed that the Florey wanted her to do so in order to ‘shut her up’.”

She told the commission the Florey “just wanted to get rid of her” after she made “serious allegations against another employee” – something the Florey “rejected”.

The commission found Hellwich submitted her unfair dismissal application a day late, and rejected the application.

“There are plenty of people who have received allegations and have been basically forced to resign. There are plenty,” said a former researcher. “They definitely looked at certain researchers and decided they have to go, so we’ll be mean to them so they have to leave,” said another.

Two former researchers said they were accused of misconduct as a pretext for terminating them. Other former staff allege they were given poor performance reviews to allow the Florey to terminate them.

“They overwhelm you, and tell you ‘you are shit’, until you leave,” said one.

In response to detailed questions about staffing and culture, a spokeswoman for the Florey said it “does not have a strategy to ‘push out’ particular staff members”.

“Reductions in staff numbers is a sector-wide occurrence associated with intense funding pressures,” she said.

The Examine newsletter explains and analyses science with a rigorous focus on the evidence. Sign up to get it each week.