tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/research-grants-12620/articlesResearch grants – The Conversation2023-05-23T02:27:22Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2056492023-05-23T02:27:22Z2023-05-23T02:27:22ZFewer women receive research grants – but the reasons are more complicated than you’d think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/527474/original/file-20230522-17-f66dbl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=19%2C79%2C4355%2C2855&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-woman-entomologist-sea-491813269">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It likely comes as no surprise that women receive a smaller share of research funding than men. But untangling the underlying reasons is no small feat.</p>
<p>A recently published <a href="https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-023-00127-3">international review</a> spanning 45 years found that women accounted for just under a quarter of awards.</p>
<p>But <a href="https://osf.io/cpvqk/">our own study of 46,912 grants</a> awarded in Australia by the <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/">Australian Research Council</a> and <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">National Health and Medical Research Council</a> over 20 years points to a complex issue that extends beyond granting systems: fewer women researchers mean fewer women applicants, in turn leading to fewer women receiving grants. </p>
<h2>The international scene</h2>
<p>In the recent international review, the authors synthesised evidence from 55 studies from 14 countries including the United States and Canada, and the European Union, from 1975 to 2020. Their analysis explored gender differences in grant award outcomes, success rates and funding amounts. </p>
<p>They found, on average:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>fewer awarded grants were led by women (24%) than men (76%)</p></li>
<li><p>30% of applicants were women. Success rates for grants led by women (23%) did not differ significantly from those led by men (24%)</p></li>
<li><p>women researchers received about half the amount of research funds per grant than men – an average of US$342,000 compared to men with an average of US$659,000. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>But this international analysis only incorporated one year of Australian data, limiting the degree to which those findings might pan out here.</p>
<h2>What about Australia?</h2>
<p>We, the research team at the Office of the <a href="https://womeninstem.org.au/">Australian Government’s Women in STEM Ambassador</a>, deployed a statistical model that enabled us to detect nuanced patterns by simultaneously considering not only gender, but also career seniority, field of research and time. This research is currently available <a href="https://osf.io/cpvqk/">as a preprint ahead of peer review</a>.</p>
<p>Echoing findings of the international study, our modelling revealed fewer awarded grants were led by women than men. However, we also found that career seniority mattered – increasingly fewer women researchers received grants at a senior level. The percentage of grants led by women was 36% among early-career, 30% among mid-career, and 21% among senior-career researchers. </p>
<p>We also found that gender differences in awarded grants varied by field of research. Proportionally fewer awarded grants were led by women in the fields of chemical sciences, mathematical sciences, Earth sciences, engineering, technology and physical sciences.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-women-are-studying-stem-but-there-are-still-stubborn-workplace-barriers-190839">More women are studying STEM, but there are still stubborn workplace barriers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We documented progress towards gender parity over the 20-year period, and the rate of progress depended on career seniority. The percentage of awarded grants led by early-career women rose from 29% in 2000 to 42% in 2020. The increase was from 21% to 40% for mid-career and from 14% to 30% for senior-career women researchers.</p>
<p>However, progress is slow and these percentages remain well below gender parity. </p>
<p>Importantly, we found that success rates for grants led by women did not differ significantly from men’s success rates. Based on this, we conclude it’s unlikely the main source of gender disparities in grant outcomes is how the research is assessed. </p>
<p>Unlike the findings from the international review, we found that funding amounts didn’t differ by gender. Women-led grants in Australia were awarded the same amount of funding per grant as men-led grants.</p>
<p>That said, because fewer awarded grants were led by women, the total funds showed a substantial difference: A$19 billion awarded to men lead investigators versus A$7.4 billion awarded to women lead investigators.</p>
<h2>What about the workforce?</h2>
<p>It is important to place these gender differences in the context of research workforce participation. According to available <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/evaluating-research/excellence-research-australia">Australian data</a>, there are fewer women than men in the research workforce. In fact, for every 100 men researchers, there are only 75 women researchers on average. </p>
<p>When we considered the number of awarded grants relative to workforce participation, we found the award rate was actually higher for women than men, especially among senior career researchers. For every 1,000 women professors in the research workforce, eight led a successfully funded grant each year; whereas for every 1,000 men professors, five led a successfully funded grant each year. </p>
<p>Despite award rates favouring women over men (noting the workforce data are not as comprehensive as our grant funding data), fewer women researchers mean fewer women applicants, which means fewer women awardees overall. </p>
<p>Pulling all this together, it seems gender differences in Australian research grant programs may primarily arise from unequal workforce participation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-lack-of-confidence-thats-holding-back-women-in-stem-155216">It's not lack of confidence that's holding back women in STEM</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What can we do?</h2>
<p>We need to support women entering the research workforce and ensure they remain there and can progress in their careers. Barriers to women’s workforce participation have been extensively <a href="https://www.science.org.au/support/analysis/decadal-plans-science/women-in-stem-decadal-plan">documented</a>. The responsibility to remove such barriers rests with several entities. </p>
<p>Higher education and research institutes have social and legal responsibilities to provide environments in which all researchers have an equal opportunity to excel. In Australia, <a href="https://sciencegenderequity.org.au/">Science in Australia Gender Equity</a> provides an accreditation framework to <a href="https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9">identify and address inequities</a> and can <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e032915">accelerate the increase of women in leadership positions</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1652926995163136002"}"></div></p>
<p>Governments and research funders can incentivise these and other gender-equity initiatives. Options include mandating workplace gender targets, equity plans or relevant accreditation as a condition of receiving government funds. These approaches are <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3975">shown to progress gender equity</a>.</p>
<p>Only when the whole sector comes together to contribute solutions across the research ecosystem will we see genuine, sustainable progress towards gender equity.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this article contained slightly different results of the analysis of ARC and NHMRC grants due to an issue with the data relating to career seniority. The authors have rectified the error, reanalysed the data, and here report the updated results. The pattern of findings and conclusions has not changed.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As Senior Research Associate for the Australian Government's Women in STEM Ambassador, Isabelle Kingsley receives funding from the Australian Government that supports this work.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Johnston currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council for her Antarctic research. Professor Johnston has previously received funding from the Department of Industry, Science, and Resources that supported Australia's Women in STEM Ambassador and this research project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa A. Williams receives funding from the Australian government (Australian Research Council; Department of Industry, Science, and Resources).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>As the Australian Government's Women in STEM Ambassador, Lisa Harvey-Smith receives funding from the Australian Government that supports this work. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eve Slavich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Overall, women receive a smaller share of research funding – but it’s not due to how applications are weighed up. The problem starts with the workforce itself.Isabelle Kingsley, Senior Research Associate at the Office of the Women in STEM Ambassador, UNSW SydneyEmma Johnston, Professor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), University of SydneyEve Slavich, Statistical Consultant, UNSW SydneyLisa A Williams, Associate Professor, School of Psychology, UNSW SydneyLisa Harvey-Smith, Australian Government Women in STEM Ambassador, Professor of Practice, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1993702023-02-16T22:48:25Z2023-02-16T22:48:25ZTwo decades of stagnant funding have rendered Canada uncompetitive in biomedical research. Here’s why it matters, and how to fix it.<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510657/original/file-20230216-28-ouv28s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=30%2C45%2C4805%2C2828&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Canada needs to revitalize its scientific mojo, and to do so must improve research funding.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>You may imagine that the hard part of being a Canadian scientist is having a bright idea. However, while curiosity, persistence and inventiveness are prerequisites for scientific success, the major obstacle to being a biomedical scientist in Canada is obtaining research funding. </p>
<p>Canadian biomedical scientists receive funding to hire scientific staff and buy experimental materials by applying for federally funded grants from the <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html">Canadian Institutes of Health Research</a> (CIHR). </p>
<p>To purchase their high-tech tools (infrastructure), researchers apply for grants from the <a href="https://www.innovation.ca/">Canada Foundation for Innovation</a> (CFI). These <a href="https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canada-fundamental-science-review/en">grant agencies are underfunded</a>, and some of their programs are poorly designed, with <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/53379.html">funding success rates so low</a> scientists must apply repeatedly to obtain funding that is financially inadequate. </p>
<p>As a result, Canadian scientists may feel like they spend more time writing grant applications than doing research. The reality is that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg0899">stagnant funding is holding back Canadian science</a>.</p>
<p>Securing CIHR grants has become impractically competitive. Most applications require multiple revisions and resubmissions, often imposing an interval of one to two years between first submission and funding. Since funding from a CIHR project grant only lasts five years, the life of the lab — and the jobs of Canadian scientists — are recurrently in jeopardy. </p>
<h2>Core funding issues</h2>
<p>Let’s review the core problems with the funding of Canadian science. Stagnation in Canada’s biomedical grant funding reflects the fact CIHR’s funding from the Government of Canada <a href="https://can-acn.org/science-funding-in-canada-statistics/#CIHR_Grant_application_success_rates_2000-2021">has not increased since 2006 (in constant dollars, year 2000) and is not predicted to increase by 2025</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Bar graph showing static spending levels over six years" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510677/original/file-20230216-20-ms9knt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510677/original/file-20230216-20-ms9knt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510677/original/file-20230216-20-ms9knt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510677/original/file-20230216-20-ms9knt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510677/original/file-20230216-20-ms9knt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510677/original/file-20230216-20-ms9knt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510677/original/file-20230216-20-ms9knt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Graph of planned spending over time illustrates that CIHR funding is flat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52738.html#5.1">(CIHR data)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The United States is a relevant comparator because it is home to many of the world’s leading scientists. Canadian scientists, if not funded, often relocate to the U.S. Compare America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2020-21 budget of <a href="https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget#:%7E:text=The%20NIH%20invests%20most%20of,research%20for%20the%20American%20people.">US$45 billion</a> (roughly C$60 billion) to CIHR’s C$1.2 billion. America’s NIH budget is 50-fold that of Canada’s CIHR budget, but the U.S. population is only nine-fold greater than ours. </p>
<p><a href="https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm">Canada’s spending on research and development</a>, as a percentage of gross domestic spending, is also smaller than the U.S.’s. </p>
<h2>Grant competition success rates</h2>
<p>The success rate in CIHR grant competitions has declined from 31 per cent in 2005 to <a href="https://can-acn.org/science-funding-in-canada-statistics/">around 15 per cent in 2020</a>. </p>
<p>CIHR evaluates applications on a <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/4656.html#2.5">scale of zero to 4.9</a>, corresponding to categories of poor, fair, very good, excellent and outstanding. Currently, CIHR grants are rarely funded unless the voted score is outstanding (rated 4.4 to 4.9). Usually only the top 18 per cent of all grants — <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/53379.html">fewer than one in five</a> — are funded, and virtually all grants rated excellent are rejected. </p>
<p>This low-success endeavor is a demoralizing waste of time for the 82 per cent of scientists who are rejected and for the peer-review volunteers — unpaid colleagues who spent weeks reviewing the applications.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="chart showing CIHR grant rating categories" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510643/original/file-20230216-16-vhukiy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510643/original/file-20230216-16-vhukiy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510643/original/file-20230216-16-vhukiy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510643/original/file-20230216-16-vhukiy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510643/original/file-20230216-16-vhukiy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510643/original/file-20230216-16-vhukiy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510643/original/file-20230216-16-vhukiy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Almost all grants scored by CIHR as excellent go unfunded.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/4656.html#2.5">(CIHR data)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Once funded, challenges remain. All CIHR awarded project grants are now subject to a <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52564.html">23.5 per cent across-the-board funding cut</a>. This cut allowed CIHR to fund 87 additional grants per competition from 2018 to 2020, however the value of a five-year project grant shrank from $950,000 to $725,000. </p>
<p>These cuts mean scientific staff must take pay cuts or be terminated, and the approved research can only be partially completed.</p>
<h2>Fixing funding</h2>
<p>Canada needs to revitalize its scientific mojo and <a href="https://www.tvo.org/video/has-canada-lost-its-science-game">to do so must improve research funding</a>. There are several steps that would improve science funding in Canada.</p>
<p><strong>1. Implement the Fundamental Science Review recommendations</strong></p>
<p>The fix for Canadian science was well enunciated by the <a href="https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canada-fundamental-science-review/en">Fundamental Science Review, also known as the Naylor Report, in 2017</a>. This report recognized that underfunded Canadian science was falling behind. </p>
<p>It noted that federal underfunding is exacerbated by CIHR’s practice of earmarking substantial portions of its limited funds to targeted proposals that address governmental priorities, rather than funding research and discovery science. </p>
<p>The report made simple recommendations to improve Canadian research: “Rapidly increase its investment in independent, investigator-led, research to redress the imbalance caused by differential investments favouring priority-driven, targeted research.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A group of people sitting on blue storage drawer units in a V formation." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509333/original/file-20230210-28-7wuu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509333/original/file-20230210-28-7wuu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509333/original/file-20230210-28-7wuu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509333/original/file-20230210-28-7wuu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509333/original/file-20230210-28-7wuu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509333/original/file-20230210-28-7wuu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509333/original/file-20230210-28-7wuu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Members of the author’s research team at the Archer laboratory at Queen’s University.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://deptmed.queensu.ca/research/teams/dr-archers-lab">(Author provided)</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It also recommended “formation of an independent advisory committee on basic research and industrial innovation, comprised of leaders in research and industry” (not government employees). Our government currently makes many top-down science funding decisions without a strategic scientific plan or an external scientific committee to advise them. An independent advisory committee would reduce political interference in science. </p>
<p>The Naylor report’s recommendations have not been fully implemented, but would transform Canadian research. This would require commitment of an additional 0.4 per cent of the Government of Canada’s annual budget to our science sector. </p>
<p><strong>2. Fund salaries for scientists who run infrastructure</strong></p>
<p>In the meantime, CFI and CIHR could each implement “researcher-centric” changes. </p>
<p>CFI could accompany its infrastructure grants with funding for the scientists who are needed to operate these complex research platforms. </p>
<p>CFI grants are used to purchase the multi-million-dollar tools needed to conduct research at the cutting-edge, such as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2013-304340">NextGen gene sequencers</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0110">super resolution confocal microscopes</a>. <a href="https://www.innovation.ca/sites/default/files/2021-10/CFI-IF-2020-By-the-numbers.pdf">CFI has a 30 per cent funding success rate</a>, allowing purchase of infrastructure; but it does not pay for the scientists who run these scientific infrastructure platforms. </p>
<p>This makes it difficult to sustain a CFI scientific platform. </p>
<p><strong>3. Bring back the foundation grant program</strong></p>
<p>CIHR could resurrect its very successful foundation grant program. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman in a white coat in a lab" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/510660/original/file-20230216-30-iobgib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Foundation grants allowed scientists to bundle all their research into a single, comprehensive application.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>CIHR understood that its most successful scientists usually required two to three project grants, and recognized the time drag that acquiring multiple project grants required. </p>
<p>They responded in 2014 with the foundation grant program. Foundation grants allowed scientists to bundle all their research into a single, comprehensive application which offered more funding (equivalent to two to three project grants) for a longer duration (seven years instead of five years for project grants). </p>
<p>This allowed researchers to spend more time on doing science and less on writing and reviewing grants. My foundation grant gave me the stability and flexibility to simultaneously study oxygen sensing, mitochondrial dynamics and to develop drugs to treat pulmonary hypertension, cancer and <a href="https://www.queensu.ca/gazette/stories/how-covid-19-damages-lungs">COVID-19</a>.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/51431.html">foundation grant program was unceremoniously terminated</a>, forcing grant holders to once again, apply for two to three simultaneous project grants. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-covid-19-damages-lungs-the-virus-attacks-mitochondria-continuing-an-ancient-battle-that-began-in-the-primordial-soup-192597">How COVID-19 damages lungs: The virus attacks mitochondria, continuing an ancient battle that began in the primordial soup</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Funding research pays off</h2>
<p>Researchers are key to Canada’s capacity to create a high-tech economy, build the biomedical sector and seed entrepreneurial activity. Researchers also support our academic health sciences centres and universities, making them internationally competitive. </p>
<p>Research has a great return on investment, with an estimated <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/">30 to 100 per cent of the expenditure on publicly funded research being returned to society</a>. Each research laboratory is a small business creating well-paying jobs, knowledge and intellectual property, which many commercialize. </p>
<p>In addition to launching medical innovations, patents and spin-off companies, Canada’s researchers teach university students, and many CIHR-funded clinician-scientists provide patient care in our hospitals. In all of these ways, investment in research is critical to making Canada healthy, wealthy and wise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199370/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen L Archer receives funding from CIHR and CFI. He previously received funding from NIH.</span></em></p>Researchers are key to Canada’s capacity to create a high-tech economy, build the biomedical sector and seed entrepreneurial activity, but they can’t do it without research funding.Stephen L Archer, Professor, Head of Department of Medicine, Queen's University, OntarioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1833492022-05-22T20:01:58Z2022-05-22T20:01:58Z3 big issues in higher education demand the new government’s attention<p>Higher education did not figure prominently in the election campaign. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-major-parties-need-to-do-about-higher-education-this-election-180855?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton">biggest issues</a> facing the sector, in particular the arts, humanities and social sciences, could never be fully addressed in six weeks, but the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH) urges the incoming Labor government to act on three issues as a priority.</p>
<p>The first is the impacts in Australia’s universities of the former Coalition government’s <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/job-ready">Job-Ready Graduates Package</a> announced in June 2020. The changes included enormous fee increases for humanities, arts and social science (HASS) subjects. </p>
<p>The second issue is the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/university-research-commercialisation-package/resources/university-research-commercialisation-action-plan">Research Commercialisation Action Plan</a> released in February this year.</p>
<p>Third, the acting minister for education and employment, Stuart Robert, <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/letter-expectations-minister-arc">wrote</a> to the Australian Research Council (ARC) in December 2021 to direct that a significant portion of research funding be awarded to projects that demonstrate a strong connection with Australia’s manufacturing priorities. Research funding for the arts, humanities and social sciences is shrinking. </p>
<p>Taken together, these three policy shifts represent a sustained assault on the arts, humanities and social sciences. Ministerial vetoes of ARC <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/discovery-program/discovery-projects">discovery grants</a> in late 2021 added to the picture of federal government disregard for our fields of education and research and their role in Australian society.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-major-parties-need-to-do-about-higher-education-this-election-180855">Here's what the major parties need to do about higher education this election</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The myths about ‘job-ready’ graduates</h2>
<p>The Job-Ready Graduates Package was announced in 2020. Student <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/feb/08/demand-for-arts-and-humanities-still-high-despite-coalition-university-fee-increases">fee increases</a> of 113% apply to most arts degree subjects from 2022. This has had a <a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/DASSH-statement-March-CPI-education-figures.pdf">direct impact on inflation</a>. </p>
<p>The previous government assumed that studying these subjects will not get you a job, despite its own <a href="https://www.qilt.edu.au/surveys">graduate outcomes data</a> showing the opposite. <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/stats-publications/student-stats/">According to Universities Australia</a>, 36% of domestic students and 11% of international students were enrolled in arts, humanities and social sciences in 2018. Yet the government inferred that these disciplinary fields contribute little to Australia’s cultural and economic interests.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1288599048040185856"}"></div></p>
<p>According to <a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/DASSH_HASS_and_Future_Workforce_FINAL_Report_2018.11_.21_.pdf">research</a> commissioned by the Council of Deans, graduates from the HASS fields make up two-thirds of the Australian workforce. The <a href="https://qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2021-ess-national-report.pdf">QILT Employer Satisfaction Survey</a> of 2021 showed graduates of “society and culture” degrees exceed the national average in their preparedness for employment.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/3-flaws-in-job-ready-graduates-package-will-add-to-the-turmoil-in-australian-higher-education-147740">3 flaws in Job-Ready Graduates package will add to the turmoil in Australian higher education</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A blinkered approach to research commercialisation</h2>
<p>The research commercialisation plan will focus research efforts on the six national manufacturing priorities identified in the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/make-it-happen-the-australian-governments-modern-manufacturing-strategy/our-modern-manufacturing-strategy">Modern Manufacturing Strategy</a>. </p>
<p>Researchers in the humanities and social sciences will find it <a href="https://twitter.com/auDASSH/status/1509358484349132800">almost impossible to attract funding</a> under these priorities. The creative industries might have better prospects in some areas such as design for new technologies.</p>
<p>However, the Coalition government’s own policies were contradictory. The <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/national-research-infrastructure/2021-national-research-infrastructure-roadmap">National Research Infrastructure Roadmap</a>, released in April 2022, points to “outcomes from research in the creative arts, humanities and social sciences disciplines” as being “critical to achieve the economic, social and environmental benefits we strive for”. The roadmap suggested this research will “play an important role in ensuring social acceptance and uptake of research outcomes, adoption of new technologies and ensuring ethical and responsible development and application of emerging technologies”. </p>
<p>The Council of Deans <a href="https://twitter.com/auDASSH/status/1511950479684927490">welcomed</a> this recognition of the value of HASS research.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-governments-2-2bn-10-year-plan-get-a-better-return-on-australian-research-it-all-depends-on-changing-the-culture-176358">Will the government's $2.2bn, 10-year plan get a better return on Australian research? It all depends on changing the culture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>HASS research suffers from meddling in grants</h2>
<p>In December 2021, acting minister Robert asked that discovery grants be assessed under a strengthened national interest test. He also asked the ARC to “bring forward a proposal to enhance and expand the role of the industry and other end-user experts in assessing the National Interest Test of high-quality projects”. </p>
<p><a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/DASSH-Statement-ARC-proposed-changes-December-2021.pdf">We have argued</a> these proposals represent a major shift for researchers in Australia. They would further entrench the changes that are pushing research dollars away from arts, humanities and social sciences.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1511598194530340868"}"></div></p>
<p>Not only this but, <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=1;query=Catharine%20Coleborne;rec=2;resCount=Default">as I noted</a> at a Senate hearing on the ARC Amendment Bill 2018, applying a national interest test to inquiry-driven research links funding decisions to immediate, commercial and political concerns. Our STEM colleagues <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20220513a/full/">agree</a>.</p>
<p>ARC research grants have also been subject to <a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/DASSH-STATEMENT-ARC-Veto-19-Jan-2022.pdf">vetoes</a> by government ministers, drawing <a href="https://twitter.com/auDASSH/status/1501707290432655362">condemnation</a> both <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN3949">in Australia and internationally</a>. The vast majority of grant vetoes since <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024901/toc_pdf/AustralianResearchCouncilAmendment(EnsuringResearchIndependence)Bill2018.pdf%3BfileType=application/pdf">2005</a> have affected humanities and social science projects, with the government showing ignorance of our contribution. Senator Amanda Stoker, for example, representing the education minister at a Senate estimates hearing in February, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-value-for-money-liberal-senator-stoker-defends-research-grant-veto-20220216-p59wzi.html">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We are very happy to stand by the decision to reject a research project on how climate shaped the Elizabethan theatre. Presumably it’s something about how the theatre might have needed a roof or something.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1494460482996273153"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-resigned-from-the-arc-college-of-experts-after-minister-vetoed-research-grants-175925">Why we resigned from the ARC College of Experts after minister vetoed research grants</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>The value of our disciplines can be seen in every part of Australian life. Without arts, humanities and social sciences research we would not be using languages to build peace and diplomacy in our region, or have our current social institutions forging democracy. We would not have “Big History”: the study of how how humans and our environment have co-existed and influenced change over time leading to the profound understandings of humanity’s origins through interdisciplinary research. We would have little shared conceptual knowledge of our nation’s ancient histories and Indigenous cultures.</p>
<p>We have extensive collective experience as deans of these disciplinary fields in almost every university in Australia. We argue that researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences have been highly responsive to the need to forge relevant research. </p>
<p>We look forward to working with the next minister for education to implement changes to these policies that will benefit our universities and the hundreds of thousands of students studying in our degree areas.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catharine Coleborne is the President of the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH), the peak body for Deans (and equivalent roles) of these fields across Australia and New Zealand, representing 43 university members.</span></em></p>The Coalition government showed a disdain for the arts, humanities and social sciences. The plight of these disciplines requires action from the incoming Labor government on three fronts.Catharine Coleborne, Dean of Arts/Head of School Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1790782022-03-11T01:30:52Z2022-03-11T01:30:52ZAs the Senate discusses research and ministerial vetoes, here’s one idea for an independent, accountable grant scheme<p>The Senate’s education and employment legislation committee is <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/ARCBill">discussing</a> a Greens <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1150">bill</a> designed to shore up the independence of the Australian Research Council (ARC).</p>
<p>The inquiry has revealed important questions about research independence, ministerial responsibility for grant programs, and the failures of parliamentary oversight of the spending of public money.</p>
<p>A stoush has emerged over apparently competing principles on the role of ministerial involvement – but there is a better way to do this.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1501650630519115776"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/disappointment-and-disbelief-after-morrison-government-vetoes-research-into-student-climate-activism-174699">'Disappointment and disbelief’ after Morrison government vetoes research into student climate activism'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Ministers have vetoed ARC grants before</h2>
<p>It was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/24/federal-governments-christmas-eve-veto-of-research-projects-labelled-mccarthyism">revealed</a> on Christmas Eve 2021 the acting education minister, Stuart Robert, had vetoed six ARC discovery grants.</p>
<p>The ARC’s rigorous peer-review selection <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/grant-outcomes/selection-outcome-reports/selection-report-discovery-projects-2022">process</a> had recommended each grant against established criteria.</p>
<p>The minister vetoed the grants on the basis they “did not demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest”.</p>
<p>All six were in the humanities, and included grants relating to literary studies, China and climate action.</p>
<p>These vetos were not the first: in <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/former-education-minister-vetoed-4-2-million-in-recommended-university-research-grants-20181026-p50c3a.html">2018</a> 11 grants worth A$4.2 million were vetoed by the minister, with a total of 32 vetoed since 2005.</p>
<p>Ministerial veto power over projects recommended through the ARC process has attracted wide <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/11/academics-condemn-governments-shortsighted-decision-to-veto-research-grants">condemnation</a> as the politicisation of academic research in the country. </p>
<p>Academics, writers and public intellectuals have <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDYfTcUgFjQvH9egPMVhUJSCKpDY6DCnQRRGMJv-pNBtsDfQ/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0">called</a> <a href="https://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/%7Etw/ARC/index.html">for</a> the federal government to change the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00227">Australian Research Council Act 2001</a> to remove the minister’s discretionary veto powers and shore up the ARC’s independence.</p>
<p>The bill now before the Senate committee, first introduced in 2018, aims to achieve this.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1501747275567022083"}"></div></p>
<h2>What does the law currently say?</h2>
<p>The Australian Research Council Act 2001 states the minister is responsible for approving research grants. In deciding which proposals to approve</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the minister may (but is not required to) rely solely on recommendations made by the CEO [of the ARC].</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The minister cannot direct the CEO to recommend particular proposals should be funded, but does retain the power to refuse to fund a recommended proposal.</p>
<p>What about the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)? Grants from its Medical Research Endowment Account are provided “in such cases and subject to such conditions as the minister, acting on the advice of the CEO, determines”.</p>
<p>The NHMRC says this means the minister retains the ability to “approve some or all or none of the grants recommended by the CEO”. But the wording of the act seems less than clear on this issue.</p>
<p>In any event, there is no record of a minister acting against the advice of the CEO of the NCMRC.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1501440009987305475"}"></div></p>
<h2>Research independence, accountability and ministerial involvement</h2>
<p>Before the Senate committee, competing views have been expressed about ministerial involvement.</p>
<p>On the one hand, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=8ba8f4af-eeae-4a48-b8c6-ef7e7c2bb97e&subId=720421">Universities Australia</a> and the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=74fe9367-cb38-4072-9470-f8e75b4450f4&subId=720540">Group of Eight Universities</a> are arguing the legislation should enshrine the UK’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_principle">Haldane Principle of Research Independence</a>. </p>
<p>This requires that decisions about how governments allocate research funding should be determined by researchers, not politicians.</p>
<p>Parliaments and ministers can retain oversight of the process by setting the selection process and criteria, appointing officers to the ARC and reviewing the final reports.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=94115c12-1fb2-4570-9605-757607291460&subId=720482">Department of Education, Skills and Employment</a> and the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=2d2aca79-c58f-4618-8657-049d894117fc&subId=720458">Australian Research Council</a> argue the ARC’s decisions are appropriately subject to final approval (or veto) by the minister.</p>
<p>This, they argue, is on the basis it would be improper to bind a minister to exercise a decision-making power in accordance with the views or recommendations of a third party (the ARC).</p>
<p>Such provisions are supposed to ensure there is a direct line of accountability between parliament and the expenditure of public funds. The minister supposedly provides that line of accountability, as the person who sits in parliament and must answer to it.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-high-court-school-chaplains-case-and-what-it-means-for-commonwealth-funding-7795">The High Court school chaplains case and what it means for Commonwealth funding</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But we know, of course, that ministerial involvement in decisions about public money is often where a failure of accountability occurs.</p>
<p>The Australian National Audit Office has repeatedly found systemic problems with the way ministerial funding discretion is exercised (including in relation to high-profile scandals around <a href="https://www.auspublaw.org/2021/08/the-car-park-rorts-affair-and-grants-regulation-in-australia-how-can-we-fix-the-system/">car park grants</a> and <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2019-2020_23.pdf">sporting grants</a>). </p>
<p>The Audit Office has found ministers are making decisions not necessarily informed by expert opinion, and the reasons for decisions are not recorded and unclear to the parliament.</p>
<p>This could be said to be the case in relation to the recent research funding decisions; the minister’s statement simply repeated the criteria of value for money and contribution to the national interest. It provided no transparency for the reasons behind the decisions.</p>
<p>These recent experiences seriously undermine the claim that retaining a ministerial discretion is the best or only way to achieve “responsibility” for these decisions.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1501725105776623616"}"></div></p>
<h2>What could an independent and accountable research grant scheme look like?</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, the current framework for research funding under the ARC Act (and the NHMRC Act for that matter), guarantees neither research independence nor accountability for public money.</p>
<p>But these principles are not in irreconcilable tension. A balance between independence and accountability is possible.</p>
<p>Parliament and ministers could be involved in setting the criteria and process against which funding is assessed and allocated by the ARC. The act already provides for this. </p>
<p>This should be supplemented by statutory reporting requirements to the minister and parliament. The minister should then allocate funding in accordance with the recommendations of the ARC, following a process and criteria over which he or she – and the parliament – has exercised oversight.</p>
<p>But what role, if any, might exist for a ministerial veto or “backstop”? There is certainly no accountability imperative for it. </p>
<p>Indeed, in its current opaque form it risks adding less accountability, not more.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-resigned-from-the-arc-college-of-experts-after-minister-vetoed-research-grants-175925">Why we resigned from the ARC College of Experts after minister vetoed research grants</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/179078/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby is the Director of the Centre for Public Integrity. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>A Senate committee is discussing a bill designed to shore up the independence of the Australian Research Council, after recent high-profile cases of ministers vetoing research grants.Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1759252022-02-01T19:14:09Z2022-02-01T19:14:09ZWhy we resigned from the ARC College of Experts after minister vetoed research grants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443592/original/file-20220131-15-jz03h4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5083%2C3321&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Christmas Eve 2021, the pub-test folly <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/under-cover-of-christmas-education-minister-stuart-robert-overruled-the-experts-20211226-p59k8b.html">struck again</a>. The two of us found ourselves, angry and heartsore, resigning from the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) highly respected College of Experts in protest at the minister’s rejection of grant funding recommendations. </p>
<p>This was not a comment on the college, a laudable body of experienced research leaders committed to supporting the best and most worthwhile research. Nor on the ARC, whose dedicated, knowledgeable staff operate on a shoestring to maximise how much of the organisation’s limited funding is spent on research.</p>
<p>We were prompted by the acting minister for education and youth disregarding the expertise of Australia’s best by blocking six grants they had recommended for funding. The explanation? Unsupported statements about “value for taxpayers’ money”, and “the national interest”. That is, a pub test: if the imagined average punter can’t immediately spot its value from a potted summary, then it’s not in the national interest.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1475216269884289024"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/arc-grants-if-australia-wants-to-tackle-the-biggest-issues-politicians-need-to-stop-meddling-with-basic-research-174607">ARC grants: if Australia wants to tackle the biggest issues, politicians need to stop meddling with basic research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>You can’t pick good-value research with a pub test</h2>
<p>Deciding what research to support is hard. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/arc-grants-if-australia-wants-to-tackle-the-biggest-issues-politicians-need-to-stop-meddling-with-basic-research-174607">argued previously</a>, it is difficult, maybe impossible, to predict what lines of inquiry will bear the best fruit – or even what fruit to grow. As is generally attributed to Oren Harari:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The electric light did not come from the continuous improvement of candles.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is only obvious in hindsight that understanding electricity represented “value for money”. Likewise, as <a href="https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/arc-censorship-and-the-price-of-forced-ignorance/">Ofer Gal explains</a>, the national interest in understanding history and culture may only become visible after the fact, through the tragic consequences of ignorance. </p>
<p>In an ideal world, we could just do all the research. But research costs money: for equipment, lab space, consumables, travel to collaborate with experts elsewhere, and capacity, typically in the form of postdoctoral researchers. The investment <a href="https://www.csiro.au/work-with-us/services/consultancy-strategic-advice-services/CSIRO-futures/Futures-reports/Quantifying-Australias-returns-to-innovation">repays itself many times over</a> in future economic activity, but we must live within our means. So we must choose.</p>
<p>And there is much to choose from. How do we fight COVID-19? Research. How can we achieve a carbon-free future? Research. What lifestyle choices maximise health in old age? What factors led to the emergence of the modern state of China? Research, and more research.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1487921971572604928"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/latest-government-bid-to-dictate-research-directions-builds-on-a-decade-of-failure-173834">Latest government bid to dictate research directions builds on a decade of failure</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Sometimes only experts can understand even the questions. How can we construct symmetric informationally complete positive operator valued measures in arbitrary dimensions? It sounds abstruse, but this research could enable <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.03233.pdf">reliable error correction in quantum computing</a>.</p>
<h2>How are grant applications assessed?</h2>
<p>Of course, government should be involved in setting strategic research funding directions. It should determine funding parameters and areas of immediate priority, and clear rules, procedures and criteria. For example, the research should be:</p>
<ul>
<li>original – don’t re-invent the wheel</li>
<li>significant – not just minor tweaks to existing understandings</li>
<li>feasible – anyone can make grandiose claims, but funding requires a reasonable expectation of results</li>
<li>of benefit – a positive impact on the field or society.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>These criteria have been at the core of ARC funding decisions for decades. </p>
<p>But assessing these criteria is wickedly difficult. In particular, assessing value for money requires expertise: the expected benefit of research can be deep and very real, without being superficially visible. The ARC’s College of Experts provides, and facilitates, this expertise. </p>
<p>At least two college members assess each proposal, running to 50-100 pages, in detail. They read every word. </p>
<p>College members also select four subject experts to assess each proposal. The members then meet over multiple days to discuss the applications in detail and make funding recommendations. </p>
<p>By and large this arduous process, though imperfect, works. It taps both the expertise of college members – in assessing grants <em>and</em> in selecting detailed assessors – and of those assessors. The resulting funding recommendations represent the collective best judgment of world-leading minds and experience that Australia has proudly <a href="https://dataportal.arc.gov.au/ERA/NationalReport/2018/">cultivated over generations</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/disappointment-and-disbelief-after-morrison-government-vetoes-research-into-student-climate-activism-174699">'Disappointment and disbelief’ after Morrison government vetoes research into student climate activism'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1484301602135867392"}"></div></p>
<h2>Political meddling does lasting damage</h2>
<p>The minister spurned this in favour of a pub test. It’s already been <a href="https://theconversation.com/ministerial-interference-is-an-attack-on-academic-freedom-and-australias-literary-culture-174329">argued</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/disappointment-and-disbelief-after-morrison-government-vetoes-research-into-student-climate-activism-174699">strongly</a> that ministerial veto compromises academic freedom. But it also betrays ignorance of the complexity of assessing cutting-edge research and shows contempt for the expertise, time and diligent effort embodied in the college’s recommendations. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ministerial-interference-is-an-attack-on-academic-freedom-and-australias-literary-culture-174329">Ministerial interference is an attack on academic freedom and Australia's literary culture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Further, it compromises our capacity to assess in future. Will international leaders in their fields continue to give their time to assess applications knowing their recommendations may later be overturned on a ministerial whim? </p>
<p>The damage to our international reputation is apparent. The minister’s decision has been <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/robert-s-research-veto-attracts-international-condemnation-20220107-p59mjd">condemned by international voices</a> and numerous Australian bodies: the <a href="https://austms.org.au/open-letter-to-the-minister/">Australian Mathematical Society</a>, members of the ARC <a href="https://www.aidansims.com/OpenLetter.html">College of Experts</a>, <a href="https://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/%7Etw/ARC/index.html">Australian Laureate Fellows</a>, the <a href="https://humanities.org.au/news/statement-from-the-aah-president-arc-funding-changes/">Australian Academy of Arts and Humanities</a>, and more.</p>
<p>Of course researchers must communicate the goals and value of publicly funded research to the public who fund it. The ARC has long published such benefit statements. But these statements, divorced from the nuance and detail in the applications, and from the expertise needed to understand their implications, cannot be the test for funding. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1484038687646416898"}"></div></p>
<p>Such meddling is unheard of in comparable democracies (like Canada, New Zealand, the UK, the US). Per Britain’s Haldane Principle, once funding parameters, rules and assessment processes are set, the complex and wickedly hard decision as to which research represents the best mixture of originality, significance, feasibility and, yes, benefit should be left where it belongs: in the hands of experts. </p>
<p>As mathematicians, we are not experts in the areas of the vetoed grants – we are the mythical “pub-goers”. So we trust the expertise of those who assessed them. We resigned from the College of Experts because we could not be complicit in a process that does otherwise.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175925/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Francis served on the Australian Research Council's College of Experts from January 1 2018 to December 26 2021, during which time he served on several assessment panels for grant schemes. He also served on Research Evaluation Committees for the ARC during the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) exercises in 2015 and 2018. His university was financially compensated for his time performing duties for the ARC, and he received some of that compensation as a salary loading. He has received competitive research funding from the Australian Research Council to support his research projects. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aidan Sims served on the Australian Research Council's College of Experts from January 1 2019 to December 29 2021, during which time he served on several assessment panels for grant schemes. His university was financially compensated for his time performing duties for the ARC, and the university made these funds available to him in the form of research-support funding. He has received competitive research funding from the ARC to support his research projects.</span></em></p>Decisions on research funding are too complex for a pub test. Assessing grant applications requires a high level of expertise and diligence, which the minister simply disregarded.Andrew Francis, Professor of Mathematics, Western Sydney UniversityAidan Sims, Professor of Pure Mathematics, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1738342021-12-16T21:31:20Z2021-12-16T21:31:20ZLatest government bid to dictate research directions builds on a decade of failure<p>The acting minister for education and youth, Stuart Robert, wrote a <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/letter-expectations-minister-arc">letter</a> last week to Australian Research Council (<a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc/arc-profile">ARC</a>) CEO Sue Thomas, <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/arc-chief-is-out-after-new-direction-for-uni-research-funding/">listing four demands</a>. These included changes to ARC funding models and an overhaul of the ARC itself. These “expectations” were repackaged for the public in a <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/robert/new-direction-australian-research-council-help-secure-australias-recovery">press release</a> on Tuesday entitled “New direction for the Australian Research Council to help secure Australia’s recovery”. </p>
<p>While the media release applies the usual positive political spin, the letter itself – although light on detail – crystallises some concerning matters. These are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a history of confused and often conflicting messaging about what is meant by priority areas and national interest in determining research funding</p></li>
<li><p>the government’s failure – after eight years in office – to achieve its aspirations for research commercialisation </p></li>
<li><p>the government’s loss of trust in the ARC. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Thomas has now advised the government she will <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/arc-chief-is-out-after-new-direction-for-uni-research-funding/">step down prematurely</a> from her role early next year. Her reasons have not been made public, but one can’t help wondering if the weight of the unrealistic demands have figured in her decision-making.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1470746777750020096"}"></div></p>
<h2>Looks a lot like government picking winners</h2>
<p>The ARC administers the <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/national-competitive-grants-program">National Competitive Grants Program</a>. This program invests about A$800 million a year in the highest-quality fundamental and applied research across all disciplines other than clinical and medical research, which is funded through the National Health and Medical Research Council (<a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">NHMRC</a>). </p>
<p>Importantly, 40% of this allocation is committed through the ARC <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/linkage-program">Linkage Program</a>. This program funds collaborative projects between universities and industry and community organisations. The end game is to stimulate the transfer of skills and knowledge to deliver public benefit.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-research-when-universities-and-industry-team-up-156590">How to get the most out of research when universities and industry team up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The minister is now demanding that 70% of the Linkage Program funding goes to the government’s <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/news/modern-manufacturing-initiative-and-national-manufacturing-priorities-announced">National Manufacturing Priorities</a>. The six priorities were devised as part of the 2020 <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/make-it-happen-the-australian-governments-modern-manufacturing-strategy">Make it Happen: the Australian Government’s Modern Manufacturing Strategy</a>. A number of these already enjoy significant government support. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1471069643141881856"}"></div></p>
<p>Interestingly, the government also has in place <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/grant-application/science-and-research-priorities">Science and Research Priorities</a>. All applicants for ARC funding are already asked to address these. Although introduced in 2015, and supposedly meant to be reviewed every two years, these priorities have never informed funding. </p>
<p>In 2019, the ARC was <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc/consultations/national-science-and-research-priorities-review">asked to review</a> the Science and Research Priorities with regard to how they apply to the National Competitive Grants Program as well as government science, research and innovation agendas. These priorities are problematic because, aside from never really having been priorities in terms of government investment in research, they exclude humanities and social sciences. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-fund-more-than-just-science-priorities-for-australias-future-50243">We need to fund more than just science priorities for Australia's future</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Thus, a review was an opportunity to rethink how disciplines can deliver public good. Nothing seems to have come of it. The ARC lost an opportunity to get on the front foot in guiding future direction for research. </p>
<p>The latest ministerial manoeuvre essentially renders the Science and Research Priorities obsolete. And the losers are not just humanities and social sciences again, but also science disciplines that were once deemed noteworthy. This edict sends an undesirable message to the sector: when it comes to achieving positive impacts for society through collaborative research, there are lesser disciplines. </p>
<p>The narrowing of focus by insisting more funding go to National Manufacturing Priorities is madness. Essentially, it devalues partnerships addressing other important challenges in society that deserve support.</p>
<h2>Years of rhetoric for little return</h2>
<p>By devaluing non-manufacturing-related research, the manoeuvre has unwittingly created possible disincentives within the broader research sector for undertaking collaborative research. </p>
<p>Throughout its nearly decade-long concern with improving university-industry engagement to ensure researchers’ work translates to benefits for end users, the government has adopted motivational tactics. For example, the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/research-block-grants">Research Block Grant</a>, involving performance-based funding for universities, underwent a change of formula in 2015 to reward universities for securing industry and other such funding. And the ARC’s <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/engagement-and-impact-assessment">Engagement and Impact Assessment</a>, announced as part of the 2015 <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/national-innovation-and-science-agenda-report">National Innovation and Science Agenda</a>, was meant to magically enhance engagement, even though outcomes do not translate to performance funding. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/where-is-the-evidence-for-era-times-up-for-australias-research-evaluation-system-165622">Where is the evidence for ERA? Time's up for Australia's research evaluation system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1470583300192227332"}"></div></p>
<p>We have had many years of rhetoric about improving university-industry engagement to boost commercial returns from research. It is time to call the government’s shallow commercialisation thinking (policy would be too generous a term) for what it is – a failure. The changes to the Linkage Program smell of one last desperate attempt to reverse that failure.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-unis-are-far-behind-the-worlds-best-at-commercialising-research-here-are-3-ways-to-catch-up-159915">Our unis are far behind the world's best at commercialising research. Here are 3 ways to catch up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Playing the national interest card again</h2>
<p>Another interesting demand in the minister’s letter is a strengthening of the National Interest Test (NIT). This includes expanding the College of Experts charged with applying the test and making recommendations to the minister. </p>
<p>The National Interest Test itself is a ministerial invention devised to exonerate the foolhardy actions of a former minister. It was hastily <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/strengthening-public-confidence-university-research-funding">cobbled together in 2018</a> following a controversy over the rejection by the then education minister, Simon Birmingham, of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/26/knuckle-dragging-philistines-labor-targets-liberals-for-blocking-arts-grants">11 ARC-approved grants</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1056772776994922496"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/national-interest-test-for-research-grants-could-further-erode-pure-research-106061">National interest test for research grants could further erode pure research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The new test essentially replaced the Benefit and Impact Statement that had previously been in applications. The key difference is that the National Interest Test was presented in the context of ensuring public confidence as opposed to achieving public good. It seems Minister Robert is just as intent on maintaining public confidence, particularly through the inclusion of more individuals from outside the research sector to evaluate applications. </p>
<p>But, by doing so, the minister risks diluting the expertise needed to evaluate whether the design of a project is such that it will deliver positive outcomes for society. Anyone with good writing skills and a creative inkling can devise a National Interest Test statement that is palatable to the public. Only a gifted researcher can devise a research project that will generate genuine public good. </p>
<p>The ARC has one year to deliver on the minister’s demands – an unrealistic expectation. Given the madness of the demands, one can’t help wondering if it is even worth trying.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173834/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ksenia Sawczak does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After years of government rhetoric about boosting the commercial benefits from university research, Australia’s record is still among the worst in the developed world.Ksenia Sawczak, Head, Research and Development, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1661992021-08-19T13:39:56Z2021-08-19T13:39:56ZDavid Olufemi Olaleye: erudite virologist, excellent mentor and academic giant<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/416535/original/file-20210817-27-12elf86.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">David Olufemi Olaleye </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Courtesy African Digital Health Library</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>David Olufemi Olaleye, who passed away in <a href="https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/07/makinde-mourns-top-ui-virologist-professor-olaleye/">July</a>, made an impact on many lives. He was an excellent teacher and mentor – like a father to many. A defender of the oppressed and a forthright person, who stood for the truth. </p>
<p>He was a researcher par excellence, highly knowledgeable, intelligent and humble. He supervised my master’s project in 1993 and I was his first PhD student. I worked closely with him for almost 30 years and it’s been difficult to accept that he is no more.</p>
<p>Olaleye was born on 21 July 1954 in Ogbomoso, southwest Nigeria. He obtained his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine in 1981, Master’s in Veterinary Science (Diagnostic Pathology) in 1983 and PhD in Virology in 1991, all from the University of Ibadan. He joined the university immediately after the mandatory one year national service in 1982 as Resident Veterinary Officer (Pathology). His journey as a virologist started when he was appointed lecturer in the Department of Virology, College of Medicine of the same university in 1986. He rose through the ranks and became Professor of Virology in 1995. He was appointed <a href="https://www.com.ui.edu.ng/index.php/the-college-of-medicine-university-of-ibadan-mourns-the-loss-of-professor-olufemi-david-olaleye">Consultant Virologist</a>, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria on 11 March 1992 and held this position as specialist adviser until his death.</p>
<p>He was also an Adjunct Professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. He was a founding member of the <a href="https://afrehealth.org/about/about-afrehealth">African Forum for Research and Education in Health</a>, a fellow of the <a href="https://www.aasciences.africa/">African Academy of Science</a> and a member of the America Science Honors Society (Sigma Xi).</p>
<p>With 27 years as a professor, he was one of the longest serving professors in the university. He contributed a great deal in this capacity. He held much of our institution’s history and memories. He served at different periods as head of department and dean. He was also on many committees of the university. </p>
<h2>Excellent mentor</h2>
<p>Olaleye’s interest in the career development of young people was outstanding. He had a passion for mentoring. I met him in 1993 when I came to Virology for my master’s programme. That first encounter is well documented in <a href="https://www.ui.edu.ng/gallery/professor-georgina-njideka-odaibo-department-virology-faculty-basic-medical-sciences">my inaugural lecture</a> of 27 June 2019. It instilled in me the spirit and attitude of hard work, commitment and dedication, and the sense of being ever ready. He was the giant who provided the shoulders for me and many others to stand on. </p>
<p>He mentored many who are at the peak of their careers today. We are from diverse specialities, in different parts of the globe. In appreciation of his commitment, dedication and sacrifices made towards our career development, we celebrated him on his 60th birthday in 2014. I’m happy that he heard all the kind things we said about him. </p>
<h2>Brilliant researcher</h2>
<p>He was a great researcher. His research focused on diagnosis, characterisation and molecular epidemiology of various virus-related diseases in Nigeria. He had collaborators from different parts of the world and was principal investigator, co-principal investigator and investigator of many research grants. He attracted one of the highest number of <a href="https://www.com.ui.edu.ng/index.php/prof-olufemi-d-olaleye">grants</a> - in terms of number and dollar value - to the University of Ibadan. He published <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=prVk8WkAAAAJ&hl=en">over 200 papers</a> in reputable international journals.</p>
<p>One of the major breakthroughs of his research was the <a href="https://www.com.ui.edu.ng/index.php/prof-olufemi-d-olaleye">first</a> isolation and characterisation of the 2nd HIV recombinant form (CRF02) during his Fogarty International Research Fellowship programme at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, from September 1990 to September 1992. This virus strain, which he named IbNg (for Ibadan, Nigeria), has been shown to be the <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4939-7101-5_34">predominant strain</a> circulating in West Africa and a good candidate for vaccine development in the region. </p>
<h2>Forthright and selfless</h2>
<p>Olaleye was honest, peace-loving and opposed injustice. Not only to him, but to anyone at all, even those he did not know. He was hardworking and he appreciated hard work. He would not trade merit for sentiments or tribalism. </p>
<p>He was a forthright person, outspoken and truthful. He respected everyone, irrespective of age and gender. He was humility personified.</p>
<p>Olaleye was a system person and a patriotic Nigerian who would always consider the system above his personal interest. He was at the <a href="https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/07/makinde-mourns-top-ui-virologist-professor-olaleye/">forefront</a> of Oyo State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the state governor attested to this in his tribute. </p>
<p>He invested in capacity development, especially research capacity (infrastructural and human). With grants from the National Institute for Health in the USA, he spearheaded training on research capacity development for faculty and postgraduate students in six universities in Nigeria. </p>
<p>During his tenure as Dean of the Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences from 2006 to 2010, he established a faculty conference, UniIbadan Conference of Biomedical Research. One of its objectives was to create a platform for young scientists in the country to show case their work, learn new ideas and establish networks required for career growth.</p>
<p>Some 20 years ago, no one wanted to come to the Department of Virology. But today, the story is different. Now people ask, why are you <em>not</em> in virology? It took the efforts, hard work, dedication and commitment of Olaleye to initiate changes to the department. With funds from his grants and support from funders, the department was renovated and equipped. </p>
<p>He successfully led a team of well-motivated academic and technical staff of the department to obtain World Health Organization Africa Region/ SLIPTA laboratory certification and the SANAS laboratory quality accreditation (ISO 15189) in 2018. </p>
<p>Professor David Olufemi Olaleye served his community selflessly and meritoriously. Sustaining his legacy is our assignment now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166199/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Georgina Njideka Odaibo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nigeria’s academic community is mourning the death of virology professor and leading researcher, David Olufemi Olaleye.Georgina Njideka Odaibo, Professor of Virology and Specialist Adviser, University College Hospital, Ibadan, University of IbadanLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1659072021-08-15T09:02:43Z2021-08-15T09:02:43ZNigerian health research needs more regular funding<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415687/original/file-20210811-15-sy8umz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"> Nigeria must increase funding for health research </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/technician-handles-samples-from-truck-drivers-testing-for-news-photo/1212974088?adppopup=true">Brian/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Nigeria’s <a href="https://tetfundserver.com/">Tertiary Education Trust Fund</a> has <a href="https://punchng.com/fg-approves-n8-5bn-for-medical-research-others/">approved</a> N8.5bn (US$16.83m) for medical research this year an increase of 13.33%. Of this amount, N1bn (US$1.98m) is specifically for research on COVID-19. The fund was set up in 1993 to improve federal and state tertiary education in Nigeria, partly by supporting research and publications. Its main source of income is the 2% education tax paid by registered companies. It’s managed by an 11-member board of trustees. The Conversation Africa’s Wale Fatade asked Friday Okonofua, professor of medicine and <a href="https://www.ondoevents.com/unimed-ondo-gets-new-vice-chancellor/">pioneer vice-chancellor</a> of Nigeria’s <a href="https://www.unimed.edu.ng/news.php">first</a> university of medical sciences, to comment on the latest announcement.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Is this a step in the right direction in funding medical research?</h2>
<p>I believe so. Nigeria is currently one of the countries with the lowest health research funding in the world. It contributes <a href="http://www.jogh.org/documents/issue202001/jogh-10-010321.htm#R2">0.22% of its GDP</a> to research. Despite the plethora of health issues in the country, and the <a href="https://data.humdata.org/dataset/who-data-for-nigeria">poor health indicators</a>, very little appropriation exists in the <a href="https://www.budgetoffice.gov.ng/index.php/resources/internal-resources/budget-documents/2021-budget">national budget</a> for addressing health research. The budget for research was N5bn ($9.9mn) in <a href="https://nairametrics.com/2021/07/29/buhari-promises-50-increase-in-education-budget-approves-n8-5-billion-for-medical-research/">2019</a> under the National Research Fund. It was raised to N7.5bn ($14.85mn) in 2020 and is still the same this year. It is to this fund that N1bn ($1.98mn) has just been added. This extra is specifically for research around COVID-19. The National Research Fund is managed by the Tertiary Education Trust Fund. I believe this intervention is not enough to address the inadequate provision for health research in the country. It is also important because global research and development pipelines for diseases that affect African countries are <a href="https://gh.bmj.com/content/4/2/e001047#T2">inadequate</a>.</p>
<h2>How is medical research funded generally in Nigeria?</h2>
<p>Medical research is not well funded in Nigeria. I have never seen any provision made for health research funding by any teaching hospital in Nigeria. Most universities provide little or no funding for health research. Existing funds for research come from donor organisations. These include the Gates Foundation, the <a href="https://www.idrc.ca/en">International Development Research Centre, Canada</a> and the World Health Organisation. The federal government got a <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/04/15/world-bank-centers-excellence-science-technology-education-africa">loan</a> in 2014 from the World Bank which enabled the establishment of some centres of excellence in Nigerian universities. A few of these centres focus on health issues. Very little funding for health research comes from within the country. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-and-technology-hold-the-key-to-nigeria-reaching-its-full-potential-45055">Science and technology hold the key to Nigeria reaching its full potential</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What percentage of medical research funding comes from the federal government in Nigeria?</h2>
<p>It is tough to say specifically apart from figures we have on research generally. While the education trust fund has done well in funding specific health-related research in some Nigerian universities, it is not enough. Some medical researchers across the country have accessed these funds for their research. Apart from this, I am not aware of any other intervention of the federal government to address health research in Nigeria. </p>
<h2>How can we improve funding for medical research?</h2>
<p>The answer is simple. The federal government and all state governments should allocate funds for health research in their annual budgets. This should be for health research specifically and not research generally. The education trust fund should continue its present great work. But its contribution is not sufficient to handle the quantum of health challenges that need to be resolved in Nigeria, along with innovations that need to be identified to promote the health and social well-being of all Nigerians. </p>
<p>Health is a critical component of the <a href="https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals?utm_source=EN&utm_medium=GSR&utm_content=US_UNDP_PaidSearch_Brand_English&utm_campaign=CENTRAL&c_src=CENTRAL&c_src2=GSR&gclid=CjwKCAjwx8iIBhBwEiwA2quaq3EcK5XfnWcUA7C6cTwmVnYs7R_gdWC6Nl4MFW00pdQGUOO9mIBKERoCBhMQAvD_BwE">Sustainable Development Goals</a>. And as COVID-19 has demonstrated, it is essential for any country’s prospective development. Research is needed to galvanise Nigeria’s health system, which ranks <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6811780/">187th out of 195</a> countries (according to the World Health Organisation).</p>
<h2>What lessons can we learn from other countries’ approach to funding medical research?</h2>
<p>Regarding the contribution of governments to research, it is evident that African countries have performed relatively poorly as compared to other countries. In total, available evidence indicates that sub-Saharan African countries contribute <a href="http://www.jogh.org/documents/issue202001/jogh-10-010321.htm#R2">0.4%</a> of their gross domestic product (GDP) to research, compared to Europe, Asia, and North America that contribute 27%, 31%, and 37%. Nigeria contributes <a href="http://www.jogh.org/documents/issue202001/jogh-10-010321.htm#R2">0.22%</a>, one of the lowest in the world. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the Nigerian government is often unable to synthesise research evidence for decision-making. This limits its ability to understand and prioritise the importance of indigenous research in health within the context of health improvement and social development. A proper integration of research frameworks within policy making in Nigeria is critically important to improve the integrated performance of the country’s healthcare system. This should include capacity building for managers and policymakers to enable them to make adequate provisions in the annual budget and development planning for research, their involvement in setting research agendas, planning for the delivery of health research, and the effective use of research results.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-it-will-take-to-produce-vaccines-in-nigeria-moneys-just-the-first-step-153497">What it will take to produce vaccines in Nigeria: money's just the first step</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165907/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Friday Okonofua does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>More funding is needed to galvanise
Nigeria’s health system as medical research is not well funded.Friday Okonofua, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of BeninLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1578852021-05-17T20:07:39Z2021-05-17T20:07:39ZBook publishing sidelined in the game of university measurement and rankings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400676/original/file-20210514-13-ind843.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C7%2C4985%2C3323&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/male-graduate-cap-gown-back-camera-1069321619">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Academic book publishing is under threat. Global university rankings and competition for funding and international student enrolments are reshaping the research landscape. Academics are under more pressure to win grant funding and publish journal articles, rather than books, and be more strategic in their publishing. </p>
<p>With universities <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-hopes-of-international-students-return-fade-closed-borders-could-cost-20bn-a-year-in-2022-half-the-sectors-value-159328">losing billions in revenue</a> due to the impacts of COVID-19, these pressures are only going to increase. </p>
<p>Traditionally, a monograph published with a prestigious publisher has been a key medium to create and disseminate research in the humanities and social sciences. It has also been important for building scholarly careers and reputations. However, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.52.2.01">our research</a> shows publishing pressures, incentives and rewards are changing.</p>
<h2>A shift from quantity to quality</h2>
<p>The Australian government’s approach to funding research has had a strong impact on what types of publications have been encouraged. </p>
<p>Australian universities first began reporting details of academics’ research outputs to the government in the 1990s as part of the formula for distributing research funding. The funds allocated for publication were <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9">significant</a>. By 2001, a peer-reviewed journal article was “worth” more than A$3,000 to the university. A book was “worth” $15,000. </p>
<p>These rewards applied regardless of where the research was published. “Publish or perish” had well and truly taken over. Without appropriate measures to account for quality and impact, the system had the unintended consequence of encouraging academics to publish low-quality research with low-quality journals and publishers just to meet performance targets. The use of quantitative measures alone also increases the possibility for <a href="https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4598/Gaming-the-MetricsMisconduct-and-Manipulation-in">gaming and manipulation</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/publish-or-perish-culture-encourages-scientists-to-cut-corners-47692">Publish or perish culture encourages scientists to cut corners</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Publication data were eventually removed from the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) specifications in 2016. Since then, no government funding based on quantity (or quality) of research outputs has been distributed.</p>
<p>Australia’s current national research assessment exercise, <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia">Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)</a>, began in 2010. The ERA system is designed to identify and improve quality of research through international benchmarking. </p>
<p>As a result, all universities expect “quality” publications from their staff. This is invariably understood as publishing with international and prestigious publishers and in high-ranking journals. </p>
<p>As universities compete against each other, they have a strong incentive to lift their research profile and to design internal reward schemes based on how ERA defines quality.</p>
<h2>Academics are now fundraisers</h2>
<p>Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.52.2.01">research project</a> looked at the publishing strategies and behaviours of academics in the humanities and social sciences. We found the pressures for quantity appear to have subsided (for some at least). However, there is now a greater push for quality, competitive grant funding and real-world impact. </p>
<p>While universities are still interested in quality publications, the changing funding rules mean universities that receive competitive funding get additional research funds through HERDC. This translates to greater pressure on academics to apply for and secure funding. Academic production appears to have shifted from publication as an outcome in itself to funding as the main measure of performance.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="women weighs up books in one hand against piggybank in the other" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400678/original/file-20210514-17-135o84y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400678/original/file-20210514-17-135o84y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400678/original/file-20210514-17-135o84y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400678/original/file-20210514-17-135o84y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400678/original/file-20210514-17-135o84y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400678/original/file-20210514-17-135o84y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/400678/original/file-20210514-17-135o84y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Academics must now weigh up the expectation that they attract funding against other performance criteria.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cost-college-education-portrait-stressed-woman-216990529">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Funding bodies, in turn, are increasingly looking to researchers to show their research has quantifiable, real-world impacts. And ideally they should publish in open access publications.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/2020-locked-in-shift-to-open-access-publishing-but-australia-is-lagging-150284">2020 locked in shift to open access publishing, but Australia is lagging</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Juggling publication quality and research impact</h2>
<p>Academics are caught in the middle between the pressure to publish in quality outlets versus the need to demonstrate impact in the broader society. This creates a conundrum for academics in the humanities and social sciences in particular.</p>
<p>A number of participants in our research described the ways in which their university’s performance evaluations are aligned to publishing practices in science, technology and medicine. Citation metrics are commonly used as a proxy for quality in these fields. Books are generally not available or poorly represented in citation databases. </p>
<p>Many respondents felt their institutions devalued book publishing in favour of journal articles and collaborative authorship. </p>
<p>The emphasis on international publication means some subject areas are rated higher than others. For example, academics in Australian studies told us they felt their institutions undervalued their work. </p>
<p>We also observed an increase in the number of journal ranking lists or recommended publisher lists, created internally by universities. These are intended to make “quality” explicit by identifying where academics are advised to publish. </p>
<p>However, these lists discourage academics from publishing with local, niche, emerging or open-access book publishers and journals. These outlets might actually be a better fit for their target audiences and so lead to greater impact.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/who-cares-about-university-research-the-answer-depends-on-its-impacts-149817">Who cares about university research? The answer depends on its impacts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Distorting the value of academic inquiry</h2>
<p>The different expectations of various stakeholders mean academics receive conflicting advice about publishing strategically. Academics are encouraged to engage with the Australian context and communities. At the same time, they are told to produce research that prestigious international journals and publishers will accept. </p>
<p>These pressures lead researchers to publish in ways that reflect how they are being measured. This appears, in turn, to influence their research agendas. The current research landscape seems to be more a reflection of what is being measured, rather than what is needed by society or would advance knowledge.</p>
<p>Academics, especially early career researchers, have no choice but to remain open to changing priorities, be they institutional or governmental. They must balance the contradictions and tensions in academia. In spite of the rhetoric of academic freedom, university performance expectations mean academics are increasingly required to construct their research agendas and publishing strategies to be attractive to grant funders and international publishers.</p>
<p>Apart from affecting individual academics’ careers, these practices have broad social and intellectual costs. For the humanities and social sciences, in particular, these trends could affect the future and relevance of these disciplines in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157885/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Agata Mrva-Montoya works for Sydney University Press. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Edward Luca does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Expectations that academics raise funds themselves and aim to publish in certain ‘quality’ publications are shaping research and where it is published.Agata Mrva-Montoya, Honorary Associate, Department of Media and Communication, University of SydneyEdward Luca, Manager, Academic Services, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1583332021-04-06T14:37:11Z2021-04-06T14:37:11ZCuts to UK research funding threaten critical human rights projects across the world<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393568/original/file-20210406-23-qiqns3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Human rights defenders speaking out for women march through an informal settlement in Nairobi.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Yasuyoshi CHIBA / AFP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56473067">There have been</a> recent controversial cuts to the UK’s aid budget – slashed from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.5% last month – which have undermined the country’s commitment to “be a force for good in the world”. The cuts will have a devastating impact on the provision of services in humanitarian crises, <a href="https://www.devex.com/news/uk-s-aid-budget-to-yemen-slashed-by-nearly-60-99281">such as in Yemen</a>, and it will also affect vital research projects. </p>
<p>UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the body that controls research funding in the UK, has told universities that projects under the <a href="https://www.ukri.org/our-work/collaborating-internationally/global-challenges-research-fund/">Global Challenges Research Fund</a> (GCRF), part of the UK’s official development assistance, <a href="https://www.ukri.org/our-work/ukri-oda-letter-11-march-2021/">are to be defunded</a>. This is due to a budget shortfall of £120million (US$166million), amounting to a 70% reduction for the financial year 2021-2022. </p>
<p>The Global Challenges Research Fund brings together researchers from the UK and low- and middle-income countries to develop research-led solutions to tackle pressing global issues, such as inequality, poverty, injustice, and the climate crisis. Removing funding from these projects puts people in highly vulnerable situations. <a href="https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/04/01/ten-reasons-to-restore-oda-research-funding/">These cuts affect all 800 currently funded projects</a>.</p>
<p>Not only does this cause research projects that already are in progress to be halted, if not terminated, but it will also impact future funding opportunities.</p>
<p>This will have huge implications for researchers and critical research topics all over the world. </p>
<p>For instance, <a href="https://www.rights4time.com/copy-of-surfacing-time">our own Global Challenges Research Fund-supported work</a> focuses on ending impunity for sexual violence in Kenya. The political landscape in Kenya means that this budget cut has come at an especially critical time for our project: next year is an election year. </p>
<p>Sexual violence has been associated with election periods in Kenya and is used as a <a href="https://phr.org/our-work/resources/breaking-cycles-of-violence-gaps-in-prevention-of-and-response-to-electoral-related-sexual-violence-in-kenya/">form of political intimidation</a>. Our work increases the capability of human rights defenders in Kenya to <a href="https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/igi/igi-transforming-how-sexual-violence-is-reported-kenya-min.pdf">document and monitor</a> sexual violence incidents in real time. Our research can, therefore, help to identify perpetrators of election-related rape, deter crimes, and determine areas where critical services are needed to support survivors.</p>
<p>However, unless the cuts are reversed, more women and children will suffer. UK Research and Innovation has left it up to individual universities to decide by April 16 which Global Challenges Research Fund projects will be terminated, and which of the remaining projects face a budget cut of between 50% to 83%. </p>
<h2>Critical research</h2>
<p>Our team, which includes the <a href="https://wangukanjafoundation.org/">Wangu Kanja Foundation</a>, the Survivors of Sexual Violence in Kenya Network (hereafter, the network), and researchers from the University of Birmingham, <a href="https://www.careresearchproject.com">have been combating sexual violence</a> <a href="https://www.careresearchproject.com">through</a> the fund.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393572/original/file-20210406-19-1kdd26.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393572/original/file-20210406-19-1kdd26.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393572/original/file-20210406-19-1kdd26.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393572/original/file-20210406-19-1kdd26.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393572/original/file-20210406-19-1kdd26.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393572/original/file-20210406-19-1kdd26.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393572/original/file-20210406-19-1kdd26.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wangu Kanja</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lack of data and weak statistical and technical capacity in countries such as Kenya mean incidents of sexual violence <a href="https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-021-01613-9">are seldom</a> brought to the attention of international audiences. An estimated 17-25% of girls <a href="https://www.unicef.org/kenya/reports/The-2019-Violence-Against-Children-Survey">experience sexual violence at least once</a> before the age of 18. Further, historically, survivors have not been “at the table” when prevention and protection policies are developed. Policies are thus <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X19300841">often inadequate and poorly executed</a> due to the lack of political goodwill and inadequate resources.</p>
<p>To this end, the Network developed a mobile application in 2018 to collect data from rape survivors across all 47 counties in Kenya. This provides systematic and high-quality data about incidents. The Kenyan government does not systematically record cases or track them.</p>
<p>The lack of official government data contributes to the collective oppression of sexual violence survivors. The work of the survivors’ network is evidencing the scale of these violations and helps to amplify the voices of survivors. </p>
<p>Global Challenges Research Fund cuts threaten to undermine <a href="https://www.careresearchproject.com/interview-training">this hard, important work</a>.</p>
<h2>COVID-19</h2>
<p>The network also recently <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/3964124#.YGWI_69KjIW">sought</a> to identify <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/3964124#.YGWI_69KjIW">new patterns of sexual violence</a> in Kenya during COVID-19. The results paint a worrying picture for the year ahead. We found that patterns of violence were shifting in the wake of the pandemic. Vulnerability to sexual and other forms of gender-based violence were being exacerbated, particularly for girls and women.</p>
<p>For instance, child victims now appear to be four years younger compared to before the pandemic. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2021.630901/full">Our research</a> is enabling us to urge policymakers to ensure children have access to alternative safe venues when schools are closed, and that Kenya’s COVID-19 emergency management and recovery plans include alternative emergency routes for accessing vital services.</p>
<p>Worryingly, our report also identified an increase in violations (rapes, murders, beatings) by police and security forces throughout the pandemic.</p>
<p>These findings are especially important around elections, which have historically been marred by widespread sexual violence and other human rights violations. Most survivors did not receive urgent medical attention and post-rape care. Those who are supposed to protect people from harm committed the most horrific acts.</p>
<h2>Letting down our partners</h2>
<p>Removing vital support to survivors and defunding our ability to track cases and hold perpetrators accountable will only serve to worsen the problem, both next year and in the decades that follow.</p>
<p>The stakes could not be higher. Survivors of sexual violence in Kenya rarely receive psycho-social support. Rape is highly stigmatised in Kenya, and victims are left to cope on their own.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.careresearchproject.com/interview-training">Our research</a> is also adapting Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-protocol-on-the-documentation-and-investigation-of-sexual-violence-in-conflict">protocol</a> so that it can be used by human rights defenders in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X19301330">low-resource environments</a>. The protocol provides guidance on documenting and investigating sexual violence in conflict so that perpetrators can be brought to justice. </p>
<p>Cutting our project – and others like it – means losing a genuine opportunity to change this situation. </p>
<p><em>The Wangu Kanja Foundation (WKF) is a 15-year old registered non-profit NGO in Kenya that assists survivors in accessing post-rape care services.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather D. Flowe holds UK Research and Innovation GCRF grants.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nic Cheeseman and Wangu Kanja do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Removing funding from research-led projects puts people in highly vulnerable situations.Wangu Kanja, Affiliated Researcher, University of BirminghamHeather D. Flowe, Reader in Forensic Psychology, University of BirminghamNic Cheeseman, Professor of Democracy, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1538862021-02-02T19:05:51Z2021-02-02T19:05:51ZJournal papers, grants, jobs … as rejections pile up, it’s not enough to tell academics to ‘suck it up’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381599/original/file-20210201-21-x1nz3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C5034%2C3364&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">fizkes/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most academics regularly submit papers and compete for grants and promotions. These endeavours are necessary for their success but often end in rejection. </p>
<p>Responses to rejection in academia have typically been individually focused. Most discussions of the topic describe what academics themselves can do to cope with rejection. </p>
<p>For example, in a watershed tweet in 2017, <a href="https://twitter.com/nhoputs?lang=en">Nick Hopwood</a> posted a picture of his <a href="https://nickhop.wordpress.com/2017/06/21/my-wall-of-rejection-and-why-it-matters/">office wall</a> papered with rejection letters. Academics were encouraged to celebrate rather than commiserate rejection, spawning the #NormaliseRejection hashtag. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/please-reject-me-a-survivors-guide-to-publish-or-perish-1278">Please reject me: a survivor's guide to 'publish or perish'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"877406216300843009"}"></div></p>
<p>But, as we explored in <a href="https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss5/19/">our recent paper</a>, persistent rejection is problematic, and focusing on the individual academic is not the whole solution. </p>
<h2>Just how toxic is the rejection culture?</h2>
<p>Academics’ careers are strongly linked to their <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1017/edp.2019.16">success in publishing</a> and funding applications. Unfortunately, rejection rates are high, ranging from <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15127289.pdf">50%</a> in general journals to <a href="https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes">92%</a> in prestigious outlets like Nature. The Conversation, too, rejects most submissions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-guide-to-how-we-decide-what-to-publish-in-politics-and-society-75536">A guide to how we decide what to publish in Politics and Society</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Such high levels of rejection have three adverse consequences. </p>
<p>First, it squanders a valuable opportunity for professional learning and development. Learning sciences show clearly described <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/npjscilearn201613">success criteria</a> and constructive, task-specific <a href="http://area.fc.ul.pt/en/artigos%20publicados%20internacionais/The%20Power%20of%20Feedback_Hattie_Timperley2007_77_1_81_112.pdf">feedback</a> promote effective learning and development. Yet these are lacking in many decisions on publication or grant submissions. </p>
<p>In our teaching of students, we adopt this nuanced, incremental and developmental approach because it improves learning. In contrast, academic publication or funding decisions can be binary: submissions are rejected or accepted, with little or nothing in between. What’s missed in the process is a powerful learning and developmental opportunity for the academics whose work has presumably been assessed and evaluated.</p>
<p>Second, it wastes an inordinate amount of academics’ time, contributing to their well-documented <a href="https://theconversation.com/survey-of-academics-finds-widespread-feelings-of-stress-and-overwork-130715">excessive workload</a>. <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/3/5/e002800.full.pdf">One study</a> showed that for one round of a funding scheme in Australia researchers altogether spent more than 500 years of their time preparing proposals. Most of their proposals did not get funded. </p>
<p>Third, rejection culture on top of excessive workloads <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/211_11/mja250414.pdf">contributes to stress and anxiety</a> among academics. Mental health issues have significant impacts on their work satisfaction, productivity and <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/211_11/mja250414.pdf">general well-being</a>. </p>
<p>Mental health problems among academics are already at an <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-academics-and-students-have-mental-health-problems-than-ever-before-90339">all-time high</a>. These problems occur at <a href="https://srhe.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075079.2020.1793934#.YBCuj-gzaUk">twice the rate</a> of the general population, an incidence higher even than among <a href="https://uobrep.openrepository.com/handle/10547/622171">police or medical staff</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="woman with head in hands is distressed by what she has just read on her laptop" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381601/original/file-20210201-21-8aq9cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381601/original/file-20210201-21-8aq9cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381601/original/file-20210201-21-8aq9cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381601/original/file-20210201-21-8aq9cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381601/original/file-20210201-21-8aq9cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381601/original/file-20210201-21-8aq9cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381601/original/file-20210201-21-8aq9cj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rejection culture is a factor in the high rates of mental health problems among academics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">fizkes/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-academics-and-students-have-mental-health-problems-than-ever-before-90339">More academics and students have mental health problems than ever before</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>This is what institutions can do</h2>
<p>Most papers on academic rejection focus on how the individual can improve their response – the so-called “suck it up” response. We argue, in contrast, that systemic or institutional responses can reduce the toxicity of the culture. Our recommendations for change fall into three main categories. </p>
<p>First, make success criteria clear prior to applications and provide timely and targeted feedback afterwards. The opportunity costs of applying for grants, funding and publications – time and effort that could have been invested in something else – would then be minimised. </p>
<p>This approach could involve pre-submission quality assessments. This can involve communities of academics assessing the quality of manuscripts before they are submitted for publication; journal editors would then only expend resources on the ones most likely to succeed. This would ensure academics pursue only submissions that are most likely to succeed. </p>
<p>When funders and editors approach researchers directly and “commission” proposals, that greatly reduces the opportunity costs. The <a href="https://www.macfound.org/">MacArthur Foundation</a>, for example, now commonly does this. </p>
<p>Second, the process of publication can be improved in several ways. For a start, editors can reduce the number of submissions forwarded for peer review. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/211_11/mja250414.pdf">Researchers</a> have studied the benefits of providing authors with prompt decisions and specific feedback aimed at improving chances of future publication. When the submissions review history is included too, it ensures the incremental improvements from feedback are not wasted. Future reviewers also appreciate this as it avoids the problem of different reviewers rejecting for conflicting reasons.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/peer-review-has-some-problems-but-the-science-community-is-working-on-it-99596">Peer review has some problems – but the science community is working on it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Third, prioritising the mental health of academics at an institutional level will lessen the impacts of the rejection culture. Institutions can and should provide awards that recognise performance in writing and research – independent of publication metrics – ideally without any time-consuming application process. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/unis-want-research-shared-widely-so-why-dont-they-properly-back-academics-to-do-it-151375">Unis want research shared widely. So why don't they properly back academics to do it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Institutions can also take steps to maximise <a href="https://www.rit.edu/provost/sites/rit.edu.provost/files/images/05_Fountain%20Newcomer%2020160916.pdf">mentorship and collaboration</a> among academics. The recruitment of peer mentors enhances <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Bowman-Perrott/publication/267392499_Academic_Benefits_of_Peer_Tutoring_A_Meta-Analytic_Review_of_Single-Case_Research/links/56708d0f08aececfd5532be8/Academic-Benefits-of-Peer-Tutoring-A-Meta-Analytic-Review-of-Single-Case-Research.pdf">professional learning</a>, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/oti.154">research productivity</a> and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002246698501900410">community and social connection</a>. </p>
<p>Some journals have already <a href="https://bild-lida.ca/journal/">successfully adopted</a> initiatives that involve the recruitment of peer mentors to journal editorial teams who, like peer reviewers, volunteer their time to work collaboratively with authors to improve their manuscripts for publication. </p>
<p>To maximise the benefits to society from the academy’s pursuit and dissemination of new knowledge, academics need to function at their best. The current culture of rejection doesn’t help them do this. </p>
<p>There is little point in relying on academics to just suck it up or celebrate their failure – institutions need to play their part. A cultural problem requires a cultural solution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/2020-locked-in-shift-to-open-access-publishing-but-australia-is-lagging-150284">2020 locked in shift to open access publishing, but Australia is lagging</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Clarification: An embedded tweet seeking to comfort academics whose work has been rejected by publishers depicts a supposed Einstein rejection letter, which is a fake. As embedded tweets lack explanatory captions, it has been removed from the article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153886/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kelly-Ann Allen is an honorary Fellow of the Centre for Positive Psychology, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, and a Fellow of the Australian Psychological Society and College of Educational and Developmental Psychologists. Kelly-Ann is an international affiliate of the American Psychological Association (APA) and a member of APA D15 (Educational Psychology) and APA D16 (School Psychology). Kelly-Ann is the Editor-in-Chief of the Educational and Developmental Psychologist and Journal of Belonging and Human Connection. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Gregory Donoghue is a consulting reviewer of The Educational and Developmental Psychologist journal. For his work in projects not related to this article, he has received Special Research Initiative funding from The Australian Research Council through the Science of Learning Research Centre, University of Melbourne (SRI 120300015). No conflicts of interest exist in relation to the publication of this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saeed Pahlevansharif is an Associate Professor at Taylor’s University, Malaysia, and an Adjunct Professor at Saito University College, Malaysia. Saeed is the Director of Centre for Industrial Revolution and Innovation (CIRI). He is the editor-in-chief of Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration and the editor of Taylor’s Business Review. Saeed has received several research grants for projects not related to this article. There is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Hattie and Shane Jimerson do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The rejection culture of academia is damaging. Rejections are inevitable, but there are better ways of managing the process that don’t leave individuals to bear the whole burden of coping.Kelly-Ann Allen, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Monash UniversityGregory Donoghue, Honorary Research Fellow, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of MelbourneJohn Hattie, Professor, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of MelbourneSaeed Pahlevansharif, Associate Professor, Taylor's UniversityShane Jimerson, Professor of Counseling, Clinical and School Psychology, University of California, Santa BarbaraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1363902020-04-21T04:49:44Z2020-04-21T04:49:44ZAntarctic endeavours, primary health-care research and dark matter exploration – the coronavirus casualties you haven’t heard of<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/329327/original/file-20200421-126488-1sx9hsq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=100%2C22%2C7348%2C4947&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The year 2020 came with big expectations for researchers, myself included. Last year I was successful in the first round of the <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/data-research/outcomes-funding-rounds#download">National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grants scheme</a>. Six years since completing my PhD, I managed to launch my <a href="https://healthyprimarycare.com">Healthy Primary Care</a> research team. </p>
<p>We investigate how principles of wellness such as healthy eating and exercise are incorporated into health care, particularly in general practice. I spent the summer planning how to support my team for the next five years, focusing on impact and research translation into real-world settings. </p>
<p>Big things were in the works. It was an exciting time. But as it turns out, wellness in health care isn’t a priority during the COVID-19 crisis. </p>
<p>As the pandemic lingers, big players (<a href="https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/big-pharma-companies-join-forces-for-fightback-against-covid-19">especially pharmaceutical companies</a>) around the world have understandably dropped everything, <a href="https://www.gisaid.org/">joining forces to give the virus their undivided attention</a>.</p>
<h2>A sudden loss</h2>
<p>Many of my team’s projects relied on doctors, nurses and other health professionals to collect or provide data. With the strain placed on health care by the pandemic, continuing was no longer viable. <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/find-funding/synergy-grants">Grant applications</a>, domestic and international travel, conferences and meetings have all been cancelled or postponed indefinitely. </p>
<p>As a supervisor, the hardest part was withdrawing research students and interns I’d lined up to start projects in clinics. This pandemic has challenged the relevance, impact and productivity of our work. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/for-most-universities-theres-little-point-to-the-governments-covid-19-assistance-package-136244">For most universities, there's little point to the government's COVID-19 assistance package</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This shock comes shortly after a summer of devastating bushfires which hindered research progress by forcing experts out of fire-affected regions, destroying expanses of equipment and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00130-4">reportedly setting some studies “back months or years”</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/329341/original/file-20200421-126515-2sr1f6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This photo was taken in Junee, New South Wales, in January. According to reports, the total tangible cost estimate of the summer bushfires was close to A$100 billion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Stoppages across the field</h2>
<p>Social distancing, travel bans and quarantine restrictions mean scientific fieldwork across the world has almost completely stopped. </p>
<p>The Australian Antarctic Program, led by the federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has been <a href="http://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2020/impacts-of-covid-19-on-the-australian-antarctic-program">reduced to essential staff only</a> to keep the Antarctic continent COVID-19-free. Instead of sending 500 expeditioners in the next summer season, the Australian Antarctic Division will only send about 150. </p>
<p>Social distancing measures are also preventing climate scientists from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/03/climate-monitoring-research-coronavirus-scientists">being able to visit their laboratories</a>. If the pandemic continues, this could hamper important weather and climate surveillance practices. In some cases, labs have been reduced to one essential worker <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/updated-labs-go-quiet-researchers-brace-long-term-coronavirus-disruptions">whose sole job is to keep laboratory animals alive</a> for when research resumes. </p>
<p>Delays have also impacted one of the world’s largest efforts to investigate the nature of dark matter. The <a href="https://science.purdue.edu/xenon1t/?cat=3">XENON experiment</a> based in Italy is worth more than US$30 million, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/science/dark-matter-elena-aprile-coronavirus.html">according to the New York Times</a>. It faced a multitude of roadblocks when the country was forced into lockdown earlier this year. </p>
<h2>Young research stars missing opportunities</h2>
<p>For young researchers, social distancing and event cancellations are especially damaging to professional development. Scientific conferences and meetings foster collaboration and can also lead to <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-coronavirus-is-hampering-science/">employment opportunities</a>.</p>
<p>Although funding cancellations and <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/news-centre/update-changes-nhmrc-2020-funding-schemes">grant scheme delays</a> mostly impact established researchers, other schemes supporting early career and postdoctoral researchers have also been postponed, such as the <a href="https://research.flinders.edu.au/rp/Blog/14981-A/new-opportunities-rebecca-l-cooper-medical-research-foundation-project-grant-round-delayed">Rebecca L Cooper Medical Research scheme</a> and the <a href="https://www.griffith.edu.au/research/research-services/research-grants/funding-opportunities/internal-grants">Griffith University Postdoctoral Fellowship</a> scheme. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-social-distancing-is-delaying-vital-scientific-research-133689">Coronavirus: Social distancing is delaying vital scientific research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This crisis has left the next generation of researchers unsupported, and have negative flow-on effects for all research areas. In health and disease prevention, research efforts apart from vaccinations are still vital, as the onset of COVID-19 hasn’t stopped the rise of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23245609">chronic disease</a>.</p>
<h2>There are positives</h2>
<p>Australia boasts a robust and passionate research workforce, which means we can divert resources to a united cause such as the coronavirus crisis. As the race for a vaccine continues, the value of research has never been more apparent to the non-scientific community. This may help <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/how-could-coronavirus-crisis-change-research-spending">weaken anti-science messages</a>.</p>
<p>The pandemic is also providing opportunity for future university leaders to understand university management, funding and governance decisions. Never before has information been so accessible on where <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-unis-may-need-to-cut-staff-and-research-if-government-extends-coronavirus-travel-ban-132175">funding comes from</a>. </p>
<p>Online conferencing and collaboration related to research has also made participation more accessible and affordable. This increases inclusively by removing barriers for people who may not be able to attend in-person gatherings, such as people <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/covid-19-isolation-disabilities/">living with a physical disability</a>, full-time carers and people experiencing financial hardship. Less domestic and international travel is also helping <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00786-y">reduce carbon footprints</a>. </p>
<h2>Charging forward</h2>
<p>The health system isn’t working normally, which means my team’s research isn’t working normally. Nonetheless, we’re pivoting well in this uncertain time. We’re helping plan the <a href="https://aaapc.org.au/event-3649286">first online conference for Australian primary care</a> to improve access to relevant research across the country. </p>
<p>New grant opportunities are aligning COVID-19 to our research focus, such as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’s and the Hospitals Contribution Fund’s <a href="https://foundation.racgp.org.au/grants">special call for projects on COVID-19 in general practice</a>. </p>
<p>Some may think non-COVID-19 research isn’t currently necessary, but it will be once we combat this disease. And when that happens, we’ll be ready to continue right where we left off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136390/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lauren Ball works for Griffith University. She receives external funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is on the Executive Committee of the Australasian Association of Academic Primary Care and is a member of the Dietitians Association of Australia.</span></em></p>With a threatening virus sweeping the world, research efforts across sectors have ground to a halt. But one thing is clear: the non-scientific community has never valued research more.Lauren Ball, Associate Professor/ Principal Research Fellow, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1225552019-09-02T12:07:36Z2019-09-02T12:07:36ZScholarly success of African universities: common contributing factors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290071/original/file-20190829-106494-1s0jusm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It’s not all doom and gloom for African universities – some are getting it right.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the start of the northern hemisphere academic year <a href="https://monitor.icef.com/2016/12/new-study-highlights-shifting-patterns-african-student-mobility/">hundreds of thousands</a> of students across Africa head to the airport. The reason for this “student exodus” is that those who can afford it head abroad for their tertiary education. </p>
<p>Why do they go? A survey done last year <a href="https://monitor.icef.com/2018/09/african-student-perspectives-study-abroad/">found</a> that 71% of African students studying outside Africa thought a degree earned abroad represented a higher-level qualification than a degree at home. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.wittenborg.eu/where-does-modern-african-student-go-when-he-or-she-chooses-study-abroad.htm">exodus</a> can be attributed to numerous reasons. These include inadequate funding of tertiary education resulting in dilapidated campuses and obsolete study programmes that are not adapted to developments in science and technology. Other factors include an absence of research policy and insufficient resources. All these result in a perception of low quality African universities.</p>
<p>That more than 70% of the students interviewed had a jaundiced view of an African degree seems a bit unjust. Nevertheless, the truth is that <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/">17%</a> of the world’s population lives on the African continent. Yet Africa has <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-africa">less than 1%</a> of the world’s top 250 universities. </p>
<p>But it’s not all doom and gloom. There are African universities, despite the financial constraints, that are getting it right.</p>
<p>I did an analysis of universities on the continent to establish which were strongest in terms of research output. I used published research to identify the strongest and sourced scholarly outputs statistics from the academic database <a href="https://www.scival.com/">SciVal</a>. </p>
<p>I used a number of measures for the analysis. These included the number of scholarly outputs (academic publications), the growth of authors contributing to these outputs, the number of international co-authors and the proportion of scholarly outputs in the top 10% of academic journals. I looked at the period between 2014 to 2019.</p>
<p>The number of outputs represents the research productivity of academics within an institution. For their part, articles published in the top 10% of academic journals serve to quantify the quality and impact of the scholarly outputs. The level of international co-authors indicates the level of international research collaboration and global prestige of each institution.</p>
<p>What emerged from the analysis is the similarity in the strategic approaches the best and aspiring African universities employ to achieve an increase in both scholarly output and quality. All universities covered in the article deemed international partnerships as essential to research productivity.</p>
<h2>The best performers</h2>
<p>Two of the top universities in Africa for published research – also known as scholarly output – are the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand. Both are in South Africa. They are ranked in the <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-africa">top 250</a> globally.</p>
<p>Both universities have between 30%-35% of all their scholarly output published in the top 10% of global academic journals. This is important for universities’ prestige as well as their finances. </p>
<p>Also notable was the high number of international co-authors in their outputs. At the University of Cape Town it was 60%. At the University of the Witwatersrand it was 54%. </p>
<p>An institution with a rapid increase in scholarly outputs is Egypt’s Zewail City of Science and Technology. Established in 2012, just over 43% of its scholarly outputs were published in the top 10% of global academic journals. In addition, 51% of all its outputs were co-authored with international institutions.</p>
<p>There are positive signs in Nigeria too. The University of Ibadan was the top West African university for scholarly outputs. The university has 15% of all its outputs published in the top 10% of academic journals. And 38% of its publications were co-authored with institutions in other countries.</p>
<p>Another institution with an increasing scholarly output rate is Covenant University, Nigeria. It’s also a relatively young institution – it was opened in 2002. Just over 8% of all its outputs were published in the top 10% of academic journals.</p>
<p>The fact that 31% of its publications were co-authored with institutions in other countries demonstrated a collaborative approach to research. </p>
<p>So how have these African universities bucked the trend, and made their voices heard outside Africa?</p>
<h2>Six key factors</h2>
<p>In researching the issue, I identified six lessons that can be learnt from these successful African universities: </p>
<p><strong>Research excellence:</strong> The University of Witwatersrand has driven a 37% increase in its <a href="https://www.wits.ac.za/media/wits-university/news-and-events/images/documents/2018/2016-2017%20Research%20Report.pdf">scholarly outputs</a> over the last five years, with an emphasis on quality. The university has also adopted a strategic focus on increasing the number of post-graduate students. It aims to have post-graduates as <a href="https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/general-news/2019/2019-07/huawei-awards-bursaries-to-wits-postgraduate-students.html">45%</a> of its student population by 2022. This, in turn, has helped drive the surge in scholarly output. The university also has a clear focus on priority <a href="https://www.wits.ac.za/research/areas-of-excellence/">research areas</a> where it can make a significant impact. An example is clinical research to manage AIDS.</p>
<p><strong>Research support infrastructure:</strong> Research productivity is crucial for academic promotions within the universities. The University of Cape Town in particular has invested heavily in a pro-research infrastructure. This comes with extensive research administrative support and guidance. In Nigeria, the University of Ibadan recently established <a href="https://www.thenhef.org/news-events/partner-university-spotlight-university-of-ibadan/">a new leadership role</a> to focus on research and innovation.</p>
<p><strong>A balance between the teaching and research workloads, possibly by restricting student intake:</strong> The University of Ibadan, for example, has adopted an approach of rigorously maintaining a student-staff ratio that ensures academic workloads allow time for research. The university has maintained an annual undergraduate intake of approximately <a href="https://www.ngschoolz.net/ui-admission-statistics/">4,000</a> students. This has been despite growing pressure to increase the numbers.</p>
<p><strong>Attracting the best professors and researchers:</strong> The University of the Witwatersrand has made a concerted effort to recruit professors with high citations – <a href="https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/general-news/2018/2018-04/wits-celebrates-its-rated-researchers.html">“A”-rated professors</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Setting levels of academic expectation:</strong> Covenant University in Nigeria has adopted a research, citations, innovation and teaching agenda that drives academic activities at all levels. There’s significant <a href="https://covenantuniversity.edu.ng/Research2#.XWaRLugzaM8">support</a> for staff through workshops in grant writing and publication. </p>
<p>Zewail City of Science and Technology was founded by Nobel laurate in Chemistry, Professor Ahmed Zewail. It has four Nobel laurates as members of its <a href="https://zewailcity.edu.eg/main/content.php?lang=en&alias=supreme_advisory_board_(sab_)_">Supreme Advisory Board</a>. It’s therefore no surprise that it has a significant number of its scholarly outputs in the top 10% of global academic journals.</p>
<p><strong>Forging international partnerships:</strong> The University of Ibadan, and the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, also emphasise the importance of international references for professorial promotion. The University of Nigeria, Nsukka has taken the decision to actively seek collaborative international partners to mitigate the lack of research infrastructure. </p>
<p><em>As part of his research, the author also conducted interviews with: Dr Marilet Sienaert, Executive Director Research, University of Cape Town, South Africa; Professor Zeblon Vilakazi, Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research and Postgraduate affairs, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa; Professor Olanike Adeyemo, Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research, Innovation and Strategic Partnerships, University of Ibadan, Nigeria; Professor Salah Obayya, Zewail City of Science and Technology, Egypt; Professor Emeka Iweala, Director, Covenant University Centre for Research, Innovation and Discovery, Covenant University, Nigeria; Professor James Ogbonna, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Mba does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With limited resources and inadequate infrastructure, African universities appear to be under tremendous strain. But some are beating the odds and getting it right.David Mba, Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Computing, Engineering and Media, De Montfort UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1184112019-06-06T13:36:56Z2019-06-06T13:36:56ZAfrican universities need structures to assess and measure the impact of grants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278314/original/file-20190606-98003-1ojci2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Without proper assessment and evaluation, a university's grants wheel can grind to a halt.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since Africa’s earliest modern public universities were established on the continent in the 1940s, these institutions have struggled to generate adequate and sustainable funding. For the most part, universities on the continent depend on money from national governments; grants; donations from international donor communities and industries to fund their learning, teaching and research activities.</p>
<p>But most lack proper institutional evaluation to record and track the outcomes of various grants after projects or programmes are completed. Usually, evaluations entail nothing more than a financial audit report and main outcome of the project. </p>
<p>This approach does little to show how a particular tranche of funding has contributed to a university achieving its mission, vision and short-to-long term plans. But universities favour it because they pride themselves on being autonomous and self-regulating.</p>
<p>For instance, in recent times some African universities have received grants to train PhD candidates in various fields. When the grants end, there’s only one key indicator: how many beneficiaries have graduated. This doesn’t take into account whether the project followed proper systems of accountability. It also doesn’t identify the various lessons learned from implementing the project. That means there’s no learning platform for future projects. </p>
<p>I <a href="https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ihe/article/view/11209">set out to study</a> how universities in Africa evaluate funding once programmes or projects are completed. I also offered some ideas about improving this evaluation, and why it is so important. I argue that evaluation is a critical tool for decisions on improving performance. It also assures that African universities are getting value for money from grants, donations and the like.</p>
<h2>University funding</h2>
<p>For starters, it’s useful to identify where university funding is coming from in Africa. Grants are popular. So is financial support from national governments, northern and western universities. The international donor community is involved, too, and so are philanthropic organisations.</p>
<p>Some examples from across the continent show just how varied and valuable grants are.</p>
<p>In the 2015/2016 academic year, the Office of Research and Development at the University of Ghana <a href="https://orid.ug.edu.gh/sites/orid.ug.edu.gh/files/researchreport/UG%20Research%20Report%202015-2016.pdf">received</a> US $32 million from nine international donor agencies. </p>
<p>In 2010, a <a href="https://ui.edu.ng/grantsprofile">grant profiling</a> on the University of Ibadan in Nigeria’s website revealed that the university had 106 grants worth more than $US 17 million – and that 101 of those providing the grants were international. </p>
<p>The University of Nairobi in Kenya is not clear on the amount it receives from donors. But, of the 16 donors it <a href="https://finance.uonbi.ac.ke/index.php?q=node/768">mentions on its website</a>, only one is Kenyan.</p>
<p>So how are these grants and donations assessed? In the last 15 years many of the continent’s universities have established grant offices. Their role is to strategise and attract funds from external sources. But in most cases these offices don’t have clear “grant policies” to guide their operations and the use of grants received. This lack of clear policy also means that programmes implemented under external grants can’t be properly evaluated by the universities when those grants expire.</p>
<p>This isn’t always a problem. International donors almost always have systems in place to evaluate the use use and impact of their grants. But industry donors and governments tend not to. So there really isn’t any way for universities to know if these grants are worthwhile, effective and add value.</p>
<p>The solution to this gap is an institutional grants evaluation framework that could be rolled out across the continent. Such a framework already exists elsewhere. For example, the European University Association has an <a href="https://www.iep-qaa.org/">institutional evaluation programme</a> that’s conducted periodically. One of the aspects it examines is how grants are used and whether they are supporting universities’ missions, visions and outcomes.</p>
<h2>A valuable framework</h2>
<p>This sort of framework would have several benefits for African universities. </p>
<p>It would provide organisational learning and allow for future impact studies and assessments of grants. It would also improve accountability within universities and restore trust among university staff and donors. It would ensure that donor grants are properly used.</p>
<p>Some work is being done to address this issue. The <a href="http://www0.sun.ac.za/crest/">Centre for Research Evaluation on Science and Technology</a> (CREST) at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, through the Department of Higher Education, is helping the country’s universities to monitor government grant-related activities. Also in South Africa, universities are beginning to draw up frameworks to guide their grant programme implementation.</p>
<p>The broader framework I’m proposing for African universities should focus on improving policy and practice in the utilisation of all grants which flow into a particular university. </p>
<p>In addition, the design of the framework should define activities, inputs, performance indicators, deliverables, means of verification, outcomes and outputs and results expected from the use of the grant. Crucially, it should also speak to the broader mission and vision of the respective universities; their mid- to long-term strategic plans; the expectations from regional bodies from universities; and above all the core mission of every university: teaching, research and community engagements.</p>
<p>This won’t be easy. The continent’s universities lack capacity around issues of monitoring and evaluation. More people are needed who have been trained in higher education operations. Universities need to train their administrative staff in monitoring and evaluation and also employ experts in that field to work in institutions’ strategic offices.</p>
<p>Despite the challenges, though, universities on the continent must prioritise proper grant evaluation. Without real focus and planning, grants will not do the good they ought to and universities may lose out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118411/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harris Andoh is a Research Scientist affiliated with CSIR- Science and Technology Policy Research Institute(STEPRI), Accra, Ghana . </span></em></p>Evaluation is a critical tool for decisions on improving performance. It also assures that African universities are getting value for money from grants, donations and the like.Harris Andoh, Research Policy Expert in Institutional Research, Monitoring and Evaluation, Tshwane University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1090802018-12-27T19:03:39Z2018-12-27T19:03:39ZHigher education policy in 2018: Culture wars reignite, but in the end it’s all about the money<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251670/original/file-20181220-45419-xs9djk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Culture wars reignited between the government and the university sector in 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This is a longer read at just over 1,300 words. Enjoy!</em></p>
<hr>
<p>In 2018, the relationship between the Australian higher education sector and the federal government finished as it began: with the announcements of more funding cuts. </p>
<p>In between these financial bookends, the sector experienced somewhat of a culture war revival. Debate raged over Western civilisation values, academic freedom and what research was considered to be in the national interest.</p>
<h2>We begin with a funding cut in late 2017</h2>
<p>In late 2017, the federal government announced that funding for Commonwealth-supported places in 2018 <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/myefo/download/MYEFO_2017-18.pdf">would be capped at 2017 levels</a>. This decision was designed to limit increases to higher education spending without needing to repeal the demand-driven system, a bill that the government believed might not pass the Senate. </p>
<p>Institutions could continue to enrol as many students as they wished. But they would not be funded for the extra numbers. </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, the sector reacted angrily to the A$2.1 billion in cuts, warning these “<a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-releases/Latest-cuts-would-leave-Australia-s-uni-funding--frozen-in-time--as-costs-rise#.XBndys1S-Uk">would result in a smaller share of Australians having the chance of a university education in future</a>”. </p>
<p>In response, the government argued the freeze was necessary to ensure the viability of the sector so “<a href="https://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/interview-on-abc-891-adelaide-breakfast-with-spence-denny/">future generations also get to go to university with no upfront fees</a>”.</p>
<p>Almost one year on, the actual impact of the funding freeze is not yet clear. This is because official enrolment figures for 2018 will not be released until 2019. </p>
<p>Furthermore, as some universities had already made strategic decisions on future enrolment levels, it may take some time for the effects to fully flow through the system – should a future government not reverse the cuts. </p>
<h2>Academic freedom … again</h2>
<p>Money aside, two words sum up a year’s worth of interaction between the government and the Australian higher education sector: “academic freedom”. </p>
<p>In reality, this is a perennial debate. The only thing that changes from year to year is what issue will be the tinder and where the spark will come from. </p>
<p>In 2018, there were two primary sources. The first had its roots in a cultural battle dating back to 2011, when Tony Abbott – then opposition leader and future prime minister – reportedly started <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2018/august/1533045600/robert-manne/abbott-anu-and-decline-western-civilisation">discussing</a> with billionaire Paul Ramsay the possibility of funding a Western civilisation university program based around reading the “great books” of the tradition. </p>
<p>The Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation was established in March 2017. In early 2018, negotiations began with the Australian National University (ANU) to develop and run course offerings. </p>
<p>From the outset critics of the program saw it as an ideological rather than educational venture. In evidence, they pointed to Abbott’s own statements, <a href="https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/04/paul-ramsays-vision-australia/">such as</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The key to understanding the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation is that it’s not merely <strong>about</strong> Western civilisation but <strong>in favour</strong> of it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Concerns about the erosion of academic freedom and standards were raised and eventually ANU withdrew from negotiations, <a href="http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/response-to-ramsay-ceo-the-conversation">stating</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… alarm bells rang … as the Ramsay Centre continued to propose amendments to the evolving draft MOU, which amounted to more and more control over key academic matters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Responding to this, Liberal Senator James Paterson <a href="https://senatorpaterson.com.au/2018/06/18/fine-unis-for-caving-on-free-speech-senator-paterson/">called</a> for universities to face fines for failing to uphold free speech. He argued financial penalties “would go some way to preventing the ‘administrative cowardice’ behind the Australian National University’s decision”. </p>
<p>The Ramsay Centre turned to the University of Sydney to host the program. A name change to the course was offered, but the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/17/western-tradition-ramsay-centre-degree-name-change-proposed-in-bid-to-win-over-academics">same concerns</a> arose. </p>
<p>The issue simmered throughout the latter half of the year until December, when the University of Wollongong <a href="https://media.uow.edu.au/releases/UOW254589.html">announced</a> it would host the centre. Wollongong academics immediately <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/education/staff-left-betrayed-as-university-reveals-ramsay-centre-deal-20181217-p50msp.html">criticised</a> the decision. The issue is almost certain to percolate into and beyond 2019.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-concept-of-western-civilisation-is-past-its-use-by-date-in-university-humanities-departments-87750">The concept of 'Western civilisation' is past its use-by date in university humanities departments</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Ministerial intervention in research grants</h2>
<p>While the Ramsay Centre issue revolved around the control exerted by private funders over higher education teaching, the second issue inflaming the culture wars debate in 2018 concerned taxpayer-funded research. </p>
<p>In October, many Australian scholars were outraged to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtPDjXI8fE&feature=youtu.be">discover</a> the former federal education minister, Simon Birmingham, had personally intervened to reject several Australian Research Council (ARC) funding grants. </p>
<p>The ARC is one of the peak bodies for allocating research funds and being awarded an ARC research grant is akin to winning Olympic gold for many scholars. It’s not an overstatement to say that, in many cases, academic careers are made or broken by grants (or lack thereof) won through the ARC.</p>
<p>The fact that all the grants Birmingham had rejected were humanities projects didn’t go unnoticed. Attacking the decisions, ALP Senator Kim Carr <a href="https://twitter.com/SenKimCarr/status/1055947037760356352">tweeted</a>:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1055947037760356352"}"></div></p>
<p>In support of his decision, Birmingham <a href="https://twitter.com/Birmo/status/1055586252244713474">argued</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I‘m pretty sure most Australian taxpayers preferred their funding to be used for research other than spending A$223,000 on projects like ‘Post orientalist arts of the Strait of Gibraltar’. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many peak academic, research and teaching organisations issued denunciations of Birmingham’s action. They pointed out not only had the peer-reviewed funding recommendations been overturned, the researchers in question had not been told this was due to ministerial veto (as opposed, for example, to reasons of academic rigour or the quality of the research). </p>
<p>The public universities <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-releases/University-leaders-condemn-political-veto-on-research-grants#.XBoRMM1S-Uk">called on</a> the new federal education minister, Dan Tehan, to follow expert advice and not veto any grants in the future. Tehan declined to offer this assurance, but said he would instruct the ARC to let researchers know in the future when the minister had vetoed their grant.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/simon-birminghams-intervention-in-research-funding-is-not-unprecedented-but-dangerous-105737">Simon Birmingham's intervention in research funding is not unprecedented, but dangerous</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Australian universities rated on freedom of speech</h2>
<p>The year-long debate surrounding academic freedom culminated in a <a href="https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/free-speech-in-decline-ipa-free-speech-on-campus-audit-2018">report</a> released in December by the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA). It rated each Australian university in terms of policies specifically enacted to protect free speech and/or policies hostile to free speech on campus. </p>
<p>The report headlined 35 out of Australia’s 42 universities were “red-rated” for policies and actions hostile to free speech on campus. This, said the IPA, was an increase from 33 in 2016 and 34 in 2017. </p>
<p>Critics of the report, including Glyn Davis, the former vice-chancellor of Melbourne University, <a href="https://theconversation.com/special-pleading-free-speech-and-australian-universities-108170">responded</a> that the report was US-centric and not reflective of the Australian experience. On the wider issue of academic freedom, Davis noted that many times cases were offered as evidence of wider trends without providing evidence for those trends. He clarified that the separate issues of academic freedom and freedom of speech are frequently conflated.</p>
<h2>More coal in university Christmas stockings</h2>
<p>And finally, just as it did the year before, the government’s midyear budget update previewed a further A$328.5 million in funding cuts, this time to university research. The government <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/tehan/funding-flows-research-australias-universities">claimed</a> this would allow it to allocate additional spending for teaching at regional universities. But Universities Australia <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/media-releases/Budget-ram-raid-on-university-research#.XBndEM1S-Uk">labelled</a> it a “ram raid”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/myefo-rips-a-130-million-per-year-from-research-funding-despite-budget-surplus-108919">MYEFO rips A$130 million per year from research funding despite budget surplus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So, higher education policy in 2018 was mostly about arguments over money and academic freedom. Then again, there’s nothing new in that. </p>
<h2>Recommended reading from The Conversation in 2018</h2>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/to-fix-higher-education-funding-we-also-need-to-fix-vocational-education-102634">To fix higher education funding, we also need to fix vocational education</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-typical-university-student-is-no-longer-18-middle-class-and-on-campus-we-need-to-change-thinking-on-drop-outs-73509">The typical university student is no longer 18, middle-class and on campus – we need to change thinking on 'drop-outs'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/six-things-labors-review-of-tertiary-education-should-consider-93496">Six things Labor’s review of tertiary education should consider</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/vice-chancellor-barney-glover-says-universities-must-stand-up-for-facts-and-the-truth-if-we-dont-who-will-73756">Vice Chancellor Barney Glover says universities must stand up for facts and the truth – 'if we don’t, who will?'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109080/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In his role at Curtin University, Tim Pitman works with many Humanities researchers to secure Australian Research Council funding. </span></em></p>Tensions between the government and the university sector ran high in 2018, with the government cutting funding to student places and research and a big push back from universities.Tim Pitman, Senior Researcher Fellow, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/677692016-10-27T02:32:32Z2016-10-27T02:32:32ZDo we thank science for all our prosperity?<p>It is easy to see the benefits from the advances we have made in physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science and the life sciences. Without these impressive leaps in understanding, we would not have lifesaving drugs; computers, wifi; modern transport and the warm, safe houses that are essential to our contemporary lifestyle. </p>
<p>Ask anyone to list the world’s top inventions and you are sure to get a list of gadgets and materials. The benefits are immediately tangible and directly traceable.</p>
<h2>What about the social sciences?</h2>
<p>Less heralded are the benefits to society derived from the ideas of the social sciences and humanities. Anecdotally, we can see that when they are good, they are very good. </p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.co.in/books/about/How_The_West_Grew_Rich.html?id=TeZYymHZJd0C">Financial innovations</a> in the form of marine insurance, for example, made the great 17th century European voyages of trade to India and beyond possible. The invention of the joint stock company funded the railways.</p>
<p>Without the theory of British economist John Maynard Keynes, the financial crisis of 2008 would have deepened into a 1930s-style depression. <a href="https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/publications/books/Policy_Providers.html">Economics has brought us the theory and translation</a> behind Medicare; HECS, the income contingent student loans scheme and <a href="https://crawford.anu.edu.au/people/academic/bruce-chapman">Bruce Chapman</a>) and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/disability-support/report">Productivity Commission</a> and others). </p>
<p>In most cases, reforms to social institutions do not occur without shifts in public attitudes about human rights, entrenched poverty, business models and social responsibility. Policy makers rely on the eloquence and clinching logic of philosophers from law (<a href="http://www.julianburnside.com.au/">Julian Burnside</a>, <a href="http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/">Michael Kirby</a> and others) and the other humanities to lever these changes through.</p>
<h2>Innovation is a team sport</h2>
<p>Innovation is a human activity. It is rare to find a lone genius, and, even if one existed, they would be unlikely to make a big impact because human interaction is needed to transform these ideas into widespread use. </p>
<p>Yet our understanding of how we can engineer change and societal betterment is largely unscientific and is based on anecdotes, intuition and prejudice. We throw dollars at nascent ideas with only a rudimentary consideration of the human context in which the research will be undertaken.</p>
<p>There are researchers who are undertaking objective, robust studies on what makes research successful: how do research teams transcend national boundaries (<a href="http://sites.gsu.edu/pstephan/journal-articles/">Paula Stefan</a>); how do networks of researchers optimally interact (<a href="http://www.swinburne.edu.au/business-law/staff/profile/index.php?id=dlusher">Dean Lusher</a>); what is the trade-off in research between breadth and depth of skill (<a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/jones_benjamin_f.aspx#research">Ben Jones</a>); and how do breakthrough inventions arise (<a href="http://bruegel.org/author/reinhilde-veugelers/">Reinhilde Veugelers</a>)? But funding for these studies is minuscule compared with the billions of dollars spent worldwide in research for the physical sciences.</p>
<h2>Physical sciences still seen as the main game</h2>
<p>The explicit assumption in almost all research funding bodies is that the physical sciences are the main game - serious men’s work - and the HASS (humanities, arts and social sciences) is the fluffy stuff we need to keep the “girls” happy. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.atse.org.au/content/publications/reports/industry-innovation/research-engagement-for-australia.aspx">Three quarters</a> of Australian Research Council funds go to the science and engineering disciplines and only one in ten Centre of Excellence grants are given to the HASS community. </p>
<p>University rules about what constitutes good research are dominated by what is normal in the natural sciences. Professors have “labs” with a few post-docs and a dozen PhD students. This is not the model that works for the HASS disciplines, but the HASS are constantly having to fight against this assumed model of “gold standard” research. International rankings are based on hi-cite definitions and Web of Science databases that assume the normal physical science mode of operation is the best.</p>
<h2>Where should we spend our marginal dollar?</h2>
<p>It is a question of where is the best place to spend our marginal dollar. Consider the last million dollars of our national research budget. Should we spend it on the physical sciences or on the social sciences and humanities? Where are the barriers to change that are stalling improvements to our society? </p>
<p>I would argue that changing community understanding on how a carbon tax operates (i.e. by changing householder and business behaviour) would have had a bigger effect on Australian carbon emissions than another study on the engineering of photovoltaics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67769/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Webster receives funding from the ARC, Commonwealth and Victorian Governments. </span></em></p>It is easy to see the benefits from the advances we have made in physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science and the life sciences. Without these impressive leaps in understanding, we would not have…Beth Webster, Director, Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/619162016-07-18T20:06:05Z2016-07-18T20:06:05ZWe need to talk about the bad science being funded<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/130667/original/image-20160715-2110-t669yb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Good science loses out when bad science gets the funding.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Looker Studio</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Spectacular failures to replicate key scientific findings have been documented of late, particularly in <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144151">biology</a>, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716">psychology</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html">medicine</a>.</p>
<p>A report on the issue, published in Nature this May, found that about <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970">90%</a> of some 1,576 researchers surveyed now believe there is a reproducibility crisis in science.</p>
<p>While this rightly tarnishes the public belief in science, it also has serious consequences for governments and philanthropic agencies that fund research, as well as the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. It means they could be wasting billions of dollars on research each year.</p>
<p>One contributing factor is easily identified. It is the high rate of so-called false discoveries in the literature. They are <a href="http://www.livescience.com/32767-what-are-false-positives-and-false-negatives.html">false-positive findings</a> and lead to the erroneous perception that a definitive scientific discovery has been made. </p>
<p>This high rate occurs because the studies that are published often have <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/3/140216">low statistical power to identify a genuine discovery</a> when it is there, and the effects being sought are often small.</p>
<p>Further, dubious scientific practices boost the chance of finding a statistically significant result, usually at a probability of less than one in 20. In fact, our probability threshold for acceptance of a discovery should be more stringent, just as it is for discoveries of new particles in physics. </p>
<p>The English mathematician and the father of computing <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/charles-babbage-9193834">Charles Babbage</a> noted the problem in his 1830 book <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=K5BW2hsvDEQC&lpg=PA175&ots=aACXxMKOgT&dq=%E2%80%9Choaxing%2C%20forging%2C%20trimming%20and%20cooking%E2%80%9D%20charles%20babbage&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9Choaxing,%20forging,%20trimming%20and%20cooking%E2%80%9D%20charles%20babbage&f=false">Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes</a>. He formally split these practices into “hoaxing, forging, trimming and cooking”.</p>
<h2>‘Trimming and cooking’ the data today</h2>
<p>In the current jargon, trimming and cooking include failing to report all the data, all the experimental conditions, all the statistics and reworking the probabilities until they appear significant.</p>
<p>The frequency of many of these indefensible practices is above 50%, as <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/questionable-research-practices-surprisingly-common.html">reported by scientists themselves</a> when they are given some <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/5/524">incentive for telling the truth</a>.</p>
<p>The English philosopher <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/francis-bacon-9194632">Francis Bacon</a> <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45988/45988-h/45988-h.htm">wrote almost 400 years ago</a> that we are influenced more by affirmation than negatives and <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63465-man-prefers-to-believe-what-he-prefers-to-be-true">added</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Deep-seated cognitive biases, consciously and unconsciously, drive scientific corner-cutting in the name of discovery.</p>
<p>This includes <a href="http://psr.sagepub.com/content/2/3/196.abstract">fiddling the primary hypothesis being tested</a> after knowing the actual results or fiddling the statistical tests, the data or both until a <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106">statistically significant result is found</a>. Such practices are common.</p>
<p>Even large randomised controlled clinical trials published in the leading medical journals are affected (see <a href="http://compare-trials.org/">compare-trials.org</a>) – despite research plans being specified and registered before the trial starts.</p>
<p>Researchers rarely stick exactly to the plans (about 15% do). Instead, they commonly remove registered planned outcomes (which are presumably negative) and add unregistered ones (which are presumably positive).</p>
<h2>Publish or perish</h2>
<p>We do not need to look far to expose the fundamental cause for the problematic practices pervading many of the sciences. The “<a href="https://theconversation.com/publish-or-perish-culture-encourages-scientists-to-cut-corners-47692">publish or perish</a>” mantra says it all.</p>
<p>Academic progression is hindered by failure to publish in the journals controlled by peers, while it is enhanced by frequent publication of, nearly always positive, research findings. Does this sort of competitive selection sound familiar? </p>
<p>It is a form of cultural natural selection – natural, in that it is embedded in the modern culture of science, and selective in that only survivors progress. The parallels between biological natural selection and selection related to culture have long been accepted. Charles Darwin even described its role in development of language in his <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/185407.The_Descent_of_Man">The Descent of Man</a> (1871). </p>
<p>Starkly put, the rate of publication varies between scientists. Scientists who publish at a higher rate are preferentially selected for positions and promotions. Such scientists have “children” who establish new laboratories and continue the publication practices of the parent.</p>
<h2>Good science suffers</h2>
<p>In another <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.09511">study published in May</a>, researchers modelled the intuitive but complex interactions between the pressure and effort to publish new findings and the need to replicate them to nail down true discoveries. It is a well-argued simulation of the operation and culture of modern science. </p>
<p>They also conclude that there is natural selection for bad scientific practice because of incentives that simply reward “publication quantity”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Scrupulous research on difficult problems may require years of intense work before yielding coherent, publishable results. If shallower work generating more publications is favored, then researchers interested in pursuing complex questions may find themselves without jobs, perhaps to the detriment of the scientific community more broadly.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The authors also reiterate the low power of many studies to find a phenomenon if it was truly there. Despite entreaties to increase statistical power, for example by collection of more observations, it has remained consistently low for the last 50 years.</p>
<p>In some fields, it <a href="http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/full/nrn3475.html">averages only 20% to 30%</a>. Natural academic selection has favoured publication of a result, rather than generation of new knowledge.</p>
<p>The impact of Darwinian selection among scientists is amplified when government support for science is low, growth in the scientific literature continues unabated, and universities produce an increasing number of PhD graduates in science.</p>
<p>We hold an idealised view that science is rarely fallible, particularly biology and medicine. Yet many fields are filled with publications of low-powered studies with perhaps <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124">the majority being wrong</a>.</p>
<p>This problem requires action from scientists, their teachers, their institutions and governments. We will not turn natural selection around but we need to put in place selection pressures for getting the right answer rather than simply published.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Gandevia receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.</span></em></p>New studies on the quality of published research shows we could be wasting billions of dollars a year on bad science, to the neglect of good science projects.Simon Gandevia, Deputy Director, Neuroscience Research AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/546482016-02-12T04:08:40Z2016-02-12T04:08:40ZAre citation rates the best way to assess the impact of research?<p>The United Kingdom’s Medical Research Council (MRC) - the equivalent of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council - recently released its 2014-15 <a href="http://www.mrc.ac.uk/publications/browse/mrc-economic-impact-report-2014-15/">economic impact report</a>, details of which make for interesting reading.</p>
<p>Since 2006, research funded by the MRC resulted in more than 94,000 publications, 63,000 of which (67%) were peer-reviewed. </p>
<p>The traditional starting point for considering the scientific impact of research are its citations. This is how many other research papers and editorials subsequently cite a given paper into the future or in a given number of years since publication.</p>
<p>Different numbers of researchers are involved in different fields of research. So when a relatively small number of scientists work in a study area, even if they write a spectacularly important paper, it can still receive a small fraction of the citations a comparably important paper receives in an area where more researchers are involved.</p>
<p>It would be unreasonable and misleading to conclude that a leading researcher in a small field had less scientific impact than one in a big field. Also, as can be seen from <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/citation-averages-2000-2010-by-fields-and-years/415643.article">this</a> table, a paper that has been published for a short time has naturally had less time to be cited than one that has been out for longer.</p>
<h2>Normalised citation impact</h2>
<p>For these reasons, citation analysts use the normalised citation impact (NCI) to adjust citation volumes in different fields. This allows them to be compared in analyses of entire research funding schemes, national research and international activity.</p>
<p>The MRC report provides a <a href="https://twitter.com/SimonChapman6/status/695362934956912641">graph</a> showing the NCIs for all MRC-funded research publications for the sample period 2006-13. The average NCI citation for all papers in health and medical fields across these eight years was a desultory 2.08. And this was more than twice the world average. </p>
<p>The report notes that of more than six million papers, more than a fifth (21%) had not been cited, while only 3% of the MRC funded research had no citations to date.</p>
<p>What counts as a high and very high citation in the MRC data is also interesting. “Highly cited” means a paper with just four or more cites and “very highly cited” is anything with eight or more.</p>
<p>The situation in Australia is more opaque. A <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/nh164_measuring_up_2013_140218.pdf">2013 report</a> provides lots of comparative data that show Australian health and medical researchers punch well above our weight compared to other nations and our small population. </p>
<p>But nowhere could I find comparable data to that provided by the MRC report. However, the NHMRC report notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The citation distribution among publications is very skewed. While very few publications achieve high citation counts, a vast majority receive very few or no citations at all.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Citation is of course only a measure of interest in your work by other researchers. </p>
<p>Journals that provide all or some of their papers as open access to anyone, often have daily updated counters showing the number of readers who have been to the publication. Not all of these will have read it and only land on it in a search for something else, so the data exaggerate actual readers.</p>
<p>My most read <a href="http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full.pdf+html">paper</a> is one looking at the incidence of gun massacres and deaths ten years after the 1996 Australian gun law reforms. </p>
<p>It received some 136,946 views since 2006, 82,312 of which were in December 2012 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shootings in the United States. I tweeted a link to the paper, that saw it go viral. </p>
<p>Ironically, the paper wasn’t funded by any research grant.</p>
<h2>Altmetric</h2>
<p>A metric increasingly being used by researchers since 2013 to demonstrate wider interest in their work is <a href="http://www.altmetric.com/?gclid=CjwKEAiA__C1BRDqyJOQ8_Tq230SJABWBSxnhQv2O0ijZ9kz2OukfHcs4YDLmTtezHL5AYZ8rOo8CBoC1zjw_wcB">Altmetric</a>. </p>
<p>The Altmetric score provides an index of the extent to which a research paper is being circulated and discussed on social media and covered in the news media.</p>
<p>My 2006 firearms paper has a stratospheric Altmetric score of 2,118. The 100 highest Altmetric scoring papers across all research fields in 2015 are listed <a href="http://www.altmetric.com/top100/2015/#explore">here</a>. Had mine been published in 2015 with the same attention it has received it would have had the seventh highest Altmetric score that year.</p>
<p>The MRC report provides data on a range of social impacts that go well beyond metrics. The data assesses the direct impact of research on outcomes that may have social and economic impact. </p>
<p>These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The development of more than 4,400 instances of influence on policy and practice - 416 new in 2014, including 472 citations in clinical guidelines.</p></li>
<li><p>The development of more than 1,000 products and interventions - 126 new in 2014.</p></li>
<li><p>The creation or growth of 88 companies - seven new in 2014.</p></li>
<li><p>Approximately 1,081 patents - 37 filed or granted in 2014, with discoveries related to 246 (23%) of these patents already licensed worldwide.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>In work we <a href="http://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-4505-13-3">published</a> in 2015 examining the “impact in society” of intervention research in health and medical research funded by the NHMRC, we found 38% of research projects could demonstrate some level of social or health service impact. </p>
<p>We investigated the characteristics of those projects that demonstrated impact and compared them to those that didn’t.</p>
<p>Our study indicated that sophisticated approaches to intervention development, dissemination actions and translational efforts, are actually widespread among experienced researchers, and can achieve policy and practice impacts. </p>
<p>However, it was the links between the intervention results, further dissemination actions by researchers and a variety of contextual factors after the research that ultimately determined whether a study had policy and practice impacts. </p>
<p>Given the complicated interplay between various factors, there (alas) appears to be no simple formula for determining which intervention studies should be funded in order to achieve optimal policy and practice impacts.</p>
<p>The judgement of which research applications should be funded is, and is likely to remain, a very inexact science.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54648/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The traditional starting point for considering the scientific impact of research are its citations. But judging which research applications should be funded is a very inexact science.Simon Chapman, Emeritus Professor in Public Health, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/402542015-04-16T05:39:39Z2015-04-16T05:39:39ZWhy a national science strategy is good for Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78166/original/image-20150416-23314-1pfb4w2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia has a long history of world class science, but a national science strategy will help boost engagement with industry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Dorman/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week saw the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/canberra-set-to-pursue-national-science-strategy/story-e6frgcjx-1227303855780?login=1">welcome news</a> that the federal government has committed to pursuing a national science strategy. </p>
<p>Following a meeting on Monday with the <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2014/11/commonwealth-science-council/">Commonwealth Science Council</a>, of which I am a member, the Minister for Industry and Science, Ian Macfarlane, has indicated he will consult with the science sector to agree on a number of research priorities that will help direct funding.</p>
<p>This is good news not only for scientists and research institutions, but also for the nation as a whole, and especially for the interaction between science and industry.</p>
<p>Australia has some amazing strengths in science. The Australian Research Council’s Excellence in Research for Australia (<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/era/">ERA</a>) report <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/outcomes_2012.htm">shows us</a> that our research in physics, astronomy, agriculture – to pick a few – is at the forefront of world activities in terms of citations and academic impact. Our best research is indeed internationally leading.</p>
<p>But this paints an incomplete picture. Australia also <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932891359">ranks 29th of the 30</a> OECD countries on the proportion of large businesses and small to medium enterprises (SMEs) collaborating with higher education and public research institutions on innovation. </p>
<p>The reality is that our science workforce is strongly mismatched with our industry base. So, in truth, while this result is disappointing, it is not surprising.</p>
<p>One stark example is medical research. Our medical research is outstanding. We have a large medical research workforce and it is an area that captures the public interest. This is starkly evident when we <a href="https://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/2014-15federalbudgetinitialanalysis.pdf">look at the money</a>: the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) budget for 2015-2016 is A$858 million, whereas the ARC is A$795 million. </p>
<p>Considering that the ARC budget covers all non-medical research, from the social sciences and humanities to maths and engineering, this seems out of balance.</p>
<h2>Connections to industry</h2>
<p>This question of balance becomes even more stark when we take a step back and look at the broader picture – at the industry base. Australia’s industry is largely SME-based. But SMEs often have trouble taking discoveries from medical science and translating them into new commercial products.</p>
<p>We are not a home to Big Pharma, as in the UK and the US. And the pathways to bringing new drugs to market is more challenging here as a result. This is also an expensive game that is harder for a smaller player such as Australia to take a major share in.</p>
<p>My time working at the University of Southampton’s Optoelectronics Research Centre shaped my view on how research concentrations can work with industry. It was rare to have a week where a company, big or small, was not in the lab talking about possible projects, stimulating new fundamental research directions and initiating new applied projects. </p>
<p>Working in this kind of ecosystem drives researcher mobility. Its spin offs provide new career pathways for PhD graduates, who then place research projects back in the university, and so on. </p>
<p>This is the kind of ecosystem we need to strive to create in Australia. But it is much harder to do if we try to artificially construct it on top of our research capabilities without thought to the industry base.</p>
<h2>Reaching out to SMEs</h2>
<p>We do have significant numbers of SMEs that work in areas including component manufacturing, food processing and engineering services. Some are under enormous stress in current conditions, such as those supplying the almost extinct Australian automotive industry. </p>
<p>These are the companies that need a real leg up to allow them to benefit from working with researchers. The challenges are real and significant. It is not always easy for a researcher to identify how they can contribute to a small company working to short-term challenges and time horizons. The language gap is much larger than with the largest companies, which have the luxury of having staff with a background in research.</p>
<p>But it can be done. A tangible example is the South Australian Government’s <a href="https://www.adelaide.edu.au/ipas/pcp/">Photonics Catalyst Scheme</a>. This co-funds small projects posed by local SMEs that can be tackled by the state’s photonics researchers. </p>
<p>This scheme has generated a long list of partners in a short time since it was established two years ago. It works because regular opportunities are created to bring the industry face-to-face with the researchers. This fosters opportunities for relationships to be formed, and for the industry to gain an understanding of the intellectual and infrastructure capacities within our universities.</p>
<p>Australia’s research capacity has largely grown organically, bottom-up, from curiosity-driven research lead at our universities. It is here, unlike the US, where most of our research capacity resides. </p>
<p>The ARC was established in 1988 to <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/12392499?selectedversion=NBD5200477">direct support</a> to “fields that have the capacity to contribute to the national industry capacity”. However, we have not had the courage as a nation to really focus our investment in science and research before now. Previous sets of national priorities for research have been broadly framed and all encompassing.</p>
<h2>Priorities</h2>
<p>The confirmation this week that the Commonwealth Science Council endorsed nine new National Research Priorities is a great step forward. These priorities are: </p>
<ul>
<li>Food</li>
<li>Soil and water</li>
<li>Transport</li>
<li>Cybersecurity</li>
<li>Energy</li>
<li>Resources</li>
<li>Manufacturing</li>
<li>Environmental change and health. </li>
</ul>
<p>Expert working groups have articulated key challenges Australian research could focus on in each of these areas to create knowledge and generate solutions that will be of particular importance to everybody. </p>
<p>Investigator-driven research would not on its own cover these needs, so this is a great step forward. It’s clear that this is not an applied research agenda – the idea is to encourage fundamental research inspired by these priorities as much as to facilitate stronger partnerships between research and industry.</p>
<p>This raises the questions of how we can now use these priorities to shift our research base towards the challenges our nation faces and the opportunities we can seize. Funding clearly drives behaviour, and the extent to which these priorities drive funding opportunities will determine outcomes to some extent. </p>
<p>The other critical element is recognition and rewards. Our current university system idolises high impact papers and citations. While this is a great way of telling us what other academics think of our work, it is necessary but not sufficient for driving outcomes from that work. </p>
<p>I have also observed that research inspired by meaningful practical challenges attracts more women to areas that are typically male-dominated, such as physics and engineering.</p>
<h2>Getting research out of the lab</h2>
<p>The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (<a href="https://www.atse.org.au/">ATSE</a>) has recently been working with the other learned academies to propose a second dimension to the research metrics space: that of research engagement with end-users of that research. </p>
<p>The report on this work is due to be released shortly. We need our universities to be be able to recognise and reward research concentrations that are both high quality and strongly engaged. This is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteur%27s_quadrant">Pasteur’s Quadrant</a> of research evaluation. </p>
<p>The 2014 paper <a href="https://education.gov.au/news/discussion-paper-boosting-commercial-returns-research-released">Boosting the Commercial Returns from Research</a> proposed that the ARC and NHMRC should recognise industry experience. This is an excellent principle. </p>
<p>But we need to go further by creating promotion pathways and fellowships that prioritise industry experience. At the University of South Australia we have recently implemented a promotion pathway to full professor that rewards outstanding attainment in working with industry. Such pathways can open up paths for researchers to develop research careers in which they spend time both in universities and in industry. </p>
<p>Anything that can encourage researchers to work with industry, or that encourages entrepreneurship, will start us on the journey of evolving our research base into one that supports Australia’s future economic prosperity and quality of life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40254/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tanya Monro is Deputy Vice Chancellor, Reserach & Innovation at The University of South Australia, and ARC Georgina Sweet Laureate Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Physics at The University of Adelaide. She receives funding from the ARC. She is Vice President of ATSE and a Fellow of AAS. She is a member of the Commonwealth Science Council.</span></em></p>The government’s announcement of a national science strategy is good for Australia, particularly for promoting engagement between science and industry.Tanya Monro, Deputy Vice Chancellor Research & Innovation, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/383962015-04-13T15:20:06Z2015-04-13T15:20:06ZCrowdfunding could be a simple way to pay for science research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77625/original/image-20150410-2085-lizmgf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eureka! </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Big_Day_Out_(8392285402).jpg">Russiavia </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The outcome of science research benefits us all, but knowledge doesn’t come cheap. Crowdfunding – promoted by government incentives – may be the best way to meet these costs and garner greater awareness of scientific research priorities.</p>
<p>There is an ongoing debate on how to measure the amount of knowledge created through research. The traditional approach is to look at the number of published articles in peer-reviewed journals and work out the impact they have. How much does it cost to produce knowledge? </p>
<p>In 2012, the worldwide expenditure on scientific research and development was <a href="http://www.rdmag.com/sites/rdmag.com/files/GFF2013Final2013_reduced.pdf">US$1.5 trillion</a>, while an estimated <a href="http://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf">1.9m peer reviewed articles</a> were published that year. This works out as a whopping US$790,000 per article. </p>
<p>This is a very rough and exaggerated estimate, since not all commercially funded research is published – and some research projects like space missions are extremely costly. Also, this estimate does not account for patents. But it’s an indication of how expensive science is and shows that there’s a market for it. Can we call this a market? I believe so. The average price of a car in the US in 2012 was <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/04/car-prices-hit-record/1">US$30,000</a> and more than 10m were sold – this looks relatively cheap compared to the price of a peer-reviewed article.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=90&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=90&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=90&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=113&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=113&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77783/original/image-20150413-24328-1e7mep1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=113&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even Bill Gates is interested in crowdfunding, and he has very deep pockets indeed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">experiment.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Value for money</h2>
<p>So do we get value for money when it comes to knowledge? The likely answer is No, because in most of cases the scientific research market is an “<a href="http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2951/economics/oligopsony-definition/">oligopsony</a>” –- a market with many producers (the scientists and research groups) but only a few or even just one formal consumer.</p>
<p>Society is the consumer, but the money to fund research is channelled through at most, a handful of funding agencies (often a single agency). This has the benefit of ensuring that money is divided up fairly between disciplines – but on the other hand, funding agencies may exercise their market power to actually spend as little as possible. Why? Because there’s no one else to offer a better deal to the scientists.</p>
<p>Crowdfunding has proven to be a good source of investment for many small projects and start-up companies as it allows the easy aggregation of small contributions from many individuals to reach a target. As science becomes more mainstream – who hasn’t heard of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-higgs-boson-five-reasons-physics-is-still-interesting-20380">Higg’s Boson</a>? – the myth that science is weird and alien is being overturned. This means there’s more fertile ground in which to secure scientific funding through collective effort.</p>
<p>There are now many websites dedicated to scientific crowdfunding such as including <a href="http://www.petridish.org/">Petridish.org</a>, <a href="https://experiment.com/">Experiment.com</a>, and crowdfunding has successfully funded several projects – for example the first <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/arkydforeveryone/arkyd-a-space-telescope-for-everyone-0?ref=tag">publicly accessible orbital space telescope</a>, and a <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/872281861/final-frontier-designs-3g-space-suit?ref=tag">specialist pressurised flight suit</a>. These are good models but the real funding vehicle is yet to come, after all these projects have budgets under US$10,000 on average and this sort of cash doesn’t go far in terms of science. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77788/original/image-20150413-24290-2d5ra1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Crowdfunding has paid to carry new inventions to the heavens, like this flight suit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Final Frontier Designs/Kickstarter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>With a little government help</h2>
<p>Clearly, this is where governments have to step in. Many countries have already benefited from governments having acted to remove monopolies and deregulate controlled industries in various markets. For example, air travel deregulation led to the boom in low-cost flights, while deregulating telecoms has seen a growth in services and providers.</p>
<p>In order for crowdfunding to actually involve the crowd, a government has to provide an incentive for funders, in this case its citizens. A great way would be to introduce science-funding shares – a sort of bond that could be issued by any research group for funding a specific research project, which could be tax deductible as an incentive. Of course, not all funding should be given to the crowd, but at least a portion of funding could be distributed in this way, with proper regulations and control.</p>
<p>There’s been a lot written about how crowdfunding can improve research outreach, and the extent to which the public understand research projects’ aims and motivations. But large-scale involvement of citizens also poses some interesting questions. For instance, there is little doubt that a country needs strong and well-equipped armed forces. But would the research and development of nuclear weapons be ever sanctioned for crowdfunding by the public? Probably not.</p>
<p>The world is growing more competitive – and science is taking on a more important role in today’s society. In order for countries to remain competitive, new approaches to stimulate growth have to be developed. In the many countries with dysfunctional central governments, crowdfunding could be the only way for citizens to impose their democratic choices. </p>
<p>The internet has radically changed most forms of communication, government and business – why not science and research funding too?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38396/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maksym Sich receives funding from EPSRC, The Leverhulme Trust and ERC. The views in this article are those of the author and not these organisations.</span></em></p>Putting the power of the crowd to work could raise more money for scientific research.Maksym Sich, Research Fellow in Semiconductor Physics, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/366282015-03-04T06:26:50Z2015-03-04T06:26:50ZIn praise of the humble fruit fly, leading the way on cancer research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72617/original/image-20150220-21899-tfugc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You and me have quite a few genes in common. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/11304375@N07/2993341786/in/photolist-5yvEe9-5yrmya-5yrmBx-5yvEJN-5yvEoq-5yrkbr-5yvVjh-fKPFbD-5yrjT8-fKPHVD-5AeogB-fL7gmo-6ZbHLK-fKPGMR-fKPGqr-fL7iE5-fKPEmZ-fL7h8U-fKPDEk-fL7hxJ-98qtJB-7JQZCu-bTRpBn-na3Mpw-nvex2T-nJ8q1r-nHQoFx-nvh9Gh-ne5WzM-notrEJ-fKPHyp-fKPE1D-cj53Xq-avN2Hf-9d4SjA-eLrmk-7GJtDA-bUxZxP-c4pvJQ-ngmLMV-dtE7us-dhCDWx-cvXkLN-de7VXz-dqZYpw-ntiSFt-na3FqC-nrg2oL-nxM49z-nvBMnW">André Karwath</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Cancer research is a global effort involving millions of people, and the fruit fly <em>Drosophila melanogaster</em> – which has been helping our understanding of the disease for decades – is still illuminating the most fundamental part of this process: the beginning.</p>
<p>When praising the fly as a research organism, I am an interested party. I started working with this insect in 1999, and visitors to our institute rewarded my enthusiasm for <em>Drosophila</em> with the nickname “Spanish fly man”. I find fascinating the capacity of the fly to tell us about how cells use genetic information to interact with each other and make decisions about their behaviour. If cells make wrong decisions it can result in them building the rogue structures we know as tumours. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10908582">More than half</a> the human disease genes have an equivalent in <em>Drosophila</em>. This is why <em>Drosophila</em> have been used for over a century to investigate the fundamental mechanisms of inheritance and have turned out to be a great tool for understanding the function of human genes.</p>
<h2>Discussed at highest levels</h2>
<p>In 2008 Sarah Palin, then candidate for US vice-president, <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26868/title/Palin-vs--the-flies/">dismissed research in fruit flies</a> as “having little or nothing to do with the public good”, contrasting it with the need to spend tax money on research on cognitive disorders. Some of these disorders, however, are being successfully modelled in <em>Drosophila</em>. As recently as last February, US senator Rand Paul <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/paul-knocks-flies-and-nih-funding/">used fly research into sex and the ageing process</a> to attack funding decisions at the US National Institutes of Health.</p>
<p>Both Palin’s and Paul’s comments were embarrassingly misinformed, which earned rather vitriolic responses from the media, but highlight how easy it can be to under-appreciate the research power of the fruit fly.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73474/original/image-20150302-15950-1sfnom9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73474/original/image-20150302-15950-1sfnom9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73474/original/image-20150302-15950-1sfnom9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73474/original/image-20150302-15950-1sfnom9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73474/original/image-20150302-15950-1sfnom9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73474/original/image-20150302-15950-1sfnom9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73474/original/image-20150302-15950-1sfnom9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Flies and ageing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/25484844@N02/2975230865/in/photolist-5wUQtT-fszDb-4ZAJH1-M562z-8nu14s-4KjyJT-bVZvvL-9Lx3M9-M55XB-a4erRt-eZEMry-eZEMmy-eZEMe1-eZtpJe-eZtpfe-eZELaJ-eZEKLA-qsxWhZ-8CRnJE-uZTop-nY7Mpi-7jj9ZF-66ehtE-98EQ1i-7N6wBC-ftqE1w-pakYjP-9Lugva-bn55JM-bn54i4-9Lx4p3-9Lx5K5-9Lx59f-9LueS8-9Lx3eJ-9Lx2yC-9Lx3Bw-eZtqJK-4Si7fb-67ggbH-ekwiBc-jfmpwK-7P6Xtj-d5FFNQ-d5FFuE-d5FFKj-d5FFzG-d5FFqG-d5FFhQ-d5FFEW">berendbotje54</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Working with the humble fruit fly is fast and cheap, and allows scientific answers with great detail on virtually any general biological problem. For instance it was when using flies that we learned <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17245850">our genes reside in the chromosomes</a> in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.1400140104/abstract">linear order</a>, and that <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17802387">ionising radiation can cause mutations</a>.</p>
<p><em>Drosophila</em> researchers work across a whole range of areas, from stem cell biology to neurobiology, genomics, cancer, evolution, ecology, immunity, ageing, metabolism. All areas of obvious economic and societal interest. And since <em>Drosophila</em> was established as a research workhorse around 1910 it has accumulated an important list of contributions, some rewarded with the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (in 1933, 1946, 1995, 2006 and 2011, for discoveries ranging from embryonic development to the activation of <a href="http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/10/03/nobel-prize-2011-flies-and-mice-take-a-bow/">the innate immune response</a> to fight infections).</p>
<h2>Genes and cancer</h2>
<p>The fly contributions to cancer research started in 1967, with the discovery of the first tumour suppressor gene (genes whose function is to prevent cells from becoming cancerous).</p>
<p><em>Drosophila</em> has been particularly brilliant at the identification of new genes and drosophilists name new genes after the defects observed when the fly lacks their function and similar defective genes in humans have also been similarly named. Malfunctioning of the hedgehog or porcupine genes – named after fly maggots with an excessive number of spikes in their belly (which allow them to crawl) – and the notch gene (from flies with a serrated wing margin) in humans, are linked to cancers of the blood, breast, intestine, skin or brain.</p>
<p>The molecular similarity between fly and human genes allow studying human disease in <em>Drosophila</em>, sometimes before experimentation in larger animals is required.</p>
<h2>Drug screening</h2>
<p>Genetic similarity also leads to other interesting developments. In the last decade, <em>Drosophila</em> use in human disease research has expanded with the first drug screens in flies. Compared with screening in cells cultured in a dish, fly screens filter out drugs that would have harmful side effects in the whole organism, or are poorly absorbed in the intestine, or degraded during digestion. This saves money in a drug development project.</p>
<p>Of course, <em>Drosophila</em> has important limitations when it comes to learning about human disease: flies lack breasts, a prostate, or lungs (flies breathe through a network of rigid pipes). It is still possible, however, to study the genes associated with human cancers in these and other tissues. </p>
<p>We can breed flies with genetic alterations mimicking those in specific cancers, and then look for an organ in the fly (such as the wing – it does not have to be the “original” human organ) where these alterations lead to cancerous growth, and study how this happens. For instance, working alongside Matt Smalley and Alan Clarke, we are developing models at Cardiff University to study gene functions that we know are important for breast and prostate cancer, but whose functional details are largely unknown, and costly to pursue with research using mice. </p>
<p><em>Drosophila</em> has a long history of research in bio-medicine, and its capabilities as a model are being expanded and updated every year. It is an exciting and fundamental system to work with, that could transform the way research into cancer develops in the future. So after more than a century of use, these humble flies are still at the cutting edge of cancer research.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36628/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joaquín de Navascués receives funding from Cardiff University, the Royal Society and the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research.</span></em></p>Sarah Palin hated them and they’ve helped win Nobel prizes, so what is it about fruit flies that we should value so much?Joaquín de Navascués, Research Fellow in the European Cancer Stem Cell Research Institute, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/376992015-02-26T19:29:11Z2015-02-26T19:29:11ZThe words that make a successful research grant application<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73117/original/image-20150225-1774-19gp36s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What words appear most frequently in successful research grant applications? And how have they changed over the years?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/smemon/4902517280/in/photolist-8tdFA1-adFXNh-7HnwZk-bXT6Du-9ieDXV-6cKonZ-bF5Xkw-2szYWY-5F9wBP-47rhMF-5E7cT-G6sfF-7E5JZA-5D1dTw-7TYK18-8cxsHY-8qD1gN-q9h3YZ-4dCUAW-9nHEyz-cppZ7-8KuSmz-nu4enH-dYaMmz-7NV5S7-6YBLtm-6uWyQF-57zTcG-57vFqD-57zS4Y-nPVdLb-iYTuCy-5xaFSF-fgMMhj-iYPB7c-5vWMzf-4xf8H2-4RP5Kr-64XX6q-afmEGo-6kin9k-jLyQV-fBvhjC-69HANk-69Hz8t-69MLRb-69MLPm-iw38SZ-nPVdL1-e9VWi7">Sean MacEntee/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Summer is ending, and for researchers in Australia that means one thing: grant writing season is hotting up. It’s an intense period of creative thought and brutal focus. The decisions we make in February determine the sort of research Australia pursues for the next three to five years. It also affects where your tax dollars are spent.</p>
<p>And since the Australian Research Council’s <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/dp_default.htm">Discovery Projects</a> scheme funds only <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DP15/DP15_Selection_Report.pdf">20% of the applications</a> that are submitted to it, the decisions we make also affect the lives and livelihoods of researchers across the country for the next three to five years.</p>
<p>As such, the decision of what to put in a grant application is one we spend a lot of time thinking about. </p>
<p>So, I thought we would have a look at the successful grants from the last six years to see what they said in their project summary. This not only reflects the nature of the research that was proposed but also the way the applicants talked about that research.</p>
<p>To do this, I extracted the project summaries of successful applications for Discovery Projects between 2010 and 2016 from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and parsed them to find the frequency of each word. I then removed some basic <a href="http://www.textfixer.com/resources/common-english-words.txt">stop words</a> and graphed the results below.</p>
<h2>New and improved</h2>
<p>One message is clear: if you want your research to be funded, it has to be “new”. That is, after all, the point of a Discovery Project, so no big surprises there. </p>
<p>Likewise, these are grants funded by Australian taxpayers and written and reviewed by Australian researchers, so mentioning that the research will have something to do with “Australia” or things “Australian” seems like a good idea.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73114/original/image-20150225-1765-1yq2t7a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I also wondered about how the research subjects might change due to shifts in the bureaucratic sands of the Australian funding organisations themselves. So I thought it might be interesting to see if there were any trends in the use of different words between the years 2010 to 2015. So, I split up the data by year and chose some words that I thought might have changed in their frequency of use between 2010 and 2015. </p>
<p>As a neuroscientist I am well aware of the increasing assertion made by the ARC that medical research should be funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). As can be seen below, there was a slight drop in the mention of the words “health” and “disease”. </p>
<p>However, taking into account the fact that the number of funded Discovery Projects also dropped between these years (from 925 in 2010 to 665 in 2015 –- largely because of the introduction in 2012 of the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award) that reflects a continuing commitment to these fields by the Australian Research Council.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73115/original/image-20150225-1795-6yeble.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>In context</h2>
<p>It is interesting to note these shifts in selected words, but what about the corpus of project summaries in general? Considering the changing number of funded projects, the most informative way of interpreting these data is not in simply comparing each word between the years 2010 and 2015, but in making that comparison in the context of all the other words used.</p>
<p>To that end, I subtracted the frequency of use of each word in the year 2010 from the frequency of use in the year 2015 and graphed the results. As would be expected, most words were used less in 2015 because there were less projects. However, some have fallen further than others. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73116/original/image-20150225-1761-ziqpuq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The words are listed alphabetically from left to right. Starting from the left, I thought at first that we might be becoming less parochial as “Australia” and “Australian” have both seen a large decrease in the frequency of their use. Then I read across and saw that “global”, “international” and “world” have seen dramatic decreases as well.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most striking aspect of the graph is the words which have seen large increases from 2010 to 2015. Of particular prominence is “aims”. However, after a bit of digging, I am confident this is simply a stylistic change. When I read back over the project summaries from 2015, the great majority began with a variation on the phrase “This project aims to…”.</p>
<p>However, this does not explain the rise of our great expectations. Although around 300 less Discovery Projects were funded in 2015 than 2010, it seems were are expecting around 300 more things to come out of this funding round.</p>
<p>Grant writing is a strange business. So much work is spent in the preparation. So much depends of the outcome. And yet, if we are to get through this process with some semblance of sanity, perhaps we should consider our expectations. And keep them from being too great.</p>
<p><em>Note: The code I used to find the data and generate the above graphs is available <a href="https://hakunamatatadata.wordpress.com/">here</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Owen Churches does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A look at how grant applications to Australia’s two largest science funding bodies have changed over the years.Owen Churches, Postdoctoral Fellow in Psychology, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/343072014-12-08T19:35:03Z2014-12-08T19:35:03ZVoices of a generation: young scientists must be seen and heard<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66541/original/image-20141208-20492-1y6lhtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Postdocs do the lion's share of research, so maybe it's time we started listening to them.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/katherynemily/5819998952">∞ katherynemily./Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Postdoctoral scientists – postdocs – are the engines of biomedical research. As early career researchers, they conduct the most experiments and are responsible for sculpting how we treat disease in decades to come. But as a major stakeholder in discussions about the future of biomedical research, their views are often overlooked. </p>
<p>Young scientists from eight Boston institutions including Harvard and MIT last week published a report, <a href="http://f1000research.com/articles/3-291/v1">Shaping the Future of Research</a>. The paper speaks for hundreds of young scientists who attended the Future of Research symposium held by the same group in October this year. </p>
<p>The problems raised may not all be new, but do represent a starting point for discussions between young scientists and other, more senior stakeholders.</p>
<p>Some concerns of the US group resonate with Australia’s recent <a href="http://www.mckeonreview.org.au/">McKeon Review of Health and Medical Research</a>. The excessive burden of grant administration and short funding cycles are mentioned. As one quoted participant put it, this means “too much time [is] spent by highest-level scientists writing grants”.</p>
<p>Other concerns raised in the report are of less relevance to the Australian system. US postdocs typically earn a starting wage of US$42,000 (A$49,000). Although many would still argue that Australian postdocs are underpaid for their level of expertise, in a global context they are relatively well off. Their typical starting salaries are around A$72,000 (US$60,000). </p>
<p>On the whole, though, the report is highly relevant to Australians as we continue to debate our own preferred models for research in our science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) and health sectors.</p>
<h2>No success without support</h2>
<p>Last week, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2014/12/benchmarking-australian-science-technology-engineering-mathematics/">documented</a> our bottom-of-the-table performance for collaboration between business and research. </p>
<p>But even in the US, which prides itself on strong academic-industry collaboration, graduate and postdoctoral programs train researchers solely to become academics, despite <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036307">less than 15%</a> of postdocs progressing to run an academic lab within five to seven years. </p>
<p>This lack of support for non-academic careers led one symposium participant to comment “there is no way to exit [academia] positively”. If Professor Chubb’s <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/FINAL_STEMAUSTRALIASFUTURE_WEB.pdf">vision</a> for increasing STEM-trained researchers’ contributions to Australian business is to come true, appropriate training and support to equip researchers must be a focus.</p>
<p>Recent downward trends in Australian funding success rates (which were <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/outcomes-funding-rounds">14.9% this year</a> compared with <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/grants/rounds/projects/2010_project_grant_statistics_091029.pdf">22.9% five years ago</a> for National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grants), are also worrying. </p>
<p>US postdocs cite the hyper-competition caused by their similarly low success rates as a problem for innovation, reproduction and integrity of research – three key aspects we should instead be encouraging. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66593/original/image-20141208-16326-kyxnvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66593/original/image-20141208-16326-kyxnvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66593/original/image-20141208-16326-kyxnvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66593/original/image-20141208-16326-kyxnvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66593/original/image-20141208-16326-kyxnvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66593/original/image-20141208-16326-kyxnvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66593/original/image-20141208-16326-kyxnvh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/slumadridcampus/5750162705/in/photolist-4VABMa-5ML3FW-4h7hKe-9L863i-pzgPcA-mhukPH-cLjwnN-cM4nLd-cLxdwo-cLP9UN-cLQrnY-cLuaYu-cLdGCG-9LF56h-cJPCtU-cLvvTY-cLxqyf-cLrStW-ePyufL-cMtz5N-5VvsUv-nAPkXA-d6kmBG-hyxbJ9-cLiMoy-avkKbB-8z28SH-cJQbBL-bvUssy-cLit7S-aKzyaK-cLqaJA-cLhZwq-cK5Sh1-cLk7HJ-cJQcbQ-cK5QHQ-h2ZbP2-aMtHWT-83Y8t-cLvMvC-db52S8-cK4BNW-cLjd9W-db4DKZ-cK5k6C-db576P-cLs6Mm-db4WTf-aKFsba">Saint Louis University Madrid/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Worryingly, 58% of respondents to a <a href="http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/research-culture/">survey of British scientists</a> released last week identified as “being aware of scientists feeling tempted or under pressure to compromise on research integrity and standards”. This shows this is a global issue that needs to be addressed, perhaps through changing the metrics used to evaluate a “good” scientist.</p>
<p>The report also raises concerns over increasing trends for funding to focus on “short-term” applied research at the expense of “longer-term” fundamental research. Similarly, focusing on “popular” topics at the expense of mature fields is mentioned as a problem. </p>
<p>In a time when big funding increases, courtesy of the medical research future fund (<a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/medical-research-future-fund">MRFF</a>), are on the table in Australia, albeit with an uncertain future due to the complex Senate landscape, these discussions are particularly pertinent to the future of Australian research. </p>
<p>US postdocs favour a model where “industrial/commercial entities should assume responsibility for the advances that are most directly commercialisable”. This leaves more government funding to “support public health and environmental health research” and “prospective” research. </p>
<p>In Australia, where the venture capital market is far smaller and the number of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies is tiny compared to the US, it is unrealistic to think the private sector will, in the short to medium term, take responsibility for funding all or even a majority of the research needed to translate fundamental discoveries into new diagnostics, vaccines or pharmaceuticals.</p>
<p>The US postdocs’ concerns are an important reminder, though, that we need to choose carefully where our balance eventually lies.</p>
<p>Overall, the recommendations from US postdocs are clear: </p>
<ul>
<li>increase communication between young scientists and other stakeholders</li>
<li>increase transparency for outcomes of scientific careers and train young scientists accordingly</li>
<li>increase investment in young scientists. </li>
</ul>
<p>Careful planning for major changes, such as those the MRFF and STEM strategy may bring, is necessary to ensure a sustainable and honourable future for Australian biomedical research. </p>
<p>The Australian Academy of Science’s <a href="https://www.science.org.au/emcr-forum">Early- and Mid-Career Researcher Forum</a> is one group advocating for young scientists and their ideas.</p>
<p>Young scientists, as major stakeholders in the future of biomedical research, will continue to be important voices in this process. They are a group worth investing in.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34307/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Riglar receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Menzies Foundation as the 2014 NHMRC/RG Menzies Fellow.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Douglas Hilton works for the Walter And Eliza Hall Institute Of Medical Research and The University Of Melbourne, and is president-elect of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. He advises a range of medical research institutes, collaborates with CSL and founded and owns shares in the privately owned company, Murigen Therapeutics. Doug was the director of CRC Growth Factors, and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute receives funding from CRCs including the HEARing-CRC, and Cancer Therapeutics CRC. Doug receives funding from the NHMRC, the Australian Research Council, CSL, National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), National Institute of Health (USA), CSIRO via the Science and Industry Endowment Fund, and various philanthropic trusts and foundations.</span></em></p>Postdoctoral scientists – postdocs – are the engines of biomedical research. As early career researchers, they conduct the most experiments and are responsible for sculpting how we treat disease in decades…David Riglar, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard UniversityDouglas Hilton, Director, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute & Professor of Medical Biology , Walter and Eliza Hall InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/323312014-10-12T19:09:55Z2014-10-12T19:09:55ZGifting of research funds by politicians undermines quality<p>I have worked as a health researcher for over 30 years. During that time I have made numerous applications for funding. The majority of these have, to my frustration, been rejected. </p>
<p>This does not mean I am a poor researcher. Success rates for research grants in Australia and other developed countries are typically around 20%. Compared to these success rates, I do better than average.</p>
<p>The difficulty in getting a grant is one factor that makes the quality of research in this country so high. So when politicians skip the peer-review process to allocate research funding ad hoc, the whole process is undermined.</p>
<h2>Undermining quality by gifting</h2>
<p>Let me give an example to illustrate. At a past election, a political leader announced, in response to lobbying, that a major piece of research infrastructure would be built within his electorate if he was elected to government. His party was successful at the election. </p>
<p>Soon after the election, I was on a panel to assess competitive grants for research infrastructure. Members of the panel were informed that the prime minister had instructed that the funds for the promised item of infrastructure were to be taken off the top of the funds for this competitive scheme. </p>
<p>In essence, the prime minister had bypassed competitive peer review and selected the top-ranked applicants, without them even having to put in an application. Some other applicants, who would otherwise have been funded, missed out, but will never know. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example of gifting, but is particularly instructive because I witnessed the undermining of peer review that occurred outside the public eye.</p>
<p>Quality is undermined if governments decide that a particular research group or organisation should get the funds and peer review is bypassed. This is becoming a regular feature of political life in Australia, particularly at election time. </p>
<p>Politicians and their advisers do not have the expertise to decide who the best researchers are. Public funds are being allocated based on political influence and success in lobbying rather scientific quality and merit.</p>
<h2>The importance of peer review for maintaining quality</h2>
<p>While rejection is the common experience of researchers around the world, and a frequent source of complaint, it is universally acknowledged to play an important role in maintaining the quality of research. Every application for funding undergoes a process of peer review. Other anonymous experts review the application, note its strengths and weaknesses, make suggestions for improvements and give an overall rating of its quality. </p>
<p>Peer review of this sort is important to maintain quality in research. Poor work gets weeded out and researchers get feedback on the weaknesses of their work and how it can be improved. Rejected applications can get reworked based on this feedback and eventually they may be successful. </p>
<p>In order to make peer review fair, there is an extensive system of checks and balances in funding bodies like the <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/guide-nhmrc-peer-review">NHMRC</a>. Reviewers are approached based on their standing in the area being reviewed, multiple reviews are sought so that no one opinion dominates, conflicts of interest are declared and applications are ranked in quality compared to others in the same broad area. </p>
<h2>Who should set research priorities?</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, there is not enough funding to support all worthy applications, so priorities must be set. Ranking by quality is one important way of allocating scarce funds. However, scientific quality should not be the only criterion. </p>
<p>Funds typically come from taxes or philanthropy. The providers of these funds should have some say in how they are spent. </p>
<p>The community can be directly consulted about what issues they see as most important to research. This has <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23378236">recently been done in Australia</a>, for example, with priorities for mental health research.</p>
<p>Governments, as representatives of the nation’s citizens, also have a legitimate role in this area. For example, the Australian government has <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/research-funding-statistics-and-data/national-health-priority-areas-nhpas-datasets">designated</a> nine disease areas as national priorities.</p>
<p>The setting of research priorities does not have to conflict with the principles of peer review and quality in research. If the government determines that a certain area is a priority, researchers can compete for funds openly and the best applications supported.</p>
<h2>A plea to politicians</h2>
<p>My plea to our political leaders is: by all means listen to the community’s priorities for research and make promises about areas for funding where there is a need. However, don’t pick the winners. You don’t have the expertise, you are undermining competition and quality in research and you are making poor use of scarce funds.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32331/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Jorm receives funding from NHMRC, Australian Rotary Health, beyondblue and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. He is a member of the Research Committee of Australian Rotary Health and has previously been on grant review committees for NHMRC and beyondblue. He is on the board of Mental Health First Aid Australia and a member of the Executive of the Alliance for the Prevention of Mental Disorders</span></em></p>I have worked as a health researcher for over 30 years. During that time I have made numerous applications for funding. The majority of these have, to my frustration, been rejected. This does not mean…Anthony Jorm, Professorial Fellow and an NHMRC Australia Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.