tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/arc-219/articlesARC – The Conversation2022-09-19T20:13:43Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1905512022-09-19T20:13:43Z2022-09-19T20:13:43ZA review into how university research works in Australia has just begun – it must confront these 3 issues<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485163/original/file-20220918-15948-odqs9o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=62%2C69%2C5106%2C3375&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Emily Morter/Unsplah</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Education Minister Jason Clare has just announced an <a href="https://theconversation.com/jason-clare-has-just-put-the-australian-research-council-on-notice-this-brings-some-good-news-for-academics-189691">independent review</a> of the Australian Research Council (ARC). </p>
<p>This is the body that oversees funding for non-medical research in Australian universities and plays a critical role in the careers of academics. </p>
<p>After years of concerns about the ARC – about <a href="https://theconversation.com/ministerial-interference-is-an-attack-on-academic-freedom-and-australias-literary-culture-174329">political interference</a> and <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/funding-outcome/grants-dataset/trend-visualisation/ncgp-trends-success-rates">low success rates</a> – the review is a welcome step. But will it tackle the big issues? </p>
<h2>ARC review</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education/resources/terms-reference-review-australian-research-council">review</a> has been set up to look at the “role and purpose” of the ARC, its governance model and whether the ARC’s legislation creates an “effective and efficient university research system”.</p>
<p>However, this focus on operational issues is narrow and risks overlooking some of the most serious issues facing research in Australia. These include three ongoing challenges, as outlined in our recent <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2022.2106947">paper</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/jason-clare-has-just-put-the-australian-research-council-on-notice-this-brings-some-good-news-for-academics-189691">Jason Clare has just put the Australian Research Council on notice. This brings (some) good news for academics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>1. Adequate funding</h2>
<p>In Australia, the ARC does not usually fund the full cost of research. This is a mismatch identified as far back as the <a href="https://ministers.dese.gov.au/gillard/bradley-review-hands-over-final-report">Bradley review</a> of higher education in 2008. </p>
<p>This mismatch means government push funding back to universities, partly to save money and partly to encourage universities to be competitive to gain national and global ranking success. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-big-university-surpluses-underscore-the-need-to-reform-how-they-are-funded-and-governed-183977">Why big university surpluses underscore the need to reform how they are funded and governed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As of 2018, universities spent about <a href="https://theconversation.com/7-6-billion-and-11-of-researchers-our-estimate-of-how-much-australian-university-research-stands-to-lose-">A$12 billion</a> a year on research. About $6 billion came from the government while $6 billion came from universities’ own funds, of which $3 billion was from overseas student fees.</p>
<p>So universities must transfer funds from teaching overseas students to fund research grants. They then seek to attract overseas students based on research rankings. The <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2020.1825350%20students">risk</a> here is that a decline in international student enrolments means a decline in research revenue – if one side fails so does the other.</p>
<p>For researchers, the task of funding projects is more complex and onerous than it should be. To even apply to the ARC, they have to be able to show the rest of the costs can be met by the university. </p>
<h2>2. Political interference</h2>
<p>All ARC research proposals need to include a “national interest test”. This is a 150-word statement that explains the benefit of the research to the Australian community. </p>
<p>Clare has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/30/academics-welcome-australian-research-council-overhaul-following-controversial-grant-decisions">recently said</a> he will keep the national interest test, but make it “clearer”. This is a significant missed opportunity to abolish this problematic test.</p>
<p>The test was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/31/academics-will-have-to-pass-national-interest-test-for-public-funding-coalition-says">introduced</a> in 2018 by then education minister Dan Tehan, who said it would “improve the public’s confidence” in why grants are awarded. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Former education minister Dan Tehan" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485164/original/file-20220918-39173-z8h7xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485164/original/file-20220918-39173-z8h7xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485164/original/file-20220918-39173-z8h7xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485164/original/file-20220918-39173-z8h7xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485164/original/file-20220918-39173-z8h7xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485164/original/file-20220918-39173-z8h7xf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485164/original/file-20220918-39173-z8h7xf.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">Former education minister Dan Tehan introduced the national interest test in 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It followed a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/26/knuckle-dragging-philistines-labor-targets-liberals-for-blocking-arts-grants">public outcry</a> after his predecessor, Simon Birmingham <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/former-education-minister-vetoed-4-2-million-in-recommended-university-research-grants-20181026-p50c3a.html">blocked</a> about $4 million-worth of grants in humanities subjects. </p>
<p>The national interest test has not stopped the vetoing of research (as this is allowed in the ARC’s legislation). But it has increased the justification for it. Former acting education minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/24/federal-governments-christmas-eve-veto-of-research-projects-labelled-mccarthyism">Stuart Robert</a> vetoed six grants in late 2021, including one on student climate protests. His spokesperson argued, the proposals did not “demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest. </p>
<p>This has only <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/politicisation-of-research-grants-beggars-belief-20211226-p59k6j">increased</a> academics’ concerns about political interference in their research. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1055586252244713474"}"></div></p>
<p>The role of security agencies in the ARC process is also a deeply concerning development, thanks to the secretive nature of vetting. In late 2020, Tehan <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/mar/09/international-researchers-shun-australia-after-government-vetoing-of-grants-expert-says">blocked</a> five grants on national security grounds. </p>
<p>On top of all this, the national interest test is a highly <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/researchers-furious-over-nit-picking-by-grants-funding-council-20220821-p5bbi3">time-consuming and frustrating process</a>, as there is often a cumbersome <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/ARCBill">back and forth</a> between the ARC, university and researcher to clarify the statement. </p>
<h2>3. What is university research for?</h2>
<p>There is a misguided view in Australian politics that university research is flexible and easily adaptable to whatever industry needs. </p>
<p>For example, in late 2021, the Morrison government <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/60m-uni-grants-come-with-industrial-relations-catch-20211124-p59bns">announced</a> $240 million in grants for universities who could commercialise research. The new Labor government wants to see research conforming to the <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/national_reconstruction_fund">national reconstruction fund priorities</a>, which is geared at projects that expand Australian industry. Its focus is on areas including mining, transport, medical science, renewable energy, defence technology and robotics. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/7-things-the-australian-research-council-review-should-tackle-from-a-researchers-point-of-view-186629">7 things the Australian Research Council review should tackle, from a researcher's point of view</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Clare has specifically <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/2022%20Letter%20of%20Expectations%20to%20ARC_0.pdf">told the ARC</a> he wants to see "impact with industry”. </p>
<p>This emphasis is concerning because it sees research as a commercial, economic or “value-added” property, rather than something centred on discovering things in an independent, scientific way. </p>
<p>Governments also of course choose which industries they want to support based on their political priorities, which tend toward <a href="https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy-features/australian-science-needs-long-term-investment">short-term objectives</a>, based on the electoral cycle. </p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>The new review began work in early September and will provide an interim report in December. A final report will be handed down in March 2023.</p>
<p>This review is important but it cannot obscure a much-needed debate about the purpose and value of research in Australia. </p>
<p>Australian researchers want to be able to do their work with secure, adequate funding. And they want to be able to do it independently of government. Meanwhile, governments want to be able to “use” the research to suit their own priorities. It is easy to see how the two don’t easily align.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190551/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Michael McCarthy has received in the past funding from the ARC. He was the BHP Chair of Australian Studies at Peking University from 2016-2019.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kanishka Jayasuriya receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>A major review of the Australian Research Council follows years of concerns about political interference, tedious red tape and inadequate funding.Gregory Michael McCarthy, Emeritus Professor, School of Social Sciences, The University of Western AustraliaKanishka Jayasuriya, Professor of Politics and International Studies, Murdoch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1896912022-09-01T05:32:55Z2022-09-01T05:32:55ZJason Clare has just put the Australian Research Council on notice. This brings (some) good news for academics<p>This week Education Minister Jason Clare has kicked off what could be a major reset of university research funding in Australia. </p>
<p>He first announced a review of the Australian Research Council (ARC) in July but released the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education/review-australian-research-council-act-2001">details</a> of how it would work on Tuesday. He also released a strongly worded “<a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc/our-organisation/statement-expectations-2022">letter of expectations</a>” about the ARC’s work for the rest of 2022. </p>
<p>This follows serious concerns about <a href="https://theconversation.com/ministerial-interference-is-an-attack-on-academic-freedom-and-australias-literary-culture-174329">ministerial interference</a> in funding decisions under the Morrison government. It also follows ongoing frustrations and heartache within the academic community over the huge amount of work involved in applying for grants, the <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/funding-outcome/grants-dataset/trend-visualisation/ncgp-trends-success-rates">low rates of success</a> and <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/arc-delays-cap-worst-year-ever">long waits</a> for outcomes. </p>
<p>There are both encouraging moves and some worrying signs in the new government’s approach to the ARC. </p>
<h2>What is the ARC?</h2>
<p>The ARC is the independent body that funds non-medical university research in Australia. It issues about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/30/academics-welcome-australian-research-council-overhaul-following-controversial-grant-decisions">A$800 million</a> in funding each year. </p>
<p>A successful grant is one of the key ways an academic progresses their career. So there is a lot that rides on ARC decisions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/7-things-the-australian-research-council-review-should-tackle-from-a-researchers-point-of-view-186629">7 things the Australian Research Council review should tackle, from a researcher's point of view</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What did Clare announce?</h2>
<p>On Tuesday, Clare made public <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc/our-organisation/statement-expectations-2022">a letter</a> he sent to ARC Chief Executive Officer Judi Zielke last Friday. The letter contains Clare’s “expectations” for the research council in 2022. This includes:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>minimising the administrative burden on researchers applying for funding</p></li>
<li><p>delivering all future grants rounds on time and to a pre-determined timeframe</p></li>
<li><p>keeping the controversial “national interest test”, but making it “clearer”</p></li>
<li><p>stopping work on the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2023 round. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Clare also gave us the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education/review-australian-research-council-act-2001">details</a> about an independent review of the ARC’s role, purpose, functions and structures. The review will look at whether the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00140/Controls/">2001 legislation</a> governing the ARC has kept pace with its current responsibilities and compare it to similar bodies internationally. </p>
<p>The review starts next month and will report back by the end of March 2023. It will be led by Queensland University of Technology Vice Chancellor Professor Margaret Sheil.</p>
<p>The review is on top of an internal ARC review about its processes that is already under way. </p>
<h2>What is the good news?</h2>
<p>The big surprise is that work stops on the ERA’s <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/evaluating-research/excellence-research-australia/era-2023">2023 round</a>. ERA assesses the quality of the research universities have published and been funded for, against international benchmarks. </p>
<p>Clare has asked this work to be stopped to reduce the workload on universities - and to prepare for a more “modern data-driven” approach. The news takes some immediate pressure off researchers, which will be welcome in universities still under pressure from COVID disruptions. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1564364136158375936"}"></div></p>
<p>Streamlining administrative processes when applying for funding is also a welcome move. Set timeframes for research round outcomes will reduce uncertainty and make planning easier.</p>
<p>Researchers and support teams spend hundreds of hours preparing applications. These are then assessed by expert reviewers, leading to a set of grants recommended to the minister for funding. The process takes many months and involves a huge volume of applications, most of which will <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/funding-outcome/grants-dataset/trend-visualisation/ncgp-trends-success-rates">be unsuccessful</a>. </p>
<p>It is a bruising, competitive system in which many excellent projects never get funded. Reducing the burden of applying while maintaining quality will be critical. </p>
<p>It is also encouraging that this government is making signals it values a wider scope of research than the previous government. The terms of the ARC review refer to adequate funding for areas of “national significance” that “reap dividends for society” as well as the economy.</p>
<h2>What is the bad news?</h2>
<p>Academics will be disappointed the <a href="https://theconversation.com/national-interest-test-for-research-grants-could-further-erode-pure-research-106061">much criticised</a> “national interest test”, introduced by former Coalition Education Minister Dan Tehan in 2018 will stay. Here, researchers must write a statement explaining their research in non-academic language, to be judged by small panel that advises whether the research should be funded. This is separate to the assessment by academic experts. </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>
<p>There is no doubt researchers should be accountable for the public funds allocated to their research. But the test has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/mar/09/international-researchers-shun-australia-after-government-vetoing-of-grants-expert-says">widely criticised</a> by researchers and university leaders as counter-productive to funding good quality research. </p>
<p>The ministerial veto also remains – at least for now. This has been one of the most controversial aspects of the grants process, with Coalition ministers, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/disappointment-and-disbelief-after-morrison-government-vetoes-research-into-student-climate-activism-174699">most recently Stuart Robert</a>, rejecting proposals after they have been approved by the ARC. </p>
<p>As the ministerial veto power is <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00140/Controls/">part of the legislation</a> it can be considered under the independent review. It has already come under scrutiny from a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/ARCBill/Report">Senate inquiry</a> in the last parliament. </p>
<h2>What is missing?</h2>
<p>What isn’t mentioned so far is what this reset could mean for Australia’s <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/apply-funding/grant-application/science-and-research-priorities">national research priorities</a>, which date back to 2015. </p>
<p>Under the Coalition, research priorities were <a href="https://theconversation.com/latest-government-bid-to-dictate-research-directions-builds-on-a-decade-of-failure-173834">narrowed</a> at the expense of the humanities and social sciences.</p>
<p>We can’t address the complex problems we face as a nation without understanding social factors and experiences – every scientific challenge has a human dimension. This is a chance for the new government to modernise our research priorities as well.</p>
<p>Also not mentioned explicitly is how the system of grant funding is performing on a range of key measures. We need to address <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/funding-outcome/grants-dataset/trend-visualisation/ncgp-trends-gender-data-visualisations">gender equality</a> around successful recipients and expand Indigenous-led research. These are wider challenges to building Australia’s research capacity to be more inclusive and the ARC has a key role here.</p>
<h2>What does this mean for researchers?</h2>
<p>Right now for researchers involved in preparing for ERA 2023 there’s immediate relief, which means more time for other research activities.</p>
<p>More significantly is some restoration of hope that a better, more respectful and fairer system may be on the horizon. </p>
<p>We need a government that appreciates research cannot be expected to deliver quick fixes. It takes many years for research findings to result in tangible benefits for society. </p>
<p>All eyes will be on the review’s report in March 2023.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189691/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sue Bennett receives funding from The Australian Research Council, is a current assessor and past member of the College of Experts. </span></em></p>The new federal education minister has kicked off what could be a major reset of university research funding in Australia, with a review and stern letter to the Australian Research Council.Sue Bennett, Senior Professor, University of WollongongLicensed 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/1743292022-01-04T06:02:58Z2022-01-04T06:02:58ZMinisterial interference is an attack on academic freedom and Australia’s literary culture<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439279/original/file-20220104-27-1bx6nd1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=175%2C241%2C5384%2C3459&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stuart Robert, who as acting Education Minister vetoed six ARC approved research projects.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Christmas Eve, many researchers across the country received the news that their Australian Research Council (ARC) funding applications had failed. For most of them, this was disappointing but not surprising: the success rate for the scheme is 19%. </p>
<p>Six research teams were informed they had been recommended for funding within this competitive pool, but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/24/federal-governments-christmas-eve-veto-of-research-projects-labelled-mccarthyism">the acting Education Minister Stuart Robert had vetoed their applications</a>. The rationale provided was that the vetoed projects “do not demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest”. </p>
<p>The focus of Robert’s veto is particularly worrying: all the rejected projects are in the humanities, and four of the six are in literary studies. The applications that were vetoed offer a snapshot of how literature has long been part of everyday life, examining topics such as Elizabethan theatre, popular narratives, science fiction and fantasy. </p>
<p>This shows a wilful ignorance of the value that literature and its study provide to Australia’s society, culture and economy. It is an affront to the principle of independence that should underpin research funding in a democracy. It disregards the expertise and time of the thousands of scholars involved in the process of writing and assessing these applications.</p>
<p>The Australian University Heads of English, the peak body for the study and research of literature in Australia, has released <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeDYfTcUgFjQvH9egPMVhUJSCKpDY6DCnQRRGMJv-pNBtsDfQ/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0">a statement</a> calling on the minister to “reinstate the defunded projects and commit to legislating the complete independence of the ARC from government interference and censorship.”</p>
<p>Thus far, the more than 800 signatories to the statement include many of Australia’s most brilliant writers: Alexis Wright, J.M. Coetzee, Randa Abdel-Fattah, Gail Jones, Delia Falconer, Natalie Harkin, Peter Goldsworthy, Amanda Lohrey, Evelyn Araluen, Michelle de Kretser, Maria Tumarkin, and Roanna Gonsalves. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439286/original/file-20220104-23-leoijj.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Amanda Lohrey, one of the signatories to the statement and the winner of the 2021 Prime Minister’s Literary Award for fiction and Miles Franklin Literary Award.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Bugg</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When then education minister Simon Birmingham rejected 11 ARC applications four years ago, they were all in the humanities, including four from literary studies. The statement notes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The actions of the government reveal that it is committed to defunding Australia’s literary culture by overriding academic autonomy and determining what kinds of knowledge can and cannot be pursued.</p>
</blockquote>
<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>Time and money</h2>
<p>ARC applications are onerous. Each proposal goes through a process of drafting, internal university review, informal reading and advice, audit and redrafting. This process relies on collegial good will. Because of the timing of the deadlines, it is often undertaken over the summer.</p>
<p>Each application is then assessed by readers who are respected scholars in the field. This round, 9,402 assessors’ reports were submitted. The applications are then ranked by an overseeing assessor, and appraised by a selection committee and an eligibility committee.</p>
<p>The decisions to fund projects in such a competitive field, where research funding is already constrained, are the end result of a process that is extremely time-intensive and relies on countless hours of labour. This process is already a significant drain on the time and resources of universities across the country. </p>
<p>Minister Robert’s rejection of the expert recommendations is a shocking waste of time and money.</p>
<p>ARC funding can make the difference between researchers keeping or losing their jobs. In some institutions, it is a hard barrier to promotion and it has a compounding effect on gender disparity at professorial level in many disciplines. </p>
<p>Fewer than half of the chief investigators on research projects in the current round of applications were women. The success or failure of funding applications also influences how far institutions are willing to invest in particular areas of study. </p>
<h2>The value of literature</h2>
<p>Such ministerial decisions imply that the discipline of literary studies is antithetical to the national interest. On behalf of the nation’s readers, I would like to disagree. </p>
<p>Literature in Australia is put to many and diverse uses: it is part of our leisure, our social connections, our inner lives. It connects us to the past and informs our thinking about the future. It shapes our children’s and young adults’ sense of themselves and how they fit into the world at large. </p>
<p>Students study literature at school and university and find themselves challenged by and reflected in the works they read. Politicians quote poetry in their speeches in parliament. Book clubs are a vital source of community and connection for people of all walks of life. </p>
<p>Australian books are translated into many languages: they are read and studied all over the world. The publishing industry contributes <a href="https://www.ibisworld.com/au/market-size/book-publishing/">more than a billion dollars a year to the national economy</a>.</p>
<p>For these and many other reasons, I find it difficult to believe the study of literature does not provide “value for taxpayers’ money nor contribute to the national interest”. </p>
<p>What the writers who have signed the statement contribute “to the national interest” is inestimable. Unlike Robert, they recognise the role of literary research in supporting the literary cultures that enrich the lives of all Australians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174329/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julieanne Lamond is affiliated with the Association for the Study of Australian Literature. </span></em></p>Government vetos of academic research reveal a worrying ignorance of the value of literature to Australia’s society, culture and economy.Julieanne Lamond, Senior Lecturer in English, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1656222021-08-15T19:54:42Z2021-08-15T19:54:42ZWhere is the evidence for ERA? Time’s up for Australia’s research evaluation system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415177/original/file-20210809-27-1vlmjgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C181%2C4500%2C2997&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-illustration/australia-high-resolution-excellence-concept-189296396">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Research at Australian universities has been scrutinised through the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) assessment exercise, <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia">Excellence in Research for Australia</a>, since 2010. </p>
<p>A companion <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/engagement-and-impact-assessment">Engagement and Impact Assessment</a> exercise began in 2018. The <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/03/13/the-hidden-costs-of-research-assessment-exercises-the-curious-case-of-australia/">time and costs for universities</a> of running these exercises (the ARC collected this information when ERA began but never released it) and the value they generate for universities, government, industry and the public are unknown. </p>
<p>It’s difficult to see how any future versions can be justified without evidence of a healthy return on investment. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/starting-next-year-universities-have-to-prove-their-research-has-real-world-impact-87252">Starting next year, universities have to prove their research has real-world impact</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The question of future assessment exercises is now in the spotlight. The ARC recently completed a <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia/era-ei-review">review of ERA and EIA</a> to “ensure the national research assessments address Australia’s future needs”. </p>
<p>The review’s <a href="https://online.flippingbook.com/view/940831/5/">terms of reference</a> included consideration of “the purpose and value of research evaluation, including how it can further contribute to the Government’s science, research and innovation agendas”. This is important, as no evidence has ever been provided of exactly how the government, industry or community uses assessments for informing agendas. </p>
<p>The review received <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia/era-ei-review#table">112 submissions</a> in response to a <a href="https://online.flippingbook.com/view/940831/">consultation paper</a>. Most came from universities, peak bodies/associations and various service providers and consultants. No responses were received from the sectors that supposedly benefit from these exercises, namely government, industry and the community.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1405286939163385856"}"></div></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>What are the issues with the system?</h2>
<p>A review advisory committee was then appointed to consider key issues and make recommendations to the ARC CEO. The committee readily identified key concerns about how the assessments work, such as rating scales, streamlining and automation, evaluation cycles and eligibility requirements. These matters also came up in university submissions. </p>
<p>But what came through most clearly from universities were the mixed views about the value of assessments as a whole. By extension, there is a question mark over whether they should continue if their utility cannot be clearly demonstrated. </p>
<p>While EIA has been run only once, there have now been four rounds of ERA overseen by four different ministers. Each round has culminated in a detailed national report with a minister’s foreword that consistently focuses on the same two matters: </p>
<ul>
<li>ERA results provide assurance of the government’s investment in the research sector</li>
<li>the results will inform and guide future strategies and investments. </li>
</ul>
<p>In other words, there has been an overreaching focus on <em>justification</em> for the exercise and on its purported <em>utility</em>. But how convincing is this? </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1420506716425256962"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-and-why-is-research-assessed-36895">Explainer: how and why is research assessed?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>ERA is past its use-by date</h2>
<p>In its early days, ERA was credited with playing an important role in focusing university efforts on lifting research performance. Indeed, a number of university submissions to the review acknowledged this. </p>
<p>However, much has changed since then. As university responses noted, new databases and digital tools – together with greater expertise in data analytics within universities to analyse performance – as well as the impact of international benchmarking through university and subject rankings have meant ERA’s influence has dramatically dwindled. Universities no longer need an <a href="https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/lh-martin-institute/fellow-voices/australian-research-council-review">outdated assessment exercise</a> to tell them how they are performing.</p>
<p>As for its actual application, there was a brief time when ERA informed funding allocations under the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/download/3009/2016-sre-process-calculations/4218/document/pdf">Sustainable Research Excellence for Universities scheme</a>. It was one of a number of schemes through which government support for university research was based on their performance. But this was quickly abandoned. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="screenshot from archived ERA web page on ARC website" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=100&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=100&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=100&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=126&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=126&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415754/original/file-20210811-21-1gkg71c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=126&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">ERA data were once used to inform government funding allocations, but funding no longer mentioned on the website.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190227231533/https://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia">Wayback Machine archives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2015, with a clear focus on incentivising performance and simplifying funding, the government introduced revised <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/review-research-policy-and-funding-arrangements">research block grants</a>. In the process, it overlooked the very exercise that identifies research excellence and so ought to inform performance-based funding. </p>
<p>Since then, the best the government has been able to come up with is adding national benchmarking standards for research to the <a href="https://www.teqsa.gov.au/overview-changes">Higher Education Standards Framework</a>. But with the bar set so low and no apparent reward for institutions that perform well above the required standards, barely an eyelid has been batted over this change.</p>
<h2>‘Informing’ without evidence of use</h2>
<p>Returning to the review committee, its <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia/era-ei-review">final report</a> of June 2021 acknowledged the vision for and objectives of ERA required rethinking, as these had lost their relevance or failed. This included the objectives of providing a stocktake of Australian research and identifying emerging research areas and opportunities for development. </p>
<p>But the committee has danced around the issue of ERA’s utility. It issued a lofty <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/file/12022/download?token=M1zSgd5Y">vision statement</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“that rigorous and transparent research assessment informs and promotes Australian universities’ pursuit of research that is excellent, engaged with community, industry and government, and delivers social, economic, environmental and cultural impact.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ARC has adopted it as part of the <a href="https://online.flippingbook.com/view/52483419/">ERA and EI Action Plan</a>.</p>
<p>The notion of “informing” as a buzzword for influence and utility has been the consistent feature of ERA. It seems this will continue. The review committee’s report contains over 50 references to this idea. And “informing decisions” is to be one of the four objectives taken up by the ARC, specifically to “provide a rich and robust source of information on university excellence and activity to inform and support the needs of university, industry, government and community stakeholders”. </p>
<p>But no evidence has ever been provided of ERA’s usefulness to these sectors. This objective rings hollow, particularly in light of the conspicuous absence of industry or government responses to the review. </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>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Entomologist looks at netting with lights to attract insects in the dark" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415176/original/file-20210809-17-1e7ls2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415176/original/file-20210809-17-1e7ls2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415176/original/file-20210809-17-1e7ls2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415176/original/file-20210809-17-1e7ls2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415176/original/file-20210809-17-1e7ls2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415176/original/file-20210809-17-1e7ls2a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415176/original/file-20210809-17-1e7ls2a.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">The ERA process has produced no clear evidence of how university research is being used.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/entomologists-insect-scientists-collecting-moths-beetles-1326638879">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The vanishing link to funding</h2>
<p>Of course, the really big question is whether ERA and EI will ever inform research funding. That’s something the ARC has brought up over the years, and possibly the only reason why universities are so compliant. </p>
<p>Curiously, though, the review’s terms of reference did not cover this issue. Perhaps, after 11 years, no one can work this out. Now that would surely represent a very poor return on investment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165622/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 11 years of Excellence in Research for Australia, the time and costs for universities and the value it creates for other sectors (none of which made submissions to a recent review) are unknown.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/1269192019-11-14T19:07:53Z2019-11-14T19:07:53ZResearch funding announcements have become a political tool, creating crippling uncertainty for academics<p>There’s a lot of uncertainty in a research career. Most funding – and most jobs – are doled out by the project, or in chunks of a few years at a time. </p>
<p>Recently, however, the situation has been made even worse by delays in announcements of government funding – delays that appear to be caused by government using announcements for political advantage. </p>
<h2>How research funding works</h2>
<p>The federal government is a major funder of basic research in Australia, issuing close to A$800 million in grants each year via the Australian Research Council (ARC).</p>
<p>There are a variety of grants for researchers at different stages of their career, and also grants for specific research projects. </p>
<p>Receiving a grant can be the difference between whether a project goes ahead or not, and – if you’re a researcher – whether you have a job or not. </p>
<p>Accordingly, researchers put a huge amount of effort into applying for grants. The process is highly competitive, and only around one in six grant applications is successful.</p>
<p>Independent experts at the ARC assess all applications and make funding recommendations to the federal education minister for approval.</p>
<h2>Ministerial intervention</h2>
<p>Most of the time, the minister follows the ARC’s advice. However, in 2018 the then minister, Simon Birmingham, intervened to block 11 humanities grants recommended by the ARC. Many commentators decried the intervention as political, saying it set a <a href="https://theconversation.com/simon-birminghams-intervention-in-research-funding-is-not-unprecedented-but-dangerous-105737">dangerous precedent</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1055586252244713474"}"></div></p>
<p>The current education minister, Dan Tehan, <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/tehan/strengthening-public-confidence-university-research-funding">said late last year</a> that future ARC grants would be subject to a new “national interest” test, but also that he would be transparent if he chose to intervene in any funding decisions. </p>
<p>This year, however, the funding announcements themselves have become a political tool – creating even more uncertainty for researchers.</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>
<p>Announcements of particular grants that have in the past been made all at once – such as the large Centre of Excellence grants – have instead trickled out via media releases over weeks and months.</p>
<p>Grants for early career researchers are also usually announced together, in late October or early November. In a clear break from convention this year, only a handful of the expected almost 200 in total have been announced so far – including those from <a href="https://news.griffith.edu.au/2019/11/05/griffith-researchers-earn-more/">Griffith University</a>, the <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/media/media-releases/12-million-towards-world-leading-research-projects-toowoomba">University of Southern Queensland</a>, <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/media/media-releases/world-leading-research-townsvilles-backyard">James Cook University</a>, and the <a href="https://twitter.com/uwanews/status/1194492123992621056">University of Western Australia</a>.</p>
<p>Earlier this week a leaked internal email from the University of Queensland stated that it understands “the embargo is lifted by local MPs in conjunction with the minister of education”, and that it is “waiting for its local MP” to make the awards public.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193827915818885120"}"></div></p>
<p>Larger announcements also look like they are being managed for political benefit. New research training centres at the <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/media/media-releases/personalised-medical-implants-improve-health-australians">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/tehan/boosting-innovative-drug-delivery-research-1">Monash University</a> were not announced by their respective local MPs (who are not members of the government), but instead by government MPs from nearby electorates.</p>
<p>The minister’s office has not responded to a request for comment.</p>
<h2>What this means for researchers</h2>
<p>Politics aside, the delay and uncertainty is bad news for researchers. </p>
<p>Applications for next year’s funding round have already opened, and researchers who were unsuccessful this year still don’t have any feedback on their applications. This feedback is often a crucial tool for improving an application to make it more likely to succeed.</p>
<p>Successful applicants will already know they are successful – but they can’t sign funding agreements with the ARC and actually get on with the research until all the grants have been announced. No one knows when that announcement will happen, and it could mean some researchers are left without income early next year. </p>
<p>It could also mean Australia loses out as the top talent takes positions overseas rather than waiting. The ARC says <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/arc-grant-outcomes-under-embargo">this will change in future</a>, but that’s not much help for this year. </p>
<h2>Tracking the ARC</h2>
<p>This year, the best way to keep track of what’s going on at the ARC has been an anonymous Twitter account called <a href="https://twitter.com/ARC_Tracker">@ARC_tracker</a>. What began as an automated bot that regularly checked the ARC website for new announcements has become a important source of information and a focal point for researchers dissatisfied with the current process.</p>
<p>The account has kept track of announcements as they have trickled out, and shared reports from disgruntled researchers.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193708993044045824"}"></div></p>
<p>The unknown person who runs the account – who says they are a researcher at an Australian university – has also <a href="https://researchwhisperer.org/2019/11/05/announcement-delays/">explained</a> their concerns at greater length.</p>
<p>While the account has done a service to Australia’s research community, the fact that it needs to exist reflects very poorly on the lack of transparency and communication from the ARC and the minister’s office.</p>
<h2>Where to from here?</h2>
<p>This dire situation can be fixed with two simple changes to the process. </p>
<p>First, local politicians with no ministerial responsibility for the sector should not be involved in grant announcements. The money is budgeted for research, not regions, and funding decisions are made on the recommendation of an expert panel via a rigorous process. Ideally, the announcement would be made by the ARC itself to remove any perception of politicisation.</p>
<p>Second, funding announcements for each round of grants should be made simultaneously on a date advertised when applications open. This would give researchers certainty about when they would know the outcome. </p>
<p>Over to you, minister.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Shortly after this story was published, the <a href="https://rms.arc.gov.au/RMS/Report/Download/Report/a3f6be6e-33f7-4fb5-98a6-7526aaa184cf/206">full list</a> of early career grant winners was posted on the ARC website.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jodie Bradby is the current president of the Australian Institute of Physics </span></em></p>Decisions about research funding – and how those decisions are announced – should not be political and should follow a set schedule.Jodie Bradby, Professor of Physics, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1058382018-10-29T04:53:37Z2018-10-29T04:53:37ZSome questions for Simon Birmingham, from two researchers whose ARC grant he quashed<p>We are two of the researchers affected by Simon Birmingham’s intervention in last year’s Australian Research Council (ARC) funding grants. The title of our application, “Greening Media Sport: The Communication of Environmental Issues and Sustainability in Professional Sport”, was on a list of 11 projects rejected by the then minister for education and training’s office after the ARC had recommended these for funding.</p>
<p>Birmingham’s action has been condemned across the higher education sector and reported extensively. The UK Times Higher Education Supplement <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/australian-minister-censored-humanities-research">noted that this “censoring”</a> of humanities research sits uncomfortably alongside the free speech credentials of the government Birmingham represents. </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>
<p>One of the motivations of our project was to try to move beyond needlessly partisan political debate by investigating the capacity of professional sport – arguably the most popular form of media on the planet – to communicate environmental issues and awareness. </p>
<p>The potential for sport in this area is shown by any number of widely publicised examples including the International Olympic Committee’s <a href="https://www.olympic.org/sustainability">Sustainability Strategy</a>, the efforts of Formula One racing teams to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-race-to-make-formula-one-greener-65857">achieve carbon-neutral status</a> and the Melbourne Cricket Ground’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/how-the-mcg-got-ahead-of-the-recycling-game-20180503-p4zd5f.html">investment in large-scale waste and water recycling</a> facilities. </p>
<p>Our project seeks to investigate and map a growing range of environmental programs and initiatives around the world, and to help Australia – in the face of serious ecological challenges – capitalise on the fact that it is a sporting nation. It is certainly an objective thought worth pursuing by members of the <a href="http://www.sportsenvironmentalliance.org/">Sports Environment Alliance</a>, which include the AFL, Tennis Australia, Netball Australia and Cricket Australia.</p>
<p>One cannot help but wonder: did the minister or any of his staff read our application or any of the other ten he chose to reject?</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242661/original/file-20181029-7074-yfy85f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Simon Birmingham.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our decision to speak publicly is to pose necessary questions about what has happened here and why. As professors in the discipline of communications and media studies, we are familiar with the risks and realities of producing research on matters of social, cultural and political significance. </p>
<p>Both of us have, for example, made unexpected appearances in news stories and state and federal parliamentary Hansards at different points in our careers. This speaks to the sometimes contradictory nature of producing university-based research. Depending on the issue at hand, evidence-based research is invoked by political actors and citizens to support a particular position <em>and</em> declared hopelessly arcane and out-of-touch by those who hold a different position. This is precisely why decisions about ARC funding are usually made at arm’s length from government.</p>
<p>We can live with rejection – it is a professional byproduct of producing research. However, the rules through which funding decisions are reached should be transparent and the reasons for rejection should be communicated clearly to researchers and their universities. Neither has occurred on this occasion.</p>
<h2>A lack of transparency</h2>
<p>Last November, we received the following notification from the ARC about Greening Media Sport, relayed via the Monash Research Office: “This proposal is in the Top 10% of unsuccessful proposals within the discipline panel”. </p>
<p>It was not until last Friday morning, when news of a video posted by Labor Senator Kim Carr to YouTube started to circulate, that the truth of why our project was deemed unsuccessful became apparent. </p>
<p>Given that our project was, in fact, recommended for funding by the ARC and then sent to the minister’s office for sign-off, it turns out that the ARC’s November 2017 statement – in the context of its Humanities and Creative Arts discipline panel – was demonstrably incorrect. Who is ultimately responsible for this misleading statement? The minister? His office? The ARC? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GUtPDjXI8fE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This intervention raises a number of further questions.
Why has it taken almost 12 months for information about the exclusion of the 11 grants to be made public? Why was this information not disclosed to the applicants and the universities that employ them? It might have at least stopped many of the researchers, including us, rewriting and resubmitting applications regarded as undeserving of ministerial sign-off. </p>
<p>Researchers should have the right to know if the minister has introduced an additional criterion for funding into the grant system. Birmingham has defended his intervention with confidence on Twitter. Can he further explain why he rejected the applications – and why his actions remained concealed until last week?</p>
<p>Why were the 11 projects targeted by the minister attached to only one panel out of eight: Humanities and Creative Arts? If different rules apply to applications sent to this panel, reviewers, panel members and possibly the ARC itself should be informed of this fact.</p>
<p>Finally, a new round of ARC grants will be announced shortly. Is the current minister for education, Dan Tehan, about to exercise the same discretion as his predecessor in relation to these? </p>
<p>The lives and careers of researchers are negatively affected, sometimes heavily, by funding decisions. This reality needs to be remembered in the midst of political debate about this issue. One applicant in the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award scheme has communicated that <a href="https://twitter.com/multimimetica/status/1055568853583966208">he and his family had to move overseas</a> for employment because the minister rejected his application. </p>
<p>We all rely on the transparency, if not fairness, of institutional decision-making in order to accept the legitimacy of the systems that govern our lives. Academics are no different to other citizens and professionals in this respect.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105838/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brett Hutchins has received funding from the Australian Research Council for previous projects.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Libby Lester has received funding from the Australian Research Council for previous projects.</span></em></p>Did the minister or any of his staff read our application or any of the other ten he chose to reject?Brett Hutchins, Professor of Media and Communications Studies, Monash UniversityLibby Lester, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communications, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1057372018-10-26T05:22:25Z2018-10-26T05:22:25ZSimon Birmingham’s intervention in research funding is not unprecedented, but dangerous<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242429/original/file-20181026-107695-an9y5l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In 2017 and 2018, as education minister, Simon Birmingham vetoed 11 ARC grants in the humanities. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> LUKAS COCH/AAP Image</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Senator Simon Birmingham’s <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/federal/former-education-minister-vetoed-4-2-million-in-recommended-university-research-grants-20181026-p50c3a.html">personal intervention</a> during his time as education minister in 2017 and 2018 to deny funding to 11 Australian Research Council (ARC) grants, all in the humanities and worth a combined total of A$4.2 million, has sparked outrage.</p>
<p>Revealed in Senate estimates on Thursday, the vetoed projects included $926,372 for a La Trobe University project titled “Writing the struggle for Sioux and US modernity”, $764,744 for a Macquarie University project on “the music of nature and the nature of music”, and $391,574 for an ANU project called “Price, metals and materials in the global exchange”. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242415/original/file-20181026-107704-q85dwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=764&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Projects vetoed by Simon Birmingham.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ben Eltham/Twitter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On Friday, Birmingham <a href="https://twitter.com/Birmo/status/1055586252244713474">defended his intervention</a>, suggesting most Australian taxpayers would prefer their funding be directed to other research.</p>
<p>In a statement, Ian Jacobs, the vice chancellor and president at UNSW, from which three grants were vetoed, said “the unjustified and unexplained decision to solely deny funding for research that contributes to scholarship in arts and humanities is deeply troubling”.</p>
<p>The decisions are, in the words of Australian Academy of the Humanities president Joy Damousi, “<a href="https://www.humanities.org.au/2018/10/26/government-strips-4m-from-humanities-researchers/">political interference</a>” that “undermines confidence and trust” in Australia’s world-leading peer review system. It has incalculable effect on the lives of academics, but such action is not unprecedented, and only further evidences the vital need for strong, independent humanities research.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1055586252244713474"}"></div></p>
<h2>How does the process normally work?</h2>
<p>The Australian Research Council (ARC) administers the <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/national-competitive-grants-program">National Competitive Grants Program</a> that, alongside the National Health and Medical Research Council, provides the lion’s share of external research funding to Australian academics.</p>
<p>These are apportioned through difference schemes. Of those, Birmingham rejected six Discovery Projects; three Early Career Researcher Awards; and two Future Fellowships. </p>
<p>These grants are <a href="https://rms.arc.gov.au/RMS/Report/Download/Report/c1d284de-3f2a-410d-8cc4-71daf59bfef2/0">incredibly competitive</a>. In 2017, the ARC approved only 18% of discovery grant applications, and 17% of Discovery Early Career Researcher Awards. Only 20% of Future Fellowships were awarded in the 2018 round.</p>
<p>Such high standards <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/process">are maintained</a> by a rigorous system of peer review. Each application is assigned two general assessors – members of a group of experts for the field of research in which the project falls. After initial review, each is sent to as many as six reviewers, who provide anonymous comments and ratings.</p>
<p>By intervening at the end of the process – what should be a ministerial “tick” for the work of the ARC’s experts – the minister undermines this exacting process. What’s more, by rejecting only humanities projects, Birmingham has placed this discipline at a decided funding disadvantage.</p>
<h2>Not unprecendented</h2>
<p>Government interference in research is not unprecedented, however. Australian Catholic University historian <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14490854.2014.11668530">Hannah Forsyth</a> writes of how, in 1956, Australian historian Russell Ward was denied a lectureship in history at what became the University of New South Wales purportedly on the grounds of his having had communist associations. </p>
<p>Brendan Nelson, minister for education in the Howard government, made a similar intervention to Birmingham’s in 2005, rejecting <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/research-floored-by-full-nelson-20051116-ge18v3.html">at least three</a>, but as many as 20, applications. All had already passed the strenuous ARC process. </p>
<p>Coming at the tail end of the <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/books/the-history-wars-paperback-softback">“history wars”</a> of the Howard era, the decision was greeted with joy by the likes of Andrew Bolt and horror by the academy.</p>
<p>Writing in The Monthly, <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-gideon-haigh-nelson-touch-research-funding-new-censorship-214">Gideon Haigh</a> called this “the new censorship”, not only because such interference directly denied research funding to worthy candidates, but because it brought about “self-censorship”.</p>
<p>As one of Haigh’s interviewees put it, “young academics will sheer away from gender, because of the perception that it’s [the ARC process] being monitored”. That Australia has “no other form of research advancement apart from government” made this particularly problematic.</p>
<h2>Which humanities?</h2>
<p>Birmingham’s singling out of humanities grants, and his explanatory tweet appealing to populist sentiments, exposes a particular vision of the humanities. This vision also became apparent in the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/very-surprised-pm-to-question-anu-over-ramsay-centre-backdown-20180607-p4zk0r.html">criticisms of the ANU</a> when it broke off negotiations with the <a href="http://www.ramsaycentre.org/">Ramsay Centre</a> about introducing a degree in “Western civilisation”.</p>
<p>Government figures and conservative journalists accused the ANU and universities generally of inadequately teaching “Western civilisation”, indeed of undermining it with politically correct emphases on class, gender and race. </p>
<p>Many Australians would disagree that this is the case. One of the attributes of “Western civilisation” vaunted by government figures is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/criticism-of-western-civilisation-isnt-new-it-was-part-of-the-enlightenment-104567">secular Enlightenment</a>, which encouraged debate and criticism of established ideas. Yet this government is inhibiting the continuing process of inquiry in all spheres of the humanities. Birmingham’s decision demonstrates that the government is unwilling to leave funding decisions to the free market of ideas institutionalised in peer review. </p>
<p>The Australian Labor Party has a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/26/knuckle-dragging-philistines-labor-targets-liberals-for-blocking-arts-grants">“protocol”</a> of issuing explanatory details when a minister intercedes on these types of matters, something it accuses the present government of ignoring. However, it may be time for such informal processes to be institutionalised in changes to legislation. It may be time to limit – and perhaps forbid – the minister’s rights to intercede for political purposes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105737/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Piccini has applied for funding from the Australian Research Council in the current (2019) round. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dirk Moses received funding from the ARC for various grants.</span></em></p>Projects submitted to the Australian Research Council are vetted heavily by panels of experts. Minister Birmingham’s decision undermines this process.Jon Piccini, UQ Research Fellow, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of QueenslandDirk Moses, Professor of Modern History, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/873382018-03-18T18:56:23Z2018-03-18T18:56:23ZEducational researchers, show us your evidence but don’t expect us to fund it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210753/original/file-20180316-104673-1r1xw04.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>The use of evidence to improve teaching quality is central to the federal government’s <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/teacher-education-ministerial-advisory-group">teacher education reforms</a>. But less than 2% of <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/">Australian Research Council</a> (ARC) grants fund educational research.</p>
<p>It’s also concerning that maths and science are well down on the education grants ladder. The <a href="http://www.acde.edu.au/">Australian Council of Deans of Education</a> (ACDE) <a href="http://www.acde.edu.au/publications/">2017 Australian Educational Research Funding Trends report</a> recently revealed maths education research ranks fourth and science tenth. This is a stark contrast to the goals of the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/national-stem-school-education-strategy-2016-2026">National STEM School Education Strategy 2016-2026</a> and other <a href="http://science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/default.aspx">Australian measures</a> to improve skills for innovation. </p>
<p>This is also at odds with the government’s own innovation agenda. It signals a need for a stronger university-government-industry research culture in Australian educational research to meet these commitments. </p>
<h2>The agenda has changed, but the focus of research hasn’t</h2>
<p>The ACDE’s <a href="http://www.acde.edu.au/publications/">recent report</a> finds the focus of funding and conduct of research, as well as the training and development of its researchers and academics <a href="http://www.acde.edu.au/?wpdmact=process&did=NDYuaG90bGluaw==:">has not changed much in the past seven years</a>. </p>
<p>The report reviewed the highest level research grants over nine years to 2017, and found 440 grants for educational research and scholarship came from the ARC. The remaining 39 were funded by the <a href="http://www.olt.gov.au/">Office of Learning and Teaching</a> (OLT), which disbanded in 2015. The <a href="https://www.ncver.edu.au/">National Centre for Vocational Education Research</a> (NCVER) funding outcomes are not included in the ACDE report because they do not have a public searchable grants database. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="osQNU" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/osQNU/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The ARC <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/discovery-projects">Discovery Projects</a> scheme, for pure or basic research, funded 41.3% of the 440 ARC projects. This is despite <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/review-research-policy-and-funding-arrangements-0">a review of research policy and funding arrangements</a> in 2015. It recommended a clear move away from pure or basic research, which the government accepted. </p>
<p>But the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/linkage-projects">Linkage Projects</a> scheme, focused on applied research, was the second highest funder (35.7% of grants). It was followed by the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/DECRA">Discovery Early Career Researcher Award</a> (6.1% of grants) and <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/future-fellowships">Future Fellowships</a> scheme (3.3% of grants), both of which are for pure or basic research. </p>
<h2>The metropolitan-regional divide</h2>
<p>The report also highlights a significant metropolitan-regional divide in Australian educational research. This divide is consistent with broader trends in higher education funding.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-approach-to-regional-higher-education-is-essential-to-our-economic-future-88537">A new approach to regional higher education is essential to our economic future</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Group of Eight (Go8) universities dominated, with 61% of total funding while the Regional Universities Network (RUN) attracted 2% of all funding for education and related projects. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="PuSpw" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PuSpw/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The University of Melbourne was the most successful university in winning education and education-related ARC and OLT grants and fellowships, with 11.90%. Following closely was The University of Queensland with 9.60% and the Queensland University of Technology at 8.35%. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="93t6C" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/93t6C/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>Seven of the top 10 highest-funded projects or fellowships went to Go8 universities. Two went to Australian Technology Network universities and one to the Innovative Research Universities. Regional Universities Network (RUN) universities did not rank in the top 100 highest funded projects. They came in 112th, with A$396,500 awarded for an ARC Discovery project. This finding confirms the Regional Universities Network has had limited success as leading universities of highly-funded ARC and OLT funding schemes in educational research. </p>
<h2>Men receive more funding, despite more women in educational research</h2>
<p>Teacher education academics represent 3.1% of the full-time Australian university workforce. Men comprise just under <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/node/42366">56% of the total</a> university workforce, but only <a href="https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/education-research-in-australia-where-is-it-conducted">one-third of the workforce</a> in faculties and schools of education.</p>
<p>Although women represent a high proportion of the teacher education population workforce (two-thirds), they are not being awarded the same proportion of funding as their male counterparts. Women lead 54.1% and men 49.9% which is not balanced because men only represent one-third of the education workforce in universities. In the context of the wider gender demographic of the educational research workforce, the system appears to be weighted towards men.</p>
<p>In addition, 22.96% of male lead chief investigators or project leaders were from Go8 universities. The reasons for such gender discrepancies requires deeper investigation. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="Y0ry9" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Y0ry9/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<h2>One-third of educational research projects had no partner</h2>
<p>More than two-thirds of all projects partnered with another Australian or foreign university and/or an industry collaborator. The remaining one-third of projects have no partner. This is a concern for Australian educational research, given the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/review-research-policy-and-funding-arrangements-0">review of research policy and funding arrangements</a> and its commitment to improve collaboration between universities and business, and translate research outcomes into educational, social, ecological and economic benefits.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/starting-next-year-universities-have-to-prove-their-research-has-real-world-impact-87252">Starting next year, universities have to prove their research has real-world impact</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Deakin University had the highest number of partners across all education or education-related ARC grants. This was followed by the University of Melbourne, Victorian Department Education and Training and the University of Sydney. The Victorian Department of Education and Training was the number one non-university partner across all projects. This demonstrates significant Victorian Government commitment to educational research in Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="vjl1W" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/vjl1W/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>The ACDE report made 5 key recommendations for the Australian educational research sector:</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><p>Increase links between regional and metropolitan institutions through university partnerships in educational research. A greater commitment between Go8 and regional university education researchers in research collaboration, mentoring and coaching is needed.</p></li>
<li><p>The Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE), the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) and the Australian Research Council (ARC) should support the Community of Associate Deans of Research in Education (cADRE) in continuing research so the sector can be kept up-to-date with educational research trends in Australia.</p></li>
<li><p>The educational research sector should engage more explicitly with Australia’s national science and research priorities through transdisciplinary approaches. Such approaches require collaboration outside the education sector, banding with researchers to work towards these priorities in the context of the world’s educational, social, ecological, cultural, technological and economic <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-seventh-megatrend-why-australia-must-embrace-innovation-41232">megatrends</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>The ACDE, cADRE, AARE and Go8 universities should provide direct support and professional learning to academics working at non-Go8 universities in writing, winning and leading high-level grants. Such professional learning and mentoring across the sector is particularly urgent to reduce both gender and metropolitan-regional inequities.</p></li>
<li><p>Build a stronger university-government-industry research culture through systematic and industry-focused initiatives. This should be done by working with proven industry partners, such as the Victorian Department of Education and Training. This needs to be a highly collaborative exchange between governments and universities in particular.</p></li>
</ol><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE) funded the research project reported in this article. Professor Cutter-Mackenzie led the ACDE report on Australian Education Research Funding Trends. She is a member of the National Steering Group of the Australian Council of Deans of Education’s network of Associate Deans of Research (cADRE). </span></em></p>Despite the Federal Government’s teacher education reforms and the push for evidence-based teaching, less than 2% of ARC research funding is directed to educational research.Amy Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, Professor of Sustainability, Environment & Education and Deputy Head of School (Research), School of Education, Southern Cross UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/767072017-05-08T19:42:06Z2017-05-08T19:42:06ZPilot study on why academics should engage with others in the community<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167921/original/file-20170504-21620-1gyeitl.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Dr Ian Moffat explaining ground penetrating radar to community members during a survey of the Innamincka Cemetery.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julia Garnaut</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australian academics will soon have a new incentive to get off campus and into the community to engage with the people who ultimately fund their research – the taxpayers.</p>
<p>The Australian Research Council (ARC) is currently <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ei-pilot-overview">piloting</a> a new scheme to quantify impact and engagement by academics. It’s part of proposed funding changes under the <a href="https://www.innovation.gov.au/">National Innovation and Science Agenda</a>.</p>
<p>Only ten discipline areas are being looked at as part of the pilot. But when the full scheme is launched in 2018, all disciplines at all Australian universities will be measured, not only for research performance but also for how well connected their research is to community and stakeholders.</p>
<p>The results of this assessment will be used, in part, to determine how big a slice of the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/research-block-grants">A$1.89 billion</a> in annual research infrastructure funding will end up at each university. These are high stakes for institutions and researchers alike. </p>
<h2>Defining engagement</h2>
<p>What is engagement, and why is it important?</p>
<p>In the academic context, engagement is about giving non-academic stakeholders the chance to have a say in what research is done, and how and why. This includes dealing with governments, communities and industry.</p>
<p>The ARC has recognised that this is about much more than just telling the public what you are doing. It has put forward a range of criteria that emphasises the need for proper two-way collaboration and conversation.</p>
<p>Handing over the reins on research projects is challenging to most academics. But in doing so, we can ensure that we are responsive to the needs of communities, and make our research inclusive and relevant.</p>
<p>Further, public engagement can actually enhance research projects. It provides access to knowledge, experience and resources that can help us to deliver better outcomes.</p>
<h2>Getting people involved</h2>
<p>One of the discipline areas that’s part of the ARC pilot is my own, archaeology.</p>
<p>Archaeologists are well placed in the engagement context, as we regularly work with non-academic stakeholders who play an important role in guiding, funding and contributing to our research. This includes groups such as indigenous communities, historical societies, governments and local councils.</p>
<p>My own experience working in collaboration with communities to <a href="http://www.flinders.edu.au/ehl/archaeology/research-profile/current-themes-and-projects/environment-and-society/detection-of-unmarked-graves.cfm">map the location of unmarked graves using geophysical techniques</a> has shown the benefits of effective community engagement for my own research outcomes, and also for the communities I have worked with. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168376/original/file-20170508-20732-1ee21gr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Geophysical techniques provide an non-invasive means of mapping unmarked graves and so addressing community driven research questions about the history of local cemeteries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ian Moffat</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These projects typically involve the community in the design, development and interpretation of research, and evolve as a true collaborative effort. </p>
<p>Together we try and make sense of older cemeteries that contain large numbers of unmarked graves. This helps to fill in the pages of history, protect Aboriginal burial sites from destruction during development, and locate appropriate places for the repatriation of skeletal material on country. </p>
<p>Detecting graves with invasive techniques such as excavation is slow, expensive and distressing when graves are disturbed. So the non-invasive, rapid and inexpensive nature of geophysical techniques (such as ground penetrating radar) makes these an attractive alternative.</p>
<h2>Community benefit</h2>
<p>The community groups I work with on these projects benefit from this type of engagement. They are typically involved from the very start, approaching me with a request to undertake the survey. They also define the extent of the study, and help interpret the results based on their knowledge of the site. </p>
<p>The research also adds significant value to their understanding of local history in a way that would be impossible without the expertise and equipment that we as a university can provide.</p>
<p>I recently worked with Lorraine Pomery, president of the local branch of the National Trust in Port Elliot, South Australia, to locate up to 69 unmarked graves in the Little Glory Cemetery. She told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This work has completely changed our understanding of this important historic site and has generated significant community interest.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Lessons from engagement</h2>
<p>Clearly not all academic disciplines engage as extensively with non-academic stakeholders as archaeologists. There is certainly no “one size fits all” approach that will work for everyone.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, my experience provides some lessons that may be applicable more widely in academia.</p>
<p>Communities are usually far more interested and engaged in the big picture of my research (such as “where are the graves?”) rather than the physics of how radar waves behave in the soil.</p>
<p>Communities can provide important site specific information (“there used to be headstones over there”) without which I would be unable to do this research effectively. This is typical of the “<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ei-pilot-overview">mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge</a>” the ARC pilot is looking for in engagement.</p>
<p>Communities can also provide financial support to fund travel expenses, in-kind support such as volunteer field assistance (as well as, on occasion, delicious home baked cakes) and collaborate on the interpretation of the data to ensure an effective outcome. </p>
<p>There are lots of opportunities for other researchers across all disciplines to invite the public in.</p>
<p>Anyone can start this conversation with things like social media engagement or public forums. Greater two-way engagement can be achieved by the co-design and interpretation of research projects. </p>
<p>All contribute to making sure the people who ultimately fund our research have a meaningful say in what we do. Now surely that’s something that should be rewarded by the ARC.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="http://people.unisa.edu.au/Anika.Johnstone">Anika Johnstone</a>, a senior exhibitions manager at <a href="http://www.unisa.edu.au/mod">MOD.</a> at the University of South Australia, contributed to this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76707/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Moffat receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the International Society for Archaeological Prospection, Flinders University and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. </span></em></p>Funding for research in Australia could soon depend on how much researchers engage with others who could benefit from and help out with the work.Ian Moffat, ARC DECRA Research Fellow in Archaeological Science, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/651562016-09-12T20:14:20Z2016-09-12T20:14:20ZAustralia to embrace the new era of gravitational wave astronomy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/137313/original/image-20160912-13371-1aua029.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gravitational waves are produced by some of the most extreme events in the universe.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA/SXS Lensing</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Four hundred years ago Galileo pointed a telescope at Jupiter and saw <a href="http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/galileo-observes-satellites-jupiter">electromagnetic waves (light) being reflected off its moons</a>. </p>
<p>This profound observation displaced Earth from its position at the centre of the universe to just one planet among many. It also sparked a new golden era of optical astronomy, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/hubble-space-telescope-847">continues to this day</a>.</p>
<p>In September 2015 the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (<a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/ligo-24713">aLIGO</a>) detected the gravitational waves emitted by two coalescing black holes. This remarkable discovery opened up a new window on the universe, using gravitational waves rather than electromagnetic waves to peer into the far reaches of the cosmos.</p>
<p>A little before aLIGO’s successful detection, I was invited to put together a team to bid for an Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery, to be known as “OzGRav”. </p>
<p>Centres of Excellence are a scientist’s idea of funding nirvana because they provide guaranteed funding for seven years. So instead of writing annual grant applications with a <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/rms-funding-announcements-web-page">slim chance</a> of success of getting a fraction of what you asked for, you can plan and execute a serious scientific agenda with critical mass. </p>
<p>But the competition is fierce, and the chances of success are small, and funding rounds are only held every three years or so. To be successful, Centres need bold visions and ambitious objectives.</p>
<p>Our main problem when we submitted our pitch was that no-one had detected gravitational waves yet, and we were relying on the promise of new instruments like aLIGO to deliver in an area that was still void of positive results. </p>
<p>But unbeknown to any of us, the enormous burst of gravitational waves from GW150914 was <em>en route</em> to Earth and due to strike it just two months after our initial application was submitted. </p>
<p>The gravitational waves were generated more than a billion years ago when two enormous <a href="https://theconversation.com/gravitational-waves-discovered-the-universe-has-spoken-54237">black holes merged</a> after a death spiral. And shortly after the aLIGO gravitational wave detector was turned on it saw the characteristic “chirp” as space time shook during its passage.</p>
<p>Many of my OzGRav team had aided in the construction of aLIGO, and its precision is mind-blowing. When the first source of gravitational waves ever detected (GW150914) were impacting the four kilometre long arms of the detector, they shook by the equivalent of less than the width of a human hair at the distance of the nearest star!</p>
<p>So when our grant was being assessed, gravitational waves were still just a twinkle in the scientific community’s eye. One of our assessors even made it very clear that physicists were always promising to detect gravitational waves but none had been found.</p>
<p>With some luck we were selected to submit a full proposal; one of only 20 teams to do so. </p>
<p>By this time, many of my collaborators were fully aware that the first gravitational waves had been discovered. But they were bound by the strict rules of the LIGO Scientific Consortium that prohibited them from telling me (the proposed Director of the Centre) or putting this news in our proposal, or the rejoinder. It must have been killing them.</p>
<p>All we could say was the data were looking really exciting!</p>
<p>Fortunately for us, the discovery of gravitational waves was announced just prior to the interviews of the final 20 Centre of Excellence teams, and many of my team were invited to parliament house to describe their role in the discovery.</p>
<p>Last week we heard that we were one of the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/selection-report-arc-centres-excellence-funding-commencing-2017">nine Centres fortunate enough to gain funding</a>. I’m certain this is at least partly attributable to the fact that a billion years ago in a galaxy far, far away, two black holes, some 30 times the mass of our sun tore each other apart, releasing gravitational waves in the process.</p>
<p>The impact of this discovery has been remarkable. In only six months the discovery paper has already gathered 641 citations. <a href="https://theconversation.com/second-detection-heralds-the-era-of-gravitational-wave-astronomy-61080">Another black hole merger</a> event was published by the LIGO consortium in June and the (now) “telescope” is gearing up for its second major run after some tweaks to its hardware that seems certain to discover more events.</p>
<h2>Our role</h2>
<p>OzGRav has three major themes that will be driving its research programmes: instrumentation, data and astrophysics. </p>
<p>The instrumentation behind these gravitational wave detectors is truly remarkable. OzGRav scientists will aid in the enhancement of aLIGO so that it is even more sensitive, using amazing tricks such as quantum squeezing. We will also help design and ultimately construct the next-generation detectors that aim to detect thousands of events per year. </p>
<p>To minimise the possible locations of these events, it would also make a lot of sense to build one of these new detectors in Australia.</p>
<p>But aLIGO isn’t the only detector capable of discovering gravitational waves. Radio astronomers can use neutron stars (pulsars) that rotate many hundreds of times per second to sense “disturbances in the space-time continuum” induced by the gravitational waves coming from super-massive black holes.</p>
<p>OzGRav engineers are currently designing the supercomputers that will monitor dozens of these stars using the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/square-kilometre-array-168">Square Kilometre Array</a>. The CSIRO’s Parkes telescope is also having a powerful new receiver fitted to continue its leading role in this area of science.</p>
<p>Swinburne University of Technology will host the Centre headquarters and design a supercomputer custom-built to process the data coming from the gravitational wave detectors. </p>
<p>These data will be processed to look for not just merging black holes, but also neutron stars. And the closest neutron stars will be monitored to see if tiny “magnetic mountains” on their surfaces cause them to generate detectable gravitational wave emission.</p>
<p>OzGRav’s astronomers will also use a network of telescopes at traditional frequencies (optical and radio) to search for evidence of gravitational wave events at other wavelengths to help identify the host galaxies (or lack thereof?) to help understand where the sources of gravitational waves come from. </p>
<p>Finally, our astrophysicists will attempt to explain what our detectors see, and whether Einstein’s theory of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/general-relativity-161">general relativity</a> is correct or needs some tweaks.</p>
<p>Fortunately Australian scientists can fully engage with this new window on the universe and participate in the first decade of this exciting new era of gravitational wave astrophysics thanks to the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence programme.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65156/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Bailes works for Swinburne University of Technology, the host of OzGRav. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>The OzGRav Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery will enable Australian researchers to be at the forefront of gravitational wave astronomy.Matthew Bailes, ARC Laureate Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology., Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642902016-08-23T08:01:41Z2016-08-23T08:01:41ZA pub brawl over research funding doesn’t benefit any of us<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135125/original/image-20160823-30257-152s889.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is this really how we want to decide where research funding should be allocated?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Here we go again. On Monday, we were interested to see The Daily Telegraph’s Natasha Bita and 2GB broadcaster Ray Hadley making a strong fist of implying they would make good directors of Australia’s research funding system, supported by a college of experts in suburban pubs.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/taxpayer-dollars-wasted-on-absurd-studies-that-do-nothing-to-advance-australian-research/news-story/c0c20e651da84b3f249f6e77405cfc7c">this piece in the Telegraph</a>, Bita provides us with some examples of what are headlined “‘absurd’ studies that do nothing to advance Australian research”. </p>
<p>Studies lined up for ridicule included a project to “investigate warfare in the ancient Tongan state through a study of earthwork fortifications”; another on “whether colleagues chatting in open-plan offices ‘creates annoyance’ and affects productivity”; and an investigation of the “post World War II evolution of the Australian university campus”. </p>
<p>Hadley <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/research-funding-for-obscure-projects-needs-closer-examination-morrison-warns/news-story/602d7b2ecdba18fd1b1dbc4d41c763a6">joined in the ruck</a>, suggesting that the Australian Research Council (ARC) should be forced to “justify its grants in the front bar of a pub in western Sydney or northside Brisbane”.</p>
<h2>Get a new hobby horse folks, this one’s dead</h2>
<p>It’s all so sadly familiar: lazy swipes by lazy blowhards at lazy academics lazing their way through granting procedures (notwithstanding the fact that these procedures are hyper-competitive). It seems like this has happened nearly every year since taxpayer dollars started being spent on science and research.</p>
<p>In 2014, Fox News joined with Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith in <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/28/feds-spend-300k-on-study-on-how-to-ride-bikes.html">lambasting “wasted” US National Science Foundation money</a>. In 2013, while in opposition, Australian Liberal MP Jamie Briggs condemned <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/pyne-steps-back-on-grants-audit/news-story/a2c86e334b8c560ad45c8419ffde759d">“completely over-the-top” and “ridiculous”</a> grants. </p>
<p>As is now standard, these attackers often stress that they’re not against science and research <em>per se</em>; they’re just upset that research they don’t value is taking money away from the research they reckon really matters. </p>
<p>It seems all such commentators really <em>know</em> <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/taxpayer-dollars-wasted-on-absurd-studies-that-do-nothing-to-advance-australian-research/news-story/c0c20e651da84b3f249f6e77405cfc7c">what valuable research looks like</a> and what it does not. And in Australia they apparently also know exactly whom to call on to back them up.</p>
<h2>All roads lead to a western Sydney pub</h2>
<p>If you’re Ray Hadley, for example, the only way to collect genuine, representative views on things we should value – and therefore fund – is to go to a pub in western Sydney. It’s as if these pubs are populated by the most genuine Australians: people united in a single dream of how the perfect Australia should look, and moreover that it’s the <em>right</em>, perhaps <em>only</em>, dream.</p>
<p>In Ray’s view, discourse in these Utopian drinking establishments represents the true north of Australian public opinion, which naturally includes how best to prioritise research funding. </p>
<p>But why on earth would this be our yardstick for measuring value? </p>
<p>If we’re going to talk about what people do and don’t value, ask us what we think about motor sport, AFL, or hipster poetry slams. We’re not huge fans. But saying that doesn’t mean we think they are without some intrinsic value, or aren’t incredibly important to others, or shouldn’t be supported by the government or community at large. </p>
<p>You see, people differ. Sometimes we are interested in things that others aren’t, and that’s OK. That’s part of living in societies and agreeing to hand over a proportion of our income in order to maintain, and nurture, these societies. And it’s not as if the government doesn’t fund things like <a href="http://www.ausport.gov.au/supporting/funding">sport</a>. </p>
<h2>Being different is damned useful</h2>
<p>Over the last ten thousand years or so, humans have come up with this great thing called specialisation. Instead of everyone being a food-collecting, house-building, animal-husbanding generalist, we’ve discovered that having some people excel at spouting confected rage on the radio, and other people being good at assessing the quality of research, is a good thing for us as a society. </p>
<p>So for Australian society, how could an idealised, homogeneous subset of working-class (and typically white male) pub-goers be the ultimate litmus test for deciding if something is of value <em>to the whole country</em>? </p>
<p>In what possible world would they be the sole, and best, representatives of all Australian people – all taxpayers, all parents, all community groups, everyone? In what possible world is <em>any</em> single demographic group going to be?</p>
<p>There are innumerable potential problems out there, so many that we can’t be sure we even know what all of them are, better yet which are most important to invest money and research effort in.</p>
<p>And it’s impossible to tell which individual idea or piece of research might trigger the next revolutionary breakthrough. Few people anticipated that optimising radio telescopes would yield <a href="http://www.csiro.au/en/About/History-achievements/Top-10-inventions">Wi-Fi</a>, or that bird watching would lead to an understanding of <a href="http://australianmuseum.net.au/gould-and-his-contribution-to-science">evolution</a>, or that the musings of a few philosophers would transform our <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations">economy</a>.</p>
<p><em>We</em> don’t know precisely what research should be funded today, and neither do Hadley, or Bita, or the individual researchers submitting their research grants, “absurd” or otherwise. We’re sure we would all agree that investing in anything is risky, so like any sensible investor, society diversifies when allocating its collective research dollars. </p>
<p>And to the degree that anyone decides where the money should be spent, it should be people who have the knowledge and expertise to <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-youre-going-to-ridicule-research-do-your-homework-64238">understand</a> and judge the relative merits of research proposals.</p>
<p>Of course, we prioritise a sizeable chunk of the total research kitty to certain areas, pursuits, problems and interests. But to arbitrarily decide that a research area is literally of no value because five guys in a pub in a particular part of the country <em>might</em> laugh at the grant proposal title? Who’s being absurd now?</p>
<h2>Is this really just about exchanging cathartic rants?</h2>
<p>It’s fair to say that some of our colleagues in academia are unquestionably as dismissive of the priorities of Ray Hadley’s mythical, homogeneous, working class pub-goer as those pub-goers allegedly are of them.</p>
<p>It’s also fair to say that we from the research side of town could do more to be available, relevant and intelligible to people who would like to ask questions of us, to know more about what we do, and perhaps to make suggestions about what we <em>should</em> do. This is, at least in part, a failure of the research class to reach out beyond its own borders.</p>
<p>But we also have to ask: how much do people want to be reached out to? We ourselves wouldn’t want people constantly cluttering our Facebook timelines, inboxes, Twitter feeds and pub chats with attempts to make us like motor sports, AFL, hipster poetry slams or Donald Trump. </p>
<p>Honestly, we’re happy for other people to prioritise spending money (yes, even sacred taxpayer money) on things even if we don’t personally value them. We also hope that in turn perhaps they might be able to be accept us wanting to know more about the post World War II evolution of the Australian university campus.</p>
<p>In the end, perhaps the solution to this constantly rehashed problem of conflicting priorities is simply to acknowledge that people will always have conflicting priorities, and think about how best to live alongside each other: mythical, homogeneous pub-goer and irrelevant, out-of-touch academic alike? </p>
<p>Not all differences of opinion are problems that need to, or even <em>can</em>, be solved.</p>
<p>Perhaps instead of periodically lobbing abusive word-bombs at each other via our media outlet of choice, we could all occasionally go to a pub halfway between <em>Western</em> Sydney and the <em>University</em> of Sydney, ask each other a few questions, and raise a glass to the wonder that is the diversity of Australian culture. Surely we’d agree we’ve all benefited from that. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Will Grant will be online for an Author Q&A between 10 and 11am AEST on Wednesday, 24 August, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64290/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has in the past received funding from the ARC. He is also an avid pub-talker about research as co-host of The Wholesome Show </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant receives funding from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. He also communicates possibly obscure research in a pub via The Wholesome Show. </span></em></p>Well, here we are again. Lazy swipes by lazy blowhards at lazy academics lazing their way through hyper competitive granting procedures.Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityWill J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/610942016-06-22T02:01:29Z2016-06-22T02:01:29ZInfographic: how much does Australia spend on science and research?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127642/original/image-20160621-13031-1p1hry1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">CSIRO has received significant cuts to its budget over the past several years.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">David McClenaghan</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The election is rapidly approaching, and all major parties – <a href="https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/innovation-and-science-agenda">Liberal</a>, <a href="http://www.senatorkimcarr.com/labor_s_positive_vision_for_australia_s_science_future">Labor</a> and <a href="http://greens.org.au/research">Greens</a> – have now made announcements about their policies to support science and research.</em></p>
<p><em>But how are we doing so far? Here we look at the state of science and research funding in Australia so you can better appreciate the policies each party has announced.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The latest <a href="http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/researchanddevelopmentstatisticsrds.htm">OECD figures</a> show that Australia does not fare well compared with other OECD countries on federal government funding research and development.</p>
<p>As a percentage of GDP, the government only spends 0.4% on research and development. This is less than comparable nations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127064/original/image-20160617-11098-12n3se3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127064/original/image-20160617-11098-12n3se3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127064/original/image-20160617-11098-12n3se3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127064/original/image-20160617-11098-12n3se3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=555&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127064/original/image-20160617-11098-12n3se3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127064/original/image-20160617-11098-12n3se3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=698&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127064/original/image-20160617-11098-12n3se3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=698&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="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>But looking at total country spending on research and development, including funding by state governments and the private sector, the picture is not so bleak: here Australia sits in the middle among OECD countries.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127066/original/image-20160617-11135-asy0dx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127066/original/image-20160617-11135-asy0dx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127066/original/image-20160617-11135-asy0dx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127066/original/image-20160617-11135-asy0dx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127066/original/image-20160617-11135-asy0dx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=693&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127066/original/image-20160617-11135-asy0dx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=693&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127066/original/image-20160617-11135-asy0dx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=693&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="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Over the years, there have been hundreds of announcements and new initiatives but this graph indicates that, in general, it has been a matter of rearranging the deck chairs rather than committing to strategic investments in research. </p>
<p>The Paul Keating Labor government made some investments. During the John Howard Liberal government’s years, there were ups and downs. The Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard Labor governments were mostly up. And in Tony Abbott’s Liberal government, the graph suggests that it was mostly down with science. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127460/original/image-20160621-16064-10chpg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127460/original/image-20160621-16064-10chpg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127460/original/image-20160621-16064-10chpg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127460/original/image-20160621-16064-10chpg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=796&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127460/original/image-20160621-16064-10chpg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127460/original/image-20160621-16064-10chpg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127460/original/image-20160621-16064-10chpg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1000&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="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Over the past decade, there have been some minor changes in funding to various areas, although energy has received the greatest proportional increase.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127656/original/image-20160622-19767-1h5ltz5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=667&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"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>This pie chart reminds us that the higher education sector is a major provider of research and is highly dependent on government funding. It also tells us that business also conducts a great deal of research.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127069/original/image-20160617-11092-j3s0j1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127069/original/image-20160617-11092-j3s0j1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127069/original/image-20160617-11092-j3s0j1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127069/original/image-20160617-11092-j3s0j1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127069/original/image-20160617-11092-j3s0j1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=683&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127069/original/image-20160617-11092-j3s0j1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=683&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127069/original/image-20160617-11092-j3s0j1.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=683&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="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>The timeline below shows that the government does listen and respond when issues arise. It has recognised the importance of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (<a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/ncris">NCRIS</a>), the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-australian-synchrotron-is-great-but-what-does-it-do-5704">Australian Synchrotron</a> and sustainable medical research funding by different initiatives. </p>
<p>But, sadly, one must remember that funding is effectively being shifted from one domain to another, and it has seldom been the case that significantly new commitments are made. The balance of red and blue shows how one hand gives while the other takes funding away.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1308&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1308&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1308&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1644&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1644&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127657/original/image-20160622-19783-14l828k.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1644&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"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>This useful graph highlights the fact that Australian Research Council (ARC) funding now amounts to little more than the National Health and Medical Research Council’s funding. </p>
<p>This is remarkable, given that the ARC funds all disciplines, including sciences, humanities and social sciences, while the NHMRC essentially focuses on human biology and health. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=596&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127658/original/image-20160622-19780-u1zjat.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=596&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"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>This graphic also highlights the lack of any sustained funding strategy. The only clear trend is that the investment in the ARC has gradually declined and the NHMRC has grown. </p>
<p>This, in part, reflects the undeniable importance of health research. But it is also indicative of effective and coherent organisation and communication by health researchers. This has been more difficult to achieve in the ARC space with researchers coming from a vast array of disciplines. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127659/original/image-20160622-19786-kb4baj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=771&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"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61094/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merlin Crossley works for the University of New South Wales and receives funding from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council. He is on the Trust of the Australian Museum, and the Boards of the Sydney Institute of Marine Science, UNSW Global, and UNSW Press, he is also an Editorial Board Member of The Conversation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les Field receives research funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the senior Executive of the University of New South Wales in Sydney. He is a Council Member and the Secretary for Science Policy for the Australian Academy of Science. He is a Director of Uniseed which is a company that invests in early stage technology and a director of ATPI which is an incubator for early stage companies. He is a Director of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Centre.</span></em></p>How does Australia fare in science and research funding? Where have recent cuts been made? This infographic shows the state of science funding in Australia.Merlin Crossley, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education and Professor of Molecular Biology, UNSW SydneyLes Field, Secretary for Science Policy at the Australian Academy of Science, and Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/518952015-12-07T19:10:19Z2015-12-07T19:10:19ZAre Australian universities getting better at research or at gaming the system?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104610/original/image-20151207-22680-1agyu1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Time to make research audits more transparent?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>University research in Australia is improving, according to the latest <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/research-excellence-innovative-future-era-2015-results-released">round of results</a> from the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) audit.</p>
<p>Every two to three years the ERA reviews hundreds of thousands of research papers from researchers in universities across Australia. </p>
<p>For each university, research in each field (such as psychology, chemistry, medicine and history) is rated from one to five stars, the later being what all universities strive for – “well above world-standard” research. These results determine how much research funding universities receive. It’s a big deal for institutions.</p>
<p>On the surface, it may look like the ERA exercise <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/eras-rising-tide/story-e6frgcjx-1227633436699">has achieved</a> what it set out to do – improve Australia’s collective research performance. </p>
<p>However, <a href="http://socialscience.uq.edu.au/governing-performance">research that I have been leading</a> over the past five years – examining performance measurement in publicly funded services, including the ERA – suggests that we should be wary about how these results are being produced.</p>
<h2>Growth, gaming or fraud?</h2>
<p>I have become acquainted with the various pressures, professional responses and governance practices operating in universities from individual academics, to teams, to units, to executives.</p>
<p>My research shows that strategic gaming and what could appear to be fraud is systematically happening in universities as part of ERA processes. Universities construct submissions by allocating publications to fields of research (FoR) to demonstrate high research quality and quantity.</p>
<p>Consider the following cases:</p>
<p>In one university, one senior science executive explained that they performed so strongly in one field that they reclassified “surplus” publications to another field with the hope of increasing the second field’s ranking. For example, research in civil engineering might be reclassified as chemical engineering.</p>
<p>In another university, almost one half of research papers submitted for a professional discipline were not authored by members of that profession or in journals associated with that profession. The strategy was to artificially increase the size of research activity in a field to enhance their ERA rank. This is not uncommon. I’m aware that this practice has also been used by universities in the social sciences.</p>
<p>The ERA assesses research fields, not institutional departments. In another case, a university submitted research on the basis of a department in which it was undertaken, not the field of research it contributed to.</p>
<p>These strategic gaming practices are, however, not without risk. </p>
<p>The ERA rules limit the level of shifting of journal articles by linking FoR codes to journal titles, but still leaves considerable space for institutional discretion, particularly in books and research funding. Submitted data must also be scrutinised by ERA assessors and research evaluation committees.</p>
<p>In some cases, such gaming strategies have been detected by ERA processes. The ARC <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/universities-questioned-over-alleged-gaming-of-research-rankings-20151117-gl0yva.html">reportedly sent “please explains”</a> to several universities. </p>
<p>I am also aware that some ERA evaluators did not reward reallocating research publications into a different discipline to increase its apparent size. However, sometimes the strategy pays off, with one institution receiving a five in a “gamed” research field.</p>
<p>To pretend strategic gaming does not happen – or that it will be discovered and punished, or is of no consequence – is sheer nonsense. </p>
<p>The creators of the ERA must think critically about what it actually is doing in Australia’s universities, and whether the many millions of dollars to run it are worth the cost.</p>
<p>The real question to the education minister, his department and the Australian Research Council (ARC), is what they will do about it?</p>
<h2>How to move forward: make the process open to the public</h2>
<p>One approach is to reduce the capacity for gaming within ERA processes. </p>
<p>A way to do this could be for the ARC to make universities’ ERA submissions publicly available. </p>
<p>At present, the ERA submissions are confidential and typically the submissions are created within institutions by executives and administrators with no accountability to the very researchers whose research performance data they manage, massage and submit. </p>
<p>Such transparency would provide external checks by academics who have a personal interest in their own discipline, and not the disciplines administrators deem their research to be strategically useful for. </p>
<p>It would also enable public shaming of institutions which cannot publicly justify ERA submissions.</p>
<h2>Apply stricter rules for submitting research</h2>
<p>Another option is to provide much stricter rules for allocating ERA input, such as only allowing publications to be submitted according to journals’ FoR codes or to authors’ self-identified FoR code.</p>
<p>Similarly, ERA rules could ensure that research funding can only be submitted into the fields of the investigators.</p>
<p>Academics and their unions should also be allowed to challenge the internal secrecy that typically operates within universities in the preparation of ERA submissions. Given the rise of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-needs-a-new-model-for-universities-43696">corporate managerial university</a>, such an approach seems unlikely to gather much momentum.</p>
<h2>How valuable is the ERA exercise?</h2>
<p>A third approach is to question the value of the ERA exercise and to find new ways in which to enhance collective research quality and assessment. </p>
<p>The ERA process involves many millions of dollars. It also involves thousands of hours from academics in preparing and reviewing ERA submissions.</p>
<p>With all the data currently out there, how useful is the ERA process?</p>
<p>An alternative approach would be for the Australian government to require universities to systematically, publicly and regularly report their research inputs and outputs in a standardised format. </p>
<p>The ARC could commission research to analyse this publicly available data at a fraction of the cost of the ERA and under the quality control of academic peer review. This approach is much more suited to a 21st-century open government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51895/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Henman works for The University of Queensland, which is assessed under the ERA exercise. He has received research funding from the ARC which manages the ERA. </span></em></p>Making the whole process of auditing research open to the public could help reduce the capacity for universities to game the system.Paul Henman, Associate Professor, Sociology and Social Policy, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/502432015-11-10T00:48:37Z2015-11-10T00:48:37ZWe need to fund more than just science priorities for Australia’s future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101333/original/image-20151109-29317-1q8pewq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What about the research that's not considered a 'priority'?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gjw/925335078/">Flickr/Grant Williamson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s not long to go before Wednesday’s deadline for the 2016 <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/linkage-projects">Linkage Projects</a>, another national competitive research funding scheme run by the Australian Research Council (ARC).</p>
<p>I’m trying to complete an application but I’m struggling with one of the questions: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does this proposal fall within one of the <a href="http://science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/ThePriorities.aspx">Science and Research Priorities</a>?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australia’s outgoing Chief Scientist Ian Chubb introduced Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-chief-scientist-on-getting-our-research-priorities-right-43833">nine research priorities</a> earlier this year by saying “[…] science is both awesome and awesomely important […].”</p>
<p>There is no denying the joint power of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) has brought about many inventions and innovations. Considering the numerous and seemingly insurmountable problems society faces, it is a fair call to expect greatness from STEM.</p>
<p>But this focus comes with consequences that in the long term are detrimental to all Australians and the overall goal of sustaining our livelihood, prosperity and high standard of living.</p>
<p>Academia has long recognised that wicked problems require cross-disciplinary research approaches, yet Australia’s Science and Research Priorities enthral mainly STEM researchers. This divide puts academia back into silos: those on the sunny side of funding decisions and those under a constant rain cloud.</p>
<p>Encouragement and incentives for the hard sciences to collaborate with the social sciences, design, arts and humanities and vice versa are scarce.</p>
<h2>Creativity, design and social innovation</h2>
<p>STEM usually goes hand-in-hand with a focus on entrepreneurship and start-up businesses. For good reasons, as entrepreneurship makes traditional industries more competitive. This often creates a multiplier effect, leveraging new jobs for the industry as a whole.</p>
<p>But the entrepreneurship community is often dominated by the desire to replicate the success of Silicon Valley, which can blind them to regard only a tech start-up as truly entrepreneurial.</p>
<p>Great promise rests on new approaches such as exploring creative and social entrepreneurship. Some have <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0239-y">argued</a> that social entrepreneurship complements the scientific method in solving some of the increasingly complex problems facing modern society.</p>
<p>Consider food. Food is more than the industrial agricultural mass production of commodified sustenance.</p>
<p>The research challenges in food that are not adequately being addressed by STEM alone include:</p>
<ul>
<li>new design approaches to shorten the distance between producers and consumers</li>
<li>ways of addressing the main causes of the mental health epidemic among Australian farmers such as adhesion contracts by seed and supermarket giants and the impact of coal seam gas – with the late <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4341168.htm">George Bender</a> being the most recent victim</li>
<li>learning from indigenous knowledge and practices of caring for country, such as <a href="http://www.abriculture.com/">abriculture</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p>The list of important challenges that the social sciences, design, arts and humanities are well equipped to tackle is long and nowhere to be found in Australia’s research priorities.</p>
<p>There’s nature, climate change, animal welfare, extinctions and the loss of biodiversity. There is also poverty and international aid, migrants and refugees, racism and xenophobia. Then consider regional development, mental health, women and children, domestic violence, people living with disabilities, LGBT rights and equality, homelessness, indigenous peoples of Australia, the list goes on.</p>
<p>Are these social, cultural and environmental concerns less worthy of receiving priority funding?</p>
<h2>The human priority</h2>
<p>What about research into our own human condition? Given all the science and technology advances that brought us automation and higher productivity, we often end up being rushed, having less time for family and friends. We work longer hours and wait longer until we are able to retire. We suffer from stress and other preventable diseases, and are less happy overall.</p>
<p>For US President Barack Obama, the “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/04/barack-obama-empathy-deficit">empathy deficit</a>” is a research priority more important than his federal deficit.</p>
<p>Another research priority should be finding new ways to expand the toolbox available to citizens to participate in their community, in their city, in society, in local forms of governance, to take action and bring about change for good.</p>
<p>Can we offer more and better options than the usual array of voting every couple of years, petitioning, protesting, volunteering and donating? Social media to the rescue? How do we deal with the digital walled gardens of Google, Facebook and Twitter that encapsulate everyone inside <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles">filter bubbles</a>?</p>
<p>Australia’s cities house not just major infrastructure but also <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/">89.3%</a> of our population, which makes us one of the most urbanised countries in the world. This presents many complex challenges that my <a href="http://www.urbaninformatics.net">research lab</a> is extremely passionate about, and so I declare my bias when I call for the socio-cultural facets of cities to also be a research priority – and not only cities, but population growth.</p>
<p>The biggest challenge humanity faces is figuring out what comes after growth. The late US Professor Al Bartlett superbly demonstrated in his famous <a href="http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html">lecture</a> that growth cannot continue without bounds. And growth does not equal prosperity. Economists unite and figure out: how do we <a href="http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications">descend prosperously</a>?</p>
<h2>A better way</h2>
<p>So what encouragement is there for those researchers – who may be completing their application for ARC Linkage Projects – who want to do their best to better society but have their work not considered a priority?</p>
<p>It’s hard enough <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ins-and-outs-of-research-grant-funding-committees-49900">to get a grant accepted</a> with last week’s announcements of the ARC Discovery Projects down to a 17.7% approval rate.</p>
<p>If we are serious about encouraging research that will secure and sustain a future for Australia, I encourage the incoming Chief Scientist <a href="https://theconversation.com/alan-finkel-to-be-australias-new-chief-scientist-49733">Alan Finkel</a> to cast his net wider than the current priorities.</p>
<p>We need not just STEM to the rescue, but we need all research hands on deck.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marcus Foth receives research funding from the Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects funding scheme, and the Australian Government's Low Income Energy Efficiency Program. He is a member of the Queensland Greens and was their 2015 Queensland State Election candidate for Mount Isa.</span></em></p>It’s hard enough to get research funding in Australia, so what if your work falls outside one of the areas declared a “priority”?Marcus Foth, Professor of Urban Informatics, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/499002015-10-30T00:14:04Z2015-10-30T00:14:04ZThe ins and outs of research grant funding committees<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99941/original/image-20151028-21119-13chb0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Funding panels have to sift through reams of high quality applications, and ultimately reject most.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>“Why wasn’t my grant funded?”</p>
<p>Given most research funding agencies have success rates of <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/newsletters/ceo/2014/getting-ready-2015-project-grants-funding-round-applying-funding-when-suc">20% or less</a>, this is a question that is asked by the majority of applicants every year. Often the only answer members of assessment panels are allowed to give is unsatisfyingly circular: because the application wasn’t ranked highly enough.</p>
<p>But how do such panels make their decisions? Here’s how it’s supposed to work.</p>
<p>Most panels consist of ten or more experienced researchers with expertise related to the applications they will consider. They are usually given about 100 applications to read, each of 50 pages or more.</p>
<p>A primary spokesperson will lead the discussion at the meeting. Sometimes a secondary and tertiary spokesperson are also added to balance the comments of the primary spokesperson and explore issues that may have been missed. Consequently, each panel member will be paying special attention to between 20 and 30 grants.</p>
<p>Grants may also be sent out to two or more discipline-specific reviewers, who will send back reports on the merits of the projects and views on the quality of the researchers.</p>
<p>These reports are discussed together with the grants when the panel comes together at the week-long assessment meeting.</p>
<p>The primary spokesperson summarises the strong and weak points of the project, its importance and feasibility related to the achievements of the research team. After the secondary and perhaps tertiary spokesperson have also provided comments, there is a general discussion.</p>
<p>Then the Chair calls for scores. The spokespeople will often declare their scores but the rest of the panel may vote in secret. There is sometimes a proviso that anyone who wishes to score away from the consensus should declare their score. This serves to limit any extreme views that may emerge without discussion.</p>
<p>The scores are then tallied and grants are ranked.</p>
<p>At the end, all the scores are reviewed and the panel considers whether it has scored consistently throughout the week and makes adjustments if necessary. This is important, as sometimes the scores are tougher at the beginning when people tend to give moderate scores because no one wants to appear too radical. Sometimes a few grants from previous years are considered first to calibrate the panel.</p>
<p>There is always a concern that personal connections may have, or will be perceived to have, influenced the process, so most panels are scrupulous in excluding from the room anyone who has any connection with researchers whose work is being ranked. One can never totally eliminate “who-you-know” biases, but panels try very hard to do just that.</p>
<h2>What actually happens</h2>
<p>In my experience sitting on various panels, I read all the grants and I am amazed at the quality. I shouldn’t be. These are grants from people who have been successful at every stage of their careers, and the documents have usually been honed further by advice from senior mentors or even internal grant polishing teams made up of academic colleagues.</p>
<p>When I look at the ten grants for which I am primary spokesperson, my heart sinks. I realise that only two or perhaps three of these grants will get funded. I need to find reasons to “not fund” at least some of the grants, so I hunt for some that are hopeless. </p>
<p>Sometimes I can’t find any. Sometimes I find one or two teams who have not really demonstrated significant expertise yet. They may have fewer publications, or ones that are not directly related to the topic in hand, in which case I may regard that as an objective reason to place them near the bottom.</p>
<p>I also look for really stellar ideas. But given I don’t know the disciplines as well as the researchers themselves, and the grants are typically very well presented, all the ideas look great to me! </p>
<p>But at the panel meeting, I find that opinions vary about whether ideas are brilliant or not. Sometimes the most brilliant ideas are the most divisive. So inevitably track record and recent publications tend to count for more.</p>
<p>I work through and I nearly always find two applications where the researchers have recently struck gold. They now want to follow their gold seam and keep harvesting exciting results. None of us think that papers in Nature and Science, or other high impact factor journals, are everything – but we all recognise such papers have cleared a high bar based on interest and tough reviewing – so if I do see applications with top recent publications, I often do rank them near the top.</p>
<p>Now my top two spaces are filled.</p>
<h2>And the rest</h2>
<p>Suddenly I realise that with a 20% success rate, no more, or perhaps only one more grant in my pile will be funded. With two grants at the top, and perhaps two at the bottom, I now have six left. But they all look good.</p>
<p>Nevertheless my job is to rank them. I will be inclined to rank the grant I understand best or the one that will be most exciting if the project works at the top. Or the one that comes from a group whose record is really impressive. Panels tend to agree on track records, so past performance does count disproportionately.</p>
<p>Interestingly, while the reviewers’ reports can be very helpful – like most researchers I like to make my own decisions – generally these are only influential if everyone feels out of their depth on the topic. </p>
<p>Applicants should not be too worried by preliminary referee reports because the panels may well overrule both extreme negative and positive reports. When you see your referee reports each year, be careful not to over-react. All referees feel they have to say some good and some bad things.</p>
<p>The panel meetings always go smoothly with some lively discussions but few serious disagreements, and there are seldom major surprises.</p>
<p>So what are the problems?</p>
<h2>Dealing with rejection</h2>
<p>There are several challenges, and all get much worse as the “success rate” falls below 20%.</p>
<p>Lots of people miss out, feel bad and get no real feedback. When the process allows feedback, my comments are usually: “There was nothing wrong with your grant, it just was ranked lower than some unbeatable grants.”</p>
<p>Where I have seen detailed feedback being provided, I often feel it is counter-productive. Applicants can take it too seriously, not realising that a different panel may assess their grant in the next round and may value different things. Researchers should take advice from experienced colleagues, but ultimately most people are best placed to direct their own projects.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100252/original/image-20151029-20160-xtr4eg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most grant applications are rejected, which can be a painful experience, particularly for early career researchers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sean MacEntee/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another problem is that when someone’s grant is rejected they feel the system is unfair. There are some biases. High profile, older groups may have an advantage over early career new comers but people try to be fair and to score achievements relative to opportunity and take disadvantage into account.</p>
<p>Sometimes I feel we should have a system like they have at school sport: the Under 15s should compete only against other Under 15s, etc. Such systems are used for assigning fellowships, but seldom project grants.</p>
<p>There is also a problem that the public and our politicians may feel the wrong research is being funded, that panels are prioritising papers over industrial applications, and not valuing the work that society wants.</p>
<p>All I can say is that, in my experience, the funding bodies do their very best to get the smartest and most experienced people into the panel rooms and these people do their very best to pick the best research, taking pretty much everything they can into account. I would also say the achievements of modern science in the past 50 years or so suggest that overall, things are working.</p>
<p>Others say that granting panels tend to be conservative and don’t recognise or reward new, “out-of-the-box” ideas. There will always be an element of truth in this. But top researchers tend to be smart enough to write grants that will appeal to broad panels and then to try their riskiest research on the side and develop it into a proposal only when evidence to support it has accumulated.</p>
<h2>Could we save time?</h2>
<p>The processes are a huge amount of work. If the success rate is 20%, then 80% of the effort may appear wasted. It is not entirely wasted: writing grants does exercise the mind and having a demonstrably in-depth process is important for academics and for the tax-paying public. But we should all work to streamline grant ranking.</p>
<p>Simple things like reducing the number of pages required, or adding “just-in-time” approaches, where information (like a detailed budget) is collected only from the 20% of people who are actually awarded a grant, can also reduce workload.</p>
<p>Other systems, such as early culls where the bottom half of grants do not progress, also reduce the workload but have the obvious drawback that not all grants get a detailed hearing at the panel meeting.</p>
<p>The idea of having less burdensome “expressions of interest” stages, where applicants put in a short preliminary application before investing significantly in their applications, can work. But it can also backfire by drawing out applications from people who might not otherwise apply.</p>
<p>Interestingly, having random deadlines for applications very close to Christmas or having no deadline at all can reduce the number of applications. In both cases, those who are self-motivated apply, but those who are entering the game due to institutional or professional pressure may not get round to putting grants in. My experience is that there are few such people these days and more importantly stochastic deadlines count against people with fixed commitments such as carers.</p>
<p>Overall, we would be better served by having strict timelines that did not vary from year to year. Having set annual grant submission as well as outcome announcement dates is the optimal system – perhaps all grants in the day before Valentine’s Day and results out on Grand Final day – each and every year (Melbourne Cup Day is too late).</p>
<h2>Advice for new players</h2>
<p>Most institutions are working harder on mentoring and now provide advice to junior academics. But the best advice is that it will always be tough and that will never change. Even if everyone receives significant mentoring, and grants are elaborately polished, the success rates are likely to remain around 20%. </p>
<p>If more funding becomes available, the number of applications will climb. The opposite is also true but is damaging and wasteful for the sector and for society.</p>
<p>Other important advice is to ask experienced colleagues to read draft applications and take their advice, and get involved in grant reviewing and contributing to panels if you can. This helps people to understand how things are viewed from the other side.</p>
<p>And finally, do get out there on the conference circuit so that you can explain your work in person to potential panel members and reviewers. If someone reads an application having heard your talk they are much more likely to understand it, appreciate its significance and recognise your energy and momentum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49900/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merlin Crossley works for the University of New South Wales and receives funding from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council. He is a Trustee of the Austratlian Museum, a board member of the Australian Science Media Centre, the Sydney Institute of Marine Science, UNSW Innovations, UNSW Press, and a Council Member of EMBO Australia.</span></em></p>The latest round of research grant funding has been announced, and many worthy researchers have not made the cut. Why?Merlin Crossley, Dean of Science and Professor of Molecular Biology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/411582015-07-19T20:10:32Z2015-07-19T20:10:32ZGovernments shouldn’t be able to censor research results they don’t like<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88809/original/image-20150717-13788-1edrs6p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gagging clauses in contracts permit purchasers of research to modify, substantially delay, or prohibit the reporting of findings.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stallio/3526638254/">stallio/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Government departments and agencies routinely commission research to help them understand and respond to health, social and other problems. We expect such research to be impartial and unbiased. But governments impose legal conditions on such research that can subvert science and the public interest. </p>
<p>Gagging clauses in contracts permit purchasers of research to modify, substantially delay, or prohibit the reporting of findings.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18081576">A 2006 survey of health scientists in Australia</a> shows such clauses have been invoked by our federal and state governments to sanitise the reporting of “failings in health services … the health status of a vulnerable group … or … harm in the environment …”. And in a <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/203/2/suppression-clauses-university-health-research-case-study-australian-government">paper published today in the Medical Journal of Australia</a> (paywalled), I describe my experience of a contract negotiation with a government department where gagging clauses became an issue. </p>
<h2>A rude shock</h2>
<p>My colleagues and I were pretty happy when we were notified that our application for funding to study a new treatment for risky drinking had been successful. But then we received a draft contract with clauses that could potentially be used to sanitise the study findings, prohibit publication, or even terminate the project without notice or explanation via a “Termination for Convenience” clause. </p>
<p>That experience led us to initiate a formal study of the kinds of contracts governments use to purchase public good research in Australia. Draft contracts obtained through the <a href="https://www.tenders.gov.au/">Commonwealth’s AusTender website and its state equivalents</a> show these documents often contain gagging clauses. And informal enquiries with universities suggest that Termination for Convenience clauses are common and accepted within the sector as a “cost of doing business” with government. </p>
<p>It’s important to note that these concerns don’t pertain to specialist funders of science such as the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/">Australian Research Council</a> and the <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">National Health and Medical Research Council</a>. What I am talking about here are government agencies that commission research to guide their activities and policy advice to government.</p>
<p>And while my area of expertise is health science, a brief examination of tenders for research in other domains suggests that gagging clauses are not unique to health. </p>
<h2>Universities as the conscience of society</h2>
<p>Private companies that provide research services to governments are motivated by profit, rather than public good, and may have no problem with accepting gagging clauses as long as they’re paid. But universities have ethical and legal obligations to serve the public interest.</p>
<p>A noteworthy aspect of my contract negotiation was that the university involved would probably have signed the restrictive contract offered. The <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18081576">experience of other health scientists</a> and the government department’s comment in my case that the contract was standard (essentially asking what were we complaining about) suggest such arrangements are the norm.</p>
<p>But the idea that academics should be frank and fearless in their reporting and commentary is codified in the acts of parliament used to establish our universities, as well as in the Commonwealth’s <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00582">Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The higher education provider protects academic integrity in higher education through effective policies and measures to: … ensure the integrity of research and research activity; [and] ensure that academic staff are free to make public comment on issues that lie within their area of expertise…</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88805/original/image-20150717-13766-1rb2wlo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88805/original/image-20150717-13766-1rb2wlo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88805/original/image-20150717-13766-1rb2wlo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88805/original/image-20150717-13766-1rb2wlo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88805/original/image-20150717-13766-1rb2wlo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88805/original/image-20150717-13766-1rb2wlo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88805/original/image-20150717-13766-1rb2wlo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Universities have an obligation to the public and should be careful when faced with gagging clauses.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/julishannon/2434691031/in/photolist-4H9qPz-4oSGJA-5zVqGn-aBBYgA-bpRU54-bpRUv8-dr9QSY-aBBXD7-aBzirt-dSK3tm-76dzeo-76dzdy-76dzf9-8RSRus-aBzikz-3XSUc-aBzhgi-aBBXh9-REYo4-pggVpJ-aBBX1W-aBBYmU-aBBYuo-mG8Jp-eKJzVB-6WMGPk-kVTiPk-qeCPDZ-4UWkGC-5cTmCe-g47R9h-ac55u-rpuW5A-k1H7g-pripqq-fiwfG-gVimQv-yP8Ni-k1FHV-8SXazN-gVigou-7X4zt3-k6757g-5ioV3k-m5pYEi-4RBkMt-8czCe3-eVGah1-m5q8mg-mk1sF6">Juli/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Some reasons why</h2>
<p>So how has this culture of suppression come about? I hypothesise four processes underpinning this phenomenon: </p>
<p>1) Governments are increasingly image-conscious and active in managing the information environment. Research seems to have become more a means of providing support for a policy position than for generating knowledge to guide policy. </p>
<p>2) Lawyers with experience in the corporate environment are more often being employed in government, drafting contracts that are adversarial in character where they used to be cooperative. A similar proclivity to employ lawyers from the corporate world in university research offices may have contributed to loss of institutional memory about universities’ conscience of society role.</p>
<p>3) The squeeze on research funding from dedicated sources, such as the ARC and the NHMRC, has encouraged universities to compete more for government contracts.</p>
<p>4) Casualisation of the research workforce means people undertaking research are less able to be choosy about the kinds of projects they undertake.</p>
<h2>Embracing partnership</h2>
<p>In his <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=TDuXdlxjdSsC&pg=PA35&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false">seminal paper The Experimenting Society</a>, Donald Campbell lamented the tendency of mid-20th-century American governments to commit to certain policy positions in the absence of evidence, rather than trying to generate the knowledge necessary to underpin better policy.</p>
<p>Similarly, Australian governments undertake policy experiments of one sort or another, perhaps every week, yet little is learned from them. These need to be recognised as opportunities to extend knowledge of how to generate wealth and well-being, and address society’s problems. </p>
<p>But that will require a change in the orientation of governments to recognising the need for evidence-based policy and, where evidence is inadequate, to contribute to generating relevant evidence through ethical funding of public good research. Effective partnership with scientists in the planning of evaluation is needed to accomplish that.</p>
<p>In turn, universities must revisit their founding principles, which include obligations to undertake research that benefits the public they are funded to serve, and to protect and encourage the role of public advocacy. </p>
<p>To be effective, there needs to be a sector-wide effort to modify the way governments purchase research. Situations in which secrecy about findings would be warranted would surely be rare and require strong justification.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kypros Kypri works for the University of Newcastle. His position is mainly funded with a Senior Research Fellowship from the National Health & Medical Research Council. He has current funding for research projects from the National Health & Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. </span></em></p>Government departments often commission research to help them understand and respond to policy issues. But they impose contract conditions that threaten to undermine the integrity of the work.Kypros Kypri, Professor, Public Health, Epidemiology & Prevention of Alcohol-related Injury and Disease, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/440012015-06-29T20:07:06Z2015-06-29T20:07:06ZScience funding should go to people, not projects<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86665/original/image-20150629-9102-1o44302.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's the people that make the projects a success.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brookhaven National Laboratory/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prominent American biologist <a href="http://www.niaid.nih.gov/labsandresources/labs/aboutlabs/lsb/pages/germain.aspx">Ronald Germain</a>, has recently published a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.052">remarkable suggestion about research funding</a> in the top bioscience journal <a href="http://www.cell.com/cell/home">Cell</a>.</p>
<p>He concludes that the historical US project grant funding systems are no longer working. He argues for a switch from a project proposal based system to a people-based system. The phrase you’ll hear a lot more often is “person-not-project”.</p>
<p>I’m interested in this idea. Australia, with its highly developed research fellowship systems, is already moving along this road, but I imagine <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/a-call-to-fund-people-not-proposals-triggers-strong-reactions-online-1.17852">the debate</a> will be controversial.</p>
<h2>What is the funding problem we need to fix?</h2>
<p>In the US, and here in Australia, project grant funding rates have dropped so low – only <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/research-funding-statistics-and-data/nhmrc-project-grants-success-rate-broad-research">15% of grant applications</a> to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) were funded in 2014 – that talented students are now nervous about embarking on careers in research and junior staff are feeling under intense pressure. </p>
<p>Germain talks about how his son graduated from Stanford and explains how the exposure to undergraduate lab placements had the effect of inoculating students against a career in research. Students saw how impossibly competitive and uncertain academic life seemed for younger staff, despite the fact these were people at one of the world’s top universities.</p>
<p>This is not only personally damaging but it is wasteful in terms of the amount of investment and training that has gone into each new academic. It can be soul destroying for young academics, who are hired but then unable to get their research funded.</p>
<h2>The advantage of the ‘people-not-projects’ idea</h2>
<p>In the Cell article Germain makes a simple point: projects are very difficult to rank. The ideas are probably all pretty good. When panels look at two ideas they are always comparing chalk and cheese, so they are often split about what is a brilliant idea. One ends up ranking not on the basis of the idea, but on the solidity of the preliminary data.</p>
<p>So in reality, researchers no longer pitch novel ideas. Instead they write proposals full of “preliminary data” that demonstrate that the idea is not only feasible but has essentially already been done.</p>
<p>Ultimately this hampers creativity. It means that junior researchers are forced to devote themselves to preparing catalogues of preliminary data to make a convincing grant application rather than embarking on innovative exploratory projects.</p>
<p>It also means the more senior researchers with big teams have an advantage, because they will have accumulated considerable preliminary data over the years and can more easily generate applications.</p>
<p>His suggestion is to forget about the project and the idea, and rank applicants on the basis of their CVs. CVs do not always reflect the true quality of a person, but panels tend to agree on them. And, typically, junior staff don’t set out to run their own lab until their CVs are “competitive”. </p>
<p>The number of applications will be fewer and it should be possible to get some sort of consensus in the ranking. It is also <a href="https://theconversation.com/fingers-crossed-the-role-of-randomness-in-medical-research-funding-3536">less of a lottery</a>. By focusing on people, one immediately starts controlling “population growth”.</p>
<p>Most importantly, he maintains that in science, as opposed to in investment markets, past success is a very good indicator of future success.</p>
<p>So he would provide funding to the top ranked people for five to seven years to give staff the opportunity to actually do the science they think best without the need to impress funding bodies – who will likely be inherently conservative.</p>
<p>After this time, staff would be reviewed and would either have their funding continued, expanded or reduced. This would replace the need for ever more and more grant applications. It would be simpler and more predictable, and would save a lot of time. </p>
<h2>Getting closer to funding the ‘person-not-project’</h2>
<p>Interestingly, although the idea sounds radical, there are many schemes that already emphasise the person rather than the project. </p>
<p>In the US, the <a href="https://www.hhmi.org/">Howard Hughes Medical Institute</a> provides generous funding to investigators. The <a href="http://www.nih.gov/">National Institute of Health</a> intra-mural system is similar. And <a href="http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Society-and-ethics/funding-schemes/research-fellowships/index.htm">Wellcome Fellowships</a> also operate along these lines. </p>
<p>In fact, the provision of significant start up grants to new hires at most US universities is also a kind of person-not-project approach. Elsewhere, the <a href="http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx">Canada Research Chairs</a> and <a href="http://www.embl.org/">European Molecular Biology Lab</a> positions also have elements of the same strategy.</p>
<p>Australia has also been operating in this way for some time. Both the [Australian Research Council (<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/researcher_fellowships.htm">ARC</a>) and National Health and Medical Research Council (<a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/apply-funding/research-fellowships">NHMRC</a>) Fellowship schemes are essentially “person-not-project” systems, and they are highly effective. </p>
<h2>The same but different</h2>
<p>But there are differences. Australian fellowships typically provide relatively modest research support. Attaching a five year <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/dp_default.htm">ARC Discovery Project</a> or <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/apply-funding/project-grants">NHMRC Project Grant</a> to each new fellowship would go long way to providing a viable system, but one would have to look at the impact on overall spending.</p>
<p>The other difference is Germain is arguing in favour of directing the funding via institutions rather than to individuals. He considers the US to be too big to run a national fellowship scheme, and does not want to interfere with hiring systems at universities. In Australia directing funding to individual fellows seems to work.</p>
<p>I firmly believe the person-not-project idea is worth considering further. </p>
<p>It will naturally be supported by those with strong CVs – and the groups of people whom Germain says do support his idea probably do all have strong CVs. It will make people with good ideas who have not yet been able to demonstrate their worth nervous. So there should also be mechanisms to support other types of rising stars. </p>
<p>But, overall, I recommend that the person-not-project approach be given serious consideration. And in Australia this would simply mean growing <a href="https://theconversation.com/future-fellowship-cuts-hit-early-stage-researchers-hardest-39180">rather than shrinking</a> our fellowship schemes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44001/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merlin Crossley works for the University of New South Wales and receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.</span></em></p>A shift in our research funding model to fund individual people rather than whole projects could help support the best science.Merlin Crossley, Dean of Science and Professor of Molecular Biology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436222015-06-25T20:20:35Z2015-06-25T20:20:35ZOne bright idea that could transform innovation in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86219/original/image-20150624-824-13ho0bn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=333%2C17%2C1207%2C1143&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Connecting researchers to industry and investment is a great idea.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Caleb Roenigk/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it comes to fostering innovation and the commercialisation of world class research, there is something the United States has that we lack. We ought to learn from the successes of the US in this area, and emulate one program they have pioneered to give our own innovative industries a much needed kick start.</p>
<p>For dozens of Australian researchers returning to the country after working in the US, the lack of an equivalent to the US’s Small Business Innovation Research (<a href="https://www.sbir.gov/">SBIR</a>) scheme here reflects a major hole in our innovation ecosystem. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.manufacturing.gatech.edu/people/charles-wessner">Charles Wessner</a>, Professor at Georgetown University and director of the Global Innovation Policy unit, says the SBIR scheme triggered a fundamental shift in attitudes in American universities when it was introduced in 1982.</p>
<p>According to Wessner, before SBIR, the Dean of a faculty would ask young academics how many publications were going to come out of their latest piece of research.</p>
<p>Thirty years on, the Dean is now asking whether the research can be converted into a product or service, and whether they should spin it out of the university to access SBIR funding. It has been a profound change of mindset, says Wessner.</p>
<h2>Simple but effective</h2>
<p>The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) scheme is a fairly simple design that hasn’t changed much since its introduction. US government agencies, which undertake more than US$100 million worth of R&D outside the agency, are required to allocate 2.8% of their R&D budget to these programs. Currently, eleven federal agencies participate in the program.</p>
<p>Each agency takes an active role in calling for R&D – “solicitations” is the term used in the US, and with a completely straight face – for areas of concern to them. For example, the US Department of Agriculture this year is calling for projects in ten areas. They are unsurprising fields, like “aquaculture” and “biofuels and biobased products”, but with a bit more specificity under them. </p>
<p>Any small business (one to 500 employees) can then bid to undertake projects against those solicitations. The <a href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome">US Department of Agriculture</a> issues solicitations once a year, receives about 500 applications for “Phase 1” projects (those up to US$100,000 over up to eight months) and funds about 15 to 20% of them. If a project is success at Phase 1, they can apply for a Phase II award, which can be up to US$500,000 over two years. Some departments have further, larger Phase III stages, although the USDA doesn’t.</p>
<p>For the Department of Defense <a href="http://www.defense.gov/">DoD</a>, 2.8% of its extramural R&D spend is a <a href="http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Function_1.jpg">very large amount of money</a> indeed. Moreover, if the Department of Defense is soliciting proposals for new work, it is very likely it’ll become the first customer of that small business if the project is successful. </p>
<p>The DoD already has a stake in the product, and is thinking about how it might work in its own ecosystem. Given the extreme complexity of military procurement procedures, having the DoD already staked in your product is a major advantage to a new company. </p>
<p>Carry on Phase II and then Phase III funding, sometimes in multiple series, are available in much larger amounts from the bigger agencies, and can run to tens of millions of dollars.</p>
<p>Don’t imagine that means all SBIR projects are short-term or lack scientific challenges. The US Navy uses about 1.4 billion tonnes of fuel annually, and the head of its energy program, Captain Jim Goudreau, said climate change transcends politics when you are talking about that much fuel. </p>
<p>He pointed out that the US military is already affected by climate change in many practical ways, like having less available live fire practice days each year in California. And as he said at the <a href="http://www.techconnectworld.com/World2015/">TechConnect World</a> audience in Washington last week, the Navy is contracting for materiel to be delivered in 2040, which needs to be effective into the 2070s and 2080s. So it needs to cope with a changing climate.</p>
<h2>Pull and push</h2>
<p>At the TechConnect meeting in Washington last week, there were literally dozens of US federal groups talking to the science and business community about their innovation needs. Big departments, like Defense and Energy, are represented by many specialised teams seeking out companies to work for them. </p>
<p>It is “customer pull” in its rawest form. The science community is here in big numbers offering new technologies to the market. When “science push” and “customer pull” mix, then the chances of successful innovation rise to a new level.</p>
<p>At the same time in Philadelphia, the gigantic annual biotechnology conference, <a href="http://convention.bio.org/">BIO</a>, was underway with more than 15,000 participants from across the globe. The two big US science funding agencies – the National Science Foundation (<a href="http://www.nsf.gov/">NSF</a>) and the National Institutes of Health (<a href="http://www.nih.gov/">NIH</a>) were there in force helping their SBIR companies meet up with big pharma and other collaborators to bring technologies to market. </p>
<p>It’s like a science festival writ large, but also in extreme detail, as companies search for new opportunities from the vast American research community.</p>
<h2>Could it work in Australia?</h2>
<p>The recent joint paper from Ian Macfarlane and Christopher Pyne, “<a href="https://education.gov.au/news/discussion-paper-boosting-commercial-returns-research-released">Boosting Commercialisation of Research</a>”, floated the idea that Australia needs an “SBIR-like” scheme. The Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (<a href="https://www.atse.org.au/">ATSE</a>) has often pointed out that the lack of such a scheme is a gaping hole in the Australian innovation ecosystem.</p>
<p>We do have some “customer pull” oriented schemes, though. The <a href="http://www.ruralrdc.com.au/Page/Home.aspx">Rural R&D Corporations</a> definitely fall into this category, as do many of the Cooperative Research Centres (<a href="http://www.business.gov.au/grants-and-assistance/Collaboration/CRC/Pages/default.aspx">CRCs</a>). </p>
<p>The government’s response to the recent “<a href="http://www.business.gov.au/grants-and-assistance/Collaboration/CRC/CRC-Programme-Review/Pages/default.aspx">Miles Review</a>” of the CRC program was to push CRCs to be even more industry-led. </p>
<p>Industry leadership is the mantra for the new <a href="http://www.business.gov.au/advice-and-support/IndustryGrowthCentres/Pages/default.aspx">Industry Growth Centres</a>, but they are not going to be funding very much research. The ARC’s <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/lp/lp_default.htm">Linkage Projects</a> and the newer <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/itrp/centres_default.htm">Industrial Transformation Training Centres</a> as well as the NHMRC’s <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/apply-funding/partnerships-better-health/partnerships-centres">Partnership Centres</a> are each attempts to have push more of the nation’s R&D investment into more market-facing efforts.</p>
<p>But none of these schemes are aimed at boosting innovation from small businesses. Or at least, not exclusively so. They are often encouraged to do so, and make sporadic attempts to improve their small business engagement, but it is clearly a weak spot in the Australian innovation context. </p>
<p>Small businesses that are trying to expand with innovative technologies constantly struggle to raise funds at early stages of development.</p>
<h2>Bridging the gap</h2>
<p>SBIR is not of itself a scheme for collaboration; the small businesses involved can undertake all the R&D themselves. But the experience in the US is that SBIR fosters collaboration as high technology start-ups seek to source expertise from universities and other research agencies. </p>
<p>Universities immediately increased their rate of spinning out companies on implementation of the scheme in 1982. The SBIR funding attracts further seed and venture capital funding, bridging that “valley of death” between early research funding and the business becoming self-sustaining. </p>
<p>Ultimately, many of the small businesses get bought out by large companies, particularly in the defence and pharmaceutical areas, where massive ongoing investment is needed to introduce new products.</p>
<p>There’s no doubt that an SBIR scheme would fill a major innovation gap in Australia, and no doubt we could make the necessary administrative arrangements. But for an SBIR scheme to truly succeed in Australia, there would be a few hurdles that I’d suggest must be overcome before we spent the first dollar. I call these the “Fair Dinkumness” tests to ensure an Australian flavour.</p>
<h3>Fair Dinkumness test 1</h3>
<p>Would there be true political support? </p>
<p>Unless a scheme enjoyed bipartisan support, there would be no point in introducing one. With one of the shortest electoral cycles in the world, Australia is at a major disadvantage in terms of stable policy in relation to innovation. </p>
<p>If the political support is there, then an SBIR scheme would need a significant investment of new money. Scrounging money off another under-funded program would simply be setting both up to fail. It takes some time for industry to become confident with new schemes and start to invest in a meaningful way. We’d need a real commitment.</p>
<h3>Fair Dinkumness test 2</h3>
<p>Would there be true bureaucratic support? </p>
<p>SBIR in the US works because it is a procurement scheme as well as an R&D scheme. The bureaucracy would need to seriously commit to using the scheme to improve its own departmental knowledge or services. </p>
<p>That means a solicited report to the Department of Environment on management of an endangered species would need to be implemented, not just sent to the library. That means the Army would need to buy the better boots from an Australian small business. </p>
<p>This is perhaps a bigger mindset change than either the politicians or the business community, and would need to be monitored closely, even if there was initial high level support. </p>
<p>For a small country such as Australia, it is often easiest to take the pathway of least risk – so Senate Estimates would need to cut bureaucrats some slack for backing Australian inventiveness too.</p>
<h3>Fair Dinkumness test 3</h3>
<p>Would Australian business truly back it? </p>
<p>If small businesses are formed just to access SBIR money, and want to survive on providing some research to government, then we are no better off. If peak industry bodies view the money as simply an entitlement for their members, then nothing new will happen. </p>
<p>The whole point of giving a big innovative boost to small businesses is to turn them into high-growth businesses. Existing bigger businesses would need to accept that they won’t be able to access the scheme, and they might even be faced with competition from those that do become successful innovators. An SBIR scheme by its very nature involves giving a leg-up to the new players in town, and the incumbent players need to accept that situation.</p>
<p>If the federal government did undertake to create an SBIR-like scheme in Australia, it would easily be the biggest reform of the innovation ecosystem in the country since the Hawke government’s raft of “Clever Country” policies. </p>
<p>It may not be the size of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/medical-research-future-fund">Medical Research Future Fund</a> as that scheme grows, but it is significantly more complex to implement. There is no doubt the government wants business and research agencies to come together much more closely. An SBIR scheme would be a massive step in that direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43622/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Peacock is the Chief Executive of the Cooperative Research Centres Association, which advocates on behalf of CRCs. He also receives funding from The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, sponsored by Monash University. He has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council Linkage Program; the Grains R&D Corporation, Australian Wool Innovation, Meat and Livestock Australia, Australian Pork Limited, CSIRO, and the Cooperative Research Centres Program.</span></em></p>If we want to boost innovation in this country, we should emulate a scheme that has proven highly successful in the United States.Tony Peacock, Adjunct professor, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/259862014-04-29T04:28:23Z2014-04-29T04:28:23ZHe who pays the piper calls the tune: gambling with research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47093/original/m334js8z-1398646648.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">According to a new report, academic research into gambling is heavily biased, and controlled by industry and government.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Jeffers</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this month, a team of British anthropologists from Goldsmiths College of the University of London <a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/gamblingineurope/report/">published a report</a> about the mundane, if very lucrative, world of <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-wins-from-big-gambling-in-australia-22930">Big Gambling</a> and the cadre of gambling researchers who help legitimise it.</p>
<p>The report was based on a three-year research program. It involved interviews with more than 100 stakeholders in the gambling industry-state-research nexus globally, including from Australia.</p>
<p>The report’s key finding was that academic research into gambling is heavily biased. It is controlled by industry and government in two main ways.</p>
<p>Firstly, funding bodies control research priorities and are not at arm’s length from governments and industry. Decisions relating to what research questions get asked and what counts as evidence are made with reference to bureaucratic politics and industry agendas, rather than the public good or academic merit.</p>
<p>Secondly, the gambling industry withholds data and access, which impairs the ability of researchers to build an evidence base. Data generated by gambling activity is controlled by industry or government regulators. And they rarely make it available, except to those whom industry or government trust. </p>
<p>This allows the gambling lobby and governments to point to the carefully manufactured “lack of evidence” when crucial and effective reforms are proposed.</p>
<h2>Australia’s gambling research infrastructure</h2>
<p>You might think things are different in Australia. Unfortunately, you would be mistaken.</p>
<p>A small and modestly funded national centre for gambling research was established at the <a href="https://www.aifs.gov.au/agrc/index.php">Australian Institute for Family Studies</a> in response to the Productivity Commission’s <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling/docs/report">1999</a> and <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report">2010</a> concerns about a national lack of independent research capacity. Despite this, state and territory government agencies commission the vast majority of gambling research in Australia.</p>
<p>But Australian governments are hardly arm’s length, disinterested funders of impartial research. Most state governments are heavily dependent on gambling taxes. An average of <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/95688/05-chapter2.pdf#page=11">around 10% of own-state revenue</a> comes from various gambling taxes. Both NSW and Victoria derive <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/95688/05-chapter2.pdf#page=10">well over A$1.5 billion a year</a> from gambling taxes. </p>
<p>The whole Australian political economy is inextricably [bound up with commercial gambling](<a href="http://epubs.scu.edu.au/tourism_pubs/934/">http://epubs.scu.edu.au/tourism_pubs/934/</a>, especially poker machines.</p>
<p>Research is affected in a number of ways. First, commissioned research is generally funded by a levy on poker-machine losses. The authors have received such funding themselves. This means the research budget is directly dependent on the number of gamblers, especially the problem gamblers who are responsible for <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/95707/24-appendixb.pdf">40% of total spend</a> on poker machines. Why reduce problem gambling when it is paying your salary?</p>
<p>Also, research priorities are often set by advisory committees, consisting largely of bureaucrats, the gambling industry, “community” representatives and handpicked academics. <a href="http://www.gamblingresearch.org.au/home/research/research+program/">Gambling Research Australia</a> (GRA) manages and implements Australia’s national gambling research agenda, overseen by a consortium of state and territory government gambling regulatory agencies. </p>
<p>Independent, critical research that focuses on systemic issues or otherwise embarrasses is rarely suggested in the first place, even if it is in the public good.</p>
<p>Finally, the gambling industry itself commissions a modest body of gambling research. It should come as no surprise to learn that such research is rarely critical of the industry. Experience from <a href="http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187551">tobacco research</a>, for example, shows that industry-funded research tends to produce results favourable to big business, even after methodology and research questions are controlled for.</p>
<h2>Why do researchers comply?</h2>
<p>The reconfiguration of Australian universities over the last three decades has played a critical role in producing compliant gambling researchers. </p>
<p>Universities have moved from a model where academics were hired in permanent positions and were free to pursue their own research interests to one where salaries are increasingly supported by external project-specific funding. As a consequence, more researchers and research centres are tied to short-term contracts and “soft” consultancy money from governments and industry.</p>
<p>This means that researchers who wish to stay funded and retain their jobs are forced into <a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/Fair%20Game%20Web%20Final.pdf#page=50">cosy relations</a> with research funders and industry, unmediated by independent structures that can provide independence to research.</p>
<p>Gambling researchers stay funded by producing research that is “safe”, uncritical and reliably delivered. This amounts to consulting-style work where the more important questions of the public good are, at best, sidelined.</p>
<p>But the reality is that gambling researchers have little access to research funding aside from the state governments and industry. There is no independent pool of funds to conduct research at arm’s length from governmental agenda-setting, despite the <a href="http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/publications/aus-gambling-stats/aus-gambling-stats-29th-edn-aus-gambling-stats-29th-edn-product-tables.pdf#page=242">$20 billion</a> Australians lose gambling every year.</p>
<p>As it stands, the academy merely constitutes one part of the industry-state-research triad that produces and legitimises commercial gambling in Australia.</p>
<h2>Where to in the future?</h2>
<p>Although the field of gambling studies is fraught, there are remedies available to address the lack of independence that characterises a great deal of its research output.</p>
<p>Although funding bodies such as the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council are far from perfect institutions, they do offer a model for a more independent and academically rigorous approach to gambling research. An independent gambling research funding body could run as a separate program of the ARC, using the ARC’s peer-review mechanism of assessing funding applications on the basis of academic merit.</p>
<p>Disclosure models and declarations of interest should also be adopted from the alcohol and tobacco research fields. In one example, that of VicHealth, funds are <a href="http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/%7E/media/FundingOpportunities/ARC/2013/ARC_LinkageGrants_Guidelines_2013_R2.ashx">not provided</a> to researchers who have previously been funded by the tobacco industry.</p>
<p>While research into treatment and harm-minimisation measures is important, it is far more effective and socially responsible to tackle the causes of this trouble. This means asking uncomfortable questions and hearing even more uncomfortable answers. That is something that neither governments nor the gambling industry seem inclined to want.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25986/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone receives funding from the Australian Research Council relating to a project examining industry influence in dangerous consumption industries, including the gambling industry. He has previously received funding from the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority and the Victorian Gambling Research Panel. He is affiliated with the National Association for Gambling Studies (Australia) and the Public Health Association of Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francis Markham holds an Australian Postgraduate Award from the Commonwealth government. He has previously been employed on projects jointly funded by the Australian Research Council (LP0990584) and the Community Benefit Fund of the Northern Territory. Like the research commissioning bodies discussed in the piece, the Community Benefit Fund is financed by a levy on electronic gaming machines in hotels in the NT.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Young was the lead investigator on ARC Linkages Project LP0990584: Gambling-Related Harm in Northern Australia, a project co-funded by the Australian Research Council and the Northern Territory Community Benefit Fund (which is raised via a tax on pokie-gambling in pubs). In addition to his position at Southern Cross University, he is an Honorary Fellow at the Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, and a Visiting Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University.</span></em></p>Earlier this month, a team of British anthropologists from Goldsmiths College of the University of London published a report about the mundane, if very lucrative, world of Big Gambling and the cadre of…Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, Global Health and Society, Monash UniversityFrancis Markham, PhD Candidate, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National UniversityMartin Young, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228372014-02-12T03:20:07Z2014-02-12T03:20:07ZBy the masses: the emergence of crowdfunded research in Australia<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41221/original/cr66zkpb-1392089052.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Researchers are looking towards alternative sources of funding amidst increasing competition for research grants.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This time of year sees many academics furiously submitting grant applications to the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Discovery Projects scheme. While prestigious, they are time-consuming and highly competitive. In the Social, Behavioural and Economic Sciences category, only <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/DP12_selrpt.htm#1">23.2% of the 714 submissions considered</a> were successful in 2013. </p>
<p>However, alternative funding sources are available. Government-funded research targets specific areas of need directed by the government rather than the researcher. Pockets of funding are also available in the not-for-profit sector, but these also tend to be targeted and identifying opportunities can be challenging given the dispersed nature of the sector.</p>
<p>Corporate funding is another option. However, the recent case of La Trobe University’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-la-trobe-will-take-swisse-money-to-help-fund-research-on-its-products-20140207-32747.html">A$15 million deal</a> with vitamin company Swisse Wellness shows that this is also not without its complexities, following <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-05/academic-quits-la-trobe-university-over-2415m-contract-with-sw/5239204">the resignation</a> of one academic, Ken Harvey, over concerns of conflict of interest.</p>
<p>More recently, some researchers are turning to crowdfunding. Going directly to potential funders via the internet and social media, this approach typically seeks small amounts of money from a large group of individuals. It’s an emerging area with range of experiments across the world, including a dedicated, research-specific crowdfunding platform, <a href="https://www.microryza.com">Experiment</a>. </p>
<p>Some Australian universities are tentatively exploring this means of raising cash, particularly in the arts and advocacy sectors. <a href="http://www.pozible.com/blog/article/index/106">Deakin University</a>, for example, has crowdfunded research projects with pledges ranging from $5,000 to just under $22,000. </p>
<p>This means of small-unit donation has been successful in generating funding in other areas. In 2012, former-Dresden Dolls singer Amanda Palmer raised <a href="http://www.uncut.co.uk/various/amanda-palmer-raises-1-million-from-fans-to-fund-new-album-news">more than US$1 million</a> to produce her new album and tour. It has also been used to raise funds for political campaigns, with all of the major parties adopting small-unit donation campaigns alongside traditional corporate and union fundraising in the last federal election. </p>
<h2>Funding through public interest</h2>
<p>It is within this political context that <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-john-chen-523/profile_bio">Dr Peter Chen</a> from the University of Sydney got the idea to crowdfund <a href="http://www.pozible.com/project/177087">a research project of his own</a> as part of a wider study into the politics of animal protection. Dr Chen is seeking to raise A$8000 for the project.</p>
<p>Public interest in issues of animal welfare is highly visible in the vocal response to the issues of live export to Indonesia and the Middle East, as well as the Sea Shepherd group in its anti-whaling efforts.</p>
<p>Smaller unit donations are appealing to researchers like Dr Chen. He points out that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the difficulties that I think many people have is the issue of shoe-leather costs with the ARC [is that] there’s a tendency for the process to be so time-consuming that it’s only worthwhile going after large grants, but many in the humanities would suggest that mid-sized grants would be the best for their projects and interests – larger than university schemes, but considerably smaller than the average ARC.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Engaging the audience</h2>
<p>Crowdfunding typically requires an effective communications campaign that draws potential donors into the project through a compelling idea and sometimes offering other incentives. A dual benefit of the process is that it pushes academics more into public engagement in research. What is interesting, in Dr Chen’s experience:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…is how it draws an audience into the development process of research: rather than simply presenting a tidy result.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41191/original/sjppckyv-1392076817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&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 may push academics more into public engagement in research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpaxonreyes/5034760960/sizes/l/">J. Paxon Reyes</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Dr Chen thinks that the higher education sector could benefit from this approach:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…not simply in terms of liberating new resources, but because it pushes us to appeal to different audiences for our work, and also allows us to build readerships. It’s an exciting and challenging time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, following the politicisation of research funding during the election campaign, some in the research community are interested in diversifying their funding. The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/tim-flannery-to-relaunch-climate-commission/4976608">re-establishment of the Climate Commission</a> as a community-supported non-profit shows the potential of crowdfunding to support independent research.</p>
<h2>A marketplace for ideas?</h2>
<p>Crowdfunding is not without challenges. </p>
<p>Some projects have been the victim of their own success. An <a href="http://www.wired.com/design/2012/07/st_kickstarter?pid=682&viewall=true">illustrator based in Philadelphia</a> sought US$57,750 funding to reprint 5000 hardcover books. However, the resulting order for 110,000 copies (worth $1,254,120) crippled the project, overwhelming the printer’s capacity, suppliers and the artist’s management capacity to service the unexpected demand. </p>
<p>This relates to another risk that Dr Chen is mindful of:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Some of our colleagues would see a move to crowdfunding making research subject to popularity contests, or that it would be the basis by which governments might withdraw support.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Didier Schmitt, a scientific adviser to the European Commission, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/nov/11/science-research-funding-crowdfunding-excellence">recently wrote</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Freedom of initiative is a fundamental driver for scientific excellence and not all areas are prone to short-term science-driven discovery. The difficulty is deciding on scientific priorities. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If crowdfunding takes off, then priorities may in fact be decided by a new marketplace of research driven by the masses. Exciting and challenging indeed. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22837/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucas Walsh receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p>This time of year sees many academics furiously submitting grant applications to the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Discovery Projects scheme. While prestigious, they are time-consuming and highly…Lucas Walsh, Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Berwick), Faculty of Education, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/195162013-12-09T03:19:09Z2013-12-09T03:19:09ZSecuring Australia’s future: science and research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37161/original/sgfygv2h-1386418988.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What does the future hold for research funding under an Abbott government?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Crosling</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>SECURING AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE: As the Commission of Audit reviews government activity and spending, The Conversation’s experts take a closer look at key policy areas tied to this funding – what’s working, what’s not and where current funds are best spent.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/06/professor-ian-chubbs-address-to-the-national-press-club/">Chief Scientist Ian Chubb</a>, in the first half of the 20th century Australia was a “mendicant nation” for science and research where:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…we contributed little to the world’s stock of knowledge but we hoped to get what we needed when or whenever we needed it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Today, through long-term government backing of Australian science, a vibrant, world-class research culture has emerged, producing a string of breakthroughs in diverse fields from cancer to solar cells to Wi-Fi.</p>
<p>Just one example of excellence is in quantum computing. A group from <a href="https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/technology/breakthrough-bid-create-first-quantum-computer">UNSW</a> has developed the world’s first working quantum bit. These types of breakthroughs will profoundly shape not only Australia’s future prosperity, but also the world’s.</p>
<p>Despite the importance of innovation in the years ahead, government expenditure on science and research as a proportion of GDP has fallen by <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovation/policy/Documents/NISChapter06.pdf">more than a quarter since 1993</a>, with current public expenditure (~0.55% of GDP) putting Australia <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovation/policy/Documents/NISChapter06.pdf">near the bottom of the 22 advanced nations</a>.</p>
<p>With the new Abbott government looking for budget savings in a tight fiscal situation, we should take the view of Ernest Rutherford, Nobel Prize-winning physicist. When hearing the news that Cambridge University was going to stop funding his research in the early 1900s, Rutherford supposedly walked into his lab and said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Gentlemen, we have run out of money. It’s time to start thinking.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Science and research is too important for all of us to stop thinking about how we can make it as productive to future discovery and innovation as it can be, no matter what funding environment or government is in place.</p>
<h2>What’s working</h2>
<p>The old idea of a “brain drain” where scientists had to leave Australia to find quality labs overseas has dissipated. Australian research is now world-class and salaries – particularly for young PhD graduates – are the best in the world. In the US, for example, average post-doctoral research salaries are about <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23512-postdoc-payday-salaries-for-fellows-are-on-the-up.html#.Uo2js0LBfzJ">US$40,000</a>. In Australia, the average starting salary from most universities is about A$75,000.</p>
<p>Research excellence, along with world-best salaries, means Australia is in fact having a big “brain gain” for the world’s most brilliant younger minds. In 2013, young foreign national scientists applying to the Australian Research Council early career fellowships (Discovery Early Career Researcher Awards, or <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/decra.htm">DECRA</a>) have increased to be <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/DECRA14/DE1_%20Selection_Report.pdf">35% of all applicants</a>.</p>
<p>Australia has successfully started to become a magnet for brilliant young researchers around the world. With high mobility, immense creativity and high productivity, those early career researchers are the engines of future prosperity. Australia should embrace them. </p>
<p>But the success in creating the conditions for young scientists to be attracted to Australia comes with big challenges. For the vast majority of them, we can’t find funding.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37186/original/z5ydf9m5-1386546624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37186/original/z5ydf9m5-1386546624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37186/original/z5ydf9m5-1386546624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37186/original/z5ydf9m5-1386546624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37186/original/z5ydf9m5-1386546624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37186/original/z5ydf9m5-1386546624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37186/original/z5ydf9m5-1386546624.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian research is now world-class and salaries are among the best in the world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Waste and inefficiency</h2>
<p>Each year, thousands of proposals are sent to the funding bodies, which then commission expert reviewers and panellists to award grants and fellowships of between three and five years to researchers at universities and medical institutes across the country.</p>
<p>There is waste that occurs every year within this competitive system of funding. Over the last few years, success rates for grants are about 20-25%. A recent <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/495314d.html">study</a> calculated a total waste of 550 working years of research time applying for unsuccessful grants just in the NHMRC, equivalent to $66 million in salary. </p>
<p>The NHMRC, at least, is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/rolling-rounds-to-speed-research-funds/story-e6frgcjx-1226753737004#mm-premium">considering</a> halving the paperwork and lengthening funding terms to help reduce this hidden inefficiency.</p>
<p>But the waste that occurs through the grants system is insignificant compared to the immense long-term waste and missed opportunity of losing a high-quality young researcher who may have the next idea to cure cancer. The hidden bias against younger researchers in the competitive, peer-reviewed funding schemes is immense and at a crisis point.</p>
<p>Critiquing the current grants system, Nobel Laureate <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/we-must-rebuild-our-grants-system/story-e6frgcko-1226516110682#mm-premium">Brian Schmidt</a> noted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>People with track records, such as myself, are almost always successful. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The psychological bias towards rewarding established and experienced researchers means that younger inexperienced scientists are the ones left out.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/scientific-century/">UK Royal Society research</a>, about 30% of the thousands who graduate with PhDs continue in research after their studies. However, after the first five to ten years of their PhD, only about 10% will end up staying in research permanently. The 90% opt-out rate is not a choice: it’s mostly a problem in the system.</p>
<p>Young researchers live in completely uncertain times, without the luxury of secure tenured employment from a university or research institution. Living month-to-month and applying for short-term, post-doctoral positions wherever they are, the first ten years after a PhD is the exit point for talented, creative and productive researchers in the system. </p>
<p>Losing a young researcher is the number one biggest long-term waste for taxpayers. Why?</p>
<p>It’s not just generational continuity of research or that we spend huge amounts of dollars and time training PhD candidates at publicly funded institutions. In fact, it’s also because this young demographic is when a scientist is most creative and productive.</p>
<p>The vast majority of the greatest discoveries in science, whether it was DNA or E=mc<sup>2,</sup> have come from younger researchers. Instead of developing the next clean technology, sequencing a new genome or probing stem cell regeneration in the brain, insecure employment means most of those talented researchers are lost to securely paid service industries.</p>
<p>Some choose to take this pathway. However, there are thousands of talented young scientists who want to stay in research but have to leave. This is an immense waste. Allowing these immensely innovative and passionate young scientists to fall through the cracks is a waste of taxpayer funds today and for the future.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37187/original/zvpj3p2k-1386546711.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37187/original/zvpj3p2k-1386546711.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37187/original/zvpj3p2k-1386546711.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37187/original/zvpj3p2k-1386546711.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37187/original/zvpj3p2k-1386546711.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37187/original/zvpj3p2k-1386546711.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/37187/original/zvpj3p2k-1386546711.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are thousands of talented young scientists who want to stay in research but have to leave, citing funding issues.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Area of priority: early career researchers</h2>
<p>Early career scientists have very limited options for support since they can’t apply directly to the general pool of projects and grants at the ARC or NHMRC.</p>
<p>Early career fellowship schemes are the only avenue for young scientists to receive independence and certainty over four years. Since 2011, some 4908 proposals have been considered with 677 being awarded, with success rates of just 13.7%. These early career fellowship success rates are the lowest in the system. </p>
<p>Beyond that, it’s important to realise that the near 90% of unsuccessful applicants don’t have any funding security or the tenure that provides security to other mid-to-senior researchers. A large proportion of those high-quality applicants will leave science altogether, meaning Australia is materially losing the knowledge and innovation rewards that come with highly productive and gifted young researchers. </p>
<p>The longer we can keep early career researchers in labs, the better for innovative productivity.</p>
<p>So, where could the ARC and NHMRC make cuts to provide a big boost to early career researchers?</p>
<p>The ARC and NHMRC currently award a number of mid-to-senior fellowships to researchers at universities and research institutes. Depending on the individual agreement between fellowship applicant and university, many of these fellowships fund salaries that are already paid by universities, as many are tenured academics. This type of salary subsidisation scheme is not the most productive use of funds for research.</p>
<p>Between 2008-2013, for example the government funded $239 million for about 75 <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/laureate/laureate_default.htm">ARC Laureate Fellowships</a>, which are five years of funding to the most distinguished researchers. But more than a quarter of this funding supplements or replaces salaries in the hope of attracting world-leading researchers from overseas to Australia. </p>
<p>These were worthy goals. But of the 66 Laureate Fellows that have been awarded, 85% of them (55) were domestic professors, with tenured salary already secured at their respective universities.</p>
<p>Mobility for senior researchers is very low, particularly when they are already well-supported at their institutions anyway. Instead of the ARC and NHMRC spending tens of millions subsidising domestic professor salaries, wouldn’t it be far more productive to use those funds to attract and retain the most vulnerable early to mid-career researchers from both Australia and overseas?</p>
<p>Most of the senior fellowship schemes have this inefficient salary subsidisation scheme. Therefore, there is the potential to unlock tens of millions of dollars each year to be re-allocated to boost both the success rates for the early career researcher fellowships and the general pool of projects in the competitive granting schemes, which also indirectly support vulnerable early to mid-career researchers.</p>
<p>As William Bennett, a postdoctoral researcher at Griffith University, <a href="http://theconversation.com/we-want-to-work-but-research-funding-cuts-will-hobble-us-11719">eloquently put it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We’re not asking for a salary increase, or more holidays, or less working hours. We’re not asking to be handed a career on a silver platter. We’re just asking for better than a 14% chance at a research career. We have so much to give, but limited opportunity to do so. Give us the chance, and we won’t let you down.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Young scientists have never let any nation down. It’s the system of funding that generally does.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is part three of The Conversation’s Securing Australia’s future series. Stay tuned for more instalments over the next three weeks.</em></p>
<p><em>Part one: <a href="https://theconversation.com/securing-australias-future-energy-and-climate-change-19691">Energy and climate change</a></em></p>
<p><em>Part two: <a href="https://theconversation.com/securing-australias-future-governance-and-state-federal-relations-19903">Governance and state-federal relations</a></em></p>
<p><em>Part four: <a href="https://theconversation.com/securing-australias-future-health-care-19765">Health care</a></em></p>
<p><em>Part five: <a href="https://theconversation.com/securing-australias-future-education-19606">Education</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19516/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben McNeil is affiliated with thinkable.org, but currently doesn't receive any funding from that organisation.</span></em></p>SECURING AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE: As the Commission of Audit reviews government activity and spending, The Conversation’s experts take a closer look at key policy areas tied to this funding – what’s working…Ben McNeil, Senior Research Fellow, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/200312013-11-11T02:56:55Z2013-11-11T02:56:55ZAustralia needs fundamental research to build a great country<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34849/original/vjqw5rpw-1384129540.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fundamental, wide-ranging and curious research is the basis of a country's development. Cuts to CSIRO won't help.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">CarbonNYC/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Like many scientists, I was apprehensive in advance about the Abbott government’s approach to science policy. Would it be pragmatic but fact-based or would it be ideological and politically driven?</p>
<p>Sadly it has only taken two months to discover that it is the latter. </p>
<p>As a relatively recent immigrant (2008), who has chaired the precursor to <a href="https://computecanada.ca/index.php/en/">Compute Canada</a> (the national high performance computing organisation), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Research_and_Technology_Organisation">NATO</a>’s Physical Sciences and Engineering Technology Panel, and the National Research Council of Canada information institute (<a href="http://cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/cisti/index.html">CISTI</a>) I am fairly well placed to make an assessment.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_W._Tuchman">Barbara Tuchman</a>, Pulitzer-Prize winning historian, folly is error</p>
<blockquote>
<p>perceived as counter-productive in its own time.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here are four striking examples of the current government’s folly. All of them have sorry international precedents and parallels. I do not count the intended repeal of the carbon and the mining taxes, since these were “known knowns.”</p>
<h2>Who needs a science minister?</h2>
<p>In his address at the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science earlier this month, Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2013-10-31/address-prime-ministers-prizes-science-dinner-parliament-house">defended his decision</a> not to have a science minister by saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But let me tell you that the United States does not have a secretary for science and no nation on Earth has been as successful and innovative as the United States. I’d say to all of you please, judge us by our performance, not by our titles.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is quite disingenuous. The US President’s Science adviser sits in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States">Executive Office of the President</a> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy">legislated status</a> and the US National Research Council has a statutory obligation to provide scientific advice on a host of matters. Taking Mr Abbott at his word his performance offers no relief. </p>
<p>I should note that as a Canadian I was impressed by Australia’s seeming progressiveness. Canada got its first and much needed government science adviser only during the previous Liberal administration. The present Harper government immediately down graded the office.</p>
<h2>Controlling grants</h2>
<p>The suggested <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3841797.htm">intrusion</a> into ARC grant assessment, especially on hot button social issues or airy-fairy artsy-fartsy topics, is depressing for all the obvious reasons. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34850/original/gf9xwbdx-1384129855.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34850/original/gf9xwbdx-1384129855.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34850/original/gf9xwbdx-1384129855.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34850/original/gf9xwbdx-1384129855.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34850/original/gf9xwbdx-1384129855.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34850/original/gf9xwbdx-1384129855.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34850/original/gf9xwbdx-1384129855.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">Meddling in research funding stops discoveries happening.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EMSL/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>US Republicans’ current <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2013/11/republican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates">meddling</a> with research funding in the United States shows the same troubling desire to steer and control the research and development process. </p>
<p>How long before our university and government scientists have to run their commentary past the government before speaking to the public or even publishing research? This has already happened at NASA and at Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.</p>
<h2>A worrying trend towards denial</h2>
<p>Prime Minister Abbott and Environment Minister Hunt’s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/when-skepticism-becomes-d_b_4215286.html">climate denialist</a> comments on the recent NSW bush fires are concerning.</p>
<p>These have a sad <a href="http://read.thestar.com/?origref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2F?origref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.au%2F#!/article/527d5ac6ec0691652047cdc2-climate-change-vs-rob-ford-and-stephen-harper-hume">Canadian counterpart</a>. Now former Prime Minister Howard has chosen to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-claims-are-exaggerated-john-howard-rejects-predictions-of-global-warming-catastrophe-20131106-2wzza.html">reinject</a> himself in the same vein. With the decision to snub the <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbotts-climate-diplomacy-sends-the-wrong-message-19979">current Warsaw climate talks</a>, there is no denying the denial. </p>
<p>On the environment, no other advanced democracy is behaving in nearly such a retrograde manner - though Canada comes close with Harper’s retroactive withdrawal from Kyoto. By contrast, 25 years ago, the then Tory Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney made an environmental <a href="http://canada.lilithezine.com/Mulroney-Vs-Harper.html">green plan</a> central to his vision.</p>
<p>Unlike Australia, and despite the current obstructionist Republican Congress, the US will meet Kyoto targets.</p>
<h2>Sacking the scientists</h2>
<p>Finally, there are the proposed 1,400 <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/08/csiro-may-lose-1400-jobs-in-freeze-says-staff-association">job cuts at CSIRO</a>.</p>
<p>For Canada and Australia, university research and government laboratories are even more important than in the US or the EU. This is because so little significant research goes on in our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_plant_economy">branch-plant economies</a> – comprised (outside the resource sector) of companies whose role is often little more than sales and production for foreign owners who do their R&D at home.</p>
<p>In addition to its statutory roles, CSIRO has played a leading role in development of Wi-Fi protocols and much else. Less well-known is that it has great depth in many basic research areas. This includes roughly 200 mathematical scientists who play a vital role in the mathematical research community of Australia. I do not know of a comparable group in any other country.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34848/original/vg6gmgd3-1384129508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/34848/original/vg6gmgd3-1384129508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34848/original/vg6gmgd3-1384129508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34848/original/vg6gmgd3-1384129508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=331&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34848/original/vg6gmgd3-1384129508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34848/original/vg6gmgd3-1384129508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/34848/original/vg6gmgd3-1384129508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=416&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">Simon Yeo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Destruction is easy, building is hard</h2>
<p>Stephen J. Gould writing after 9/11 in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/26/opinion/a-time-of-gifts.html">New York Times</a>, but informed by a lifetime of studying evolution, observed that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Complex systems can only be built step by step, whereas destruction requires but an instant.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is as true of the scientific venture as it is of the Great Barrier Reef. It is striking that NASA has been recalling retired Apollo engineers to come and talk to the current generation as virtually all “institutional knowledge” of the space age has been lost within the agency. Do we want that same kind of loss here?</p>
<h2>Targeted v fundamental research</h2>
<p>Removing funding for general research and putting it into specific, targeted areas has a dismal track record. The “war on cancer”, “US energy independence”? Even the development of successful AIDS treatments or the emerging biotech industry owes more of its success to basic research and curious fundamental scientists than to government proclamation.</p>
<p>The death of the great industrial research laboratories (and Nobel producers such as Bell, Westinghouse, and Xerox Park) has only in part been replaced by research at places like Google. </p>
<p>The great government labs (such as Lawrence Berkeley and Sandia) in the United States are no longer pleasant places to be a researcher. Even world-class researchers in both are subject to quarterly-account analysis and are frequently one contract away from unemployment.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://computecanada.ca/cc_files/publications/lrp/LRP.pdf">Engines of Discovery</a>, the 2005 long range plan (LRP) for Canadian advanced computing which I coauthored, we successfully argued for long-term <a href="https://theconversation.com/stupid-science-funding-decisions-australias-not-the-only-dunce-14087">predictable funding</a>. Examples from aerospace, brain science and elsewhere were central to our success in freeing up hundreds of millions for Canadian High Performance Computing.</p>
<p>In Australia, hard future needs are being sacrificed to make easy current savings. But it is not too late for Mr Abbott to reconsider his obligations as steward of a great country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20031/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Borwein (Jon) receives funding from ARC.</span></em></p>Like many scientists, I was apprehensive in advance about the Abbott government’s approach to science policy. Would it be pragmatic but fact-based or would it be ideological and politically driven? Sadly…Jonathan Borwein (Jon), Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/190642013-10-17T01:50:09Z2013-10-17T01:50:09ZA farewell to arts: on philosophy, ARC funding and ‘waste’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32935/original/z292k349-1381709308.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Coalition MP Jamie Briggs doesn't want the ARC funding 'interesting thought bubbles'.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Coalition - among <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/coalition-wants-to-stop-wasting-arc-funds-on-futile-research/">others</a> - have been recently <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/09/05/ending-more-labor%E2%80%99s-waste">taking aim</a> at the worth of certain Australian Research Council (ARC)-funded projects. Verbal jousting around the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/philosophys-contribution-to-society/story-e6frgcko-1226713506686#">value of philosophy</a> as a humanities discipline has followed. Battlelines on these issues have formed, but as usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I suggest that the debate needs to mature a little.</p>
<p>Coalition MP Jamie Briggs <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3841797.htm">claims that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We want research with Australian taxpayers’ money to be about the better future for our country, not about funding some interesting thought bubble that some academic sitting away in a university somewhere has come up with and think they might be interested in looking at.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem is this. Attacks on <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/academic-ridiculed-by-coalition-says-sydney-university-vicechancellor-20130905-2t86l.html#ixzz2gc5iMRyX">“wasteful” ARC funding</a> tend to get conflated with attacks on philosophy itself. All philosophers do, of course, is play around with “interesting thought bubbles” in one form or another, so this is tantamount to a de facto attack on a venerable old discipline. As a result, philosophy becomes an easy target for <a href="http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/09/12/first-shots-in-the-philosophy-wars/">funding waste-spotters</a>. </p>
<p>Probing a little deeper, however, reveals an exquisite dilemma. A lot of philosophical thought bubbles have led to important and innovative contributions to human knowledge and civilisation over the years - more, perhaps, than some would care to admit. However, it is not always easy to spot which thought bubbles will eventually gain traction, and which ideas will go nowhere, benefit no one, and do a lot of harm (like “post-modernism”). So, as a country, should we fund philosophical research or not?</p>
<p>Sensibly, we try to fund some of it. A wealthy country like ours tries to scatter its resources and fund as many potentially useful ideas as it can, and uses a “panel of experts” to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Sometimes experts get it wrong, of course, and this can lead to waste. To make matters worse, committees like the ARC are perceived by some as lacking transparency and have been accused of <a href="http://theconversation.com/thinking-for-money-moral-questions-for-australian-research-7171">moral deficiency</a>. It is also not always the best people who get the money. </p>
<p>Some <a href="http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15491&page=0">have suggested</a> that the ARC needs to be abolished. However, as far as I know, to date no-one has come up with anything better in terms of a selection process. This leads to the perennial and recurring claims about funding “waste” and the ill-informed attacks on disciplines like philosophy.</p>
<p>The current process of funding the arts is imperfect, and it could be improved. But how? </p>
<p>I want to accept the “waste argument” (within limits), but reject the attacks on philosophy (or at least, some forms of it). There is also room for improving the process of selecting humanities research projects, so that projects in genuine need of funding might be seen to justly deserve their continued funding.</p>
<h2>A balanced approach to funding the humanities</h2>
<p>Like everything else, the question of whether to give funding to humanities research projects is a matter of balance. Some humanities projects do seem, at face value at least, quite wasteful and unnecessary, especially in times of resource shortage, and when there are so many deserving projects in medicine and related fields.</p>
<p>For example, does the country <a href="http://the-scan.com/2012/11/09/robb-bags-wasteful-research-spending/">really need to spend</a> A$325,183 on a topic about “the experiences of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) people in natural disasters”? LGBTI people are, after all, just people. Or $578,792 on the history of an ignored credit instrument in Florentine economic and social and religious life from 1570-1790? I have no disrespect for the researchers, or their projects, but there is a case for claiming that some projects should perhaps not be funded at all.</p>
<p>As a quite separate point, if it is decided that funding arts is important - and I think it is - the amounts allocated to (some) arts research funding can also sometimes seem manifestly excessive (where a much smaller amount might do). I recall the great Australian philosopher, Emeritus Professor J. J. C. Smart, telling me that he had no interest in applying for grants: all he needed to do philosophy was paper and a pencil. Having no need for funding, or a computer, didn’t stop his impressive contributions to the discipline.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32936/original/7frnd59g-1381709595.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32936/original/7frnd59g-1381709595.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32936/original/7frnd59g-1381709595.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32936/original/7frnd59g-1381709595.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32936/original/7frnd59g-1381709595.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32936/original/7frnd59g-1381709595.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32936/original/7frnd59g-1381709595.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">Do philosophers need more than pencils and paper?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">quacktaculous</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Personally, I’m not that interested in credit instruments in Florentine society, let alone ones that have been ignored. So I can see why some people question why an investigation of this nature requires such an investment. I stress that I have not read the application in question, which, for all I know, might well make a persuasive case. <i>Prima facie</i> however, a project of this kind appears to be a case of simply needing paper, pencils and a good library. What justification could there be for such vast expense? </p>
<p>Even so, this should not lead to a situation of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It does not mean all arts funding is always wasteful or excessive. Some projects are (often after the fact) so demonstrably deserving of funding, and of such “value for money”, we’d have been miserly indeed not to have spent at least some of our collective resources on a good idea when a good idea needed supporting. This is the obligation of a civilised society. The problem is how to have this intelligence in advance.</p>
<p>In a conciliatory spirit, let’s grant trade minister Andrew Robb’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/link-grants-to-innovation-libs/story-e6frg8y6-1226512584951#">point</a> that, when times are tough it is reasonable to concentrate funding on areas of productivity, innovation and growth. It is also hard to disagree with historian Philippa Martyr’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/coalition-angers-research-community/story-e6frgcjx-1226712215714">assertion</a> that funding a philosophical research project on Hegel - to the tune of $443,000 - is hard to justify when confronted with researchers on the threshold of a major advance in prostate cancer. Fair enough. As a man of a certain age I am more worried right now about my prostate than what Hegel thought.</p>
<p>But even so, what is considered “productive” research? And over what time scale should this research be considered? Let’s take just a few examples of philosophy’s contribution to humanity over the years. </p>
<h2>Philosophy and its value to humankind</h2>
<h2>The sciences</h2>
<p>Physics, chemistry and the like did not come into the world pre-formed. The philosopher Aristotle laid down the foundations of the modern-day sciences. His views were influential for hundreds of years before being debunked, after a lot of thinking, by Galileo, Newton and others (all of whom learnt much from philosophy).</p>
<p>No-one is quite sure how Aristotle was funded, but he’d find it hard to get an ARC grant today. How would he have justified his “interesting thought bubbles” to a committee at the time? It’s not incorrect to say that philosophy gave the world the sciences. That’s some contribution. </p>
<p>In recognition of this heritage, degree titles and the Chair in Physics at Oxford still refer to “Natural Philosophy”. But even now it is relevant. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32939/original/2sfx7swp-1381709819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32939/original/2sfx7swp-1381709819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32939/original/2sfx7swp-1381709819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32939/original/2sfx7swp-1381709819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=851&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32939/original/2sfx7swp-1381709819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32939/original/2sfx7swp-1381709819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32939/original/2sfx7swp-1381709819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1070&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Philosopher John Locke claimed that philosophy was an “under labourer” for the sciences.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tom Clearwood</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/">Philosopher John Locke</a> suggested that the discipline was the “under labourer” for the sciences - helping to clarify concepts and clearing the way for empirical investigation. Even now philosophers and scientists often work together on the “big” problems: consciousness, time and space, existence, the nature of numbers, and so on. In a civilised, progressive, and intelligent society this work has to go on, and it sometimes requires money (although not always a lot) to do it.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/22/daniel-dennett-aristotle-flaming-idiot">According to Daniel Dennett</a>, philosophy is also important to science in avoiding “scientific overreach”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The history of philosophy is the history of very tempting mistakes made by very smart people, and if you don’t learn that history you’ll make those mistakes again and again and again. One of the ignoble joys of my life is watching very smart scientists just reinvent all the second-rate philosophical ideas because they’re very tempting until you pause, take a deep breath and take them apart.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So the sciences are indebted to philosophy in a number of ways: for their genesis in the first place, and for ongoing “maintenance”. </p>
<h2>Cognitive science and computer science</h2>
<p>This interdisciplinary field did not come out of thin air either. It arose from philosophical speculations about the nature of mind and mental content. The logician and mathematician Alan Turing, who attended Wittgenstein’s philosophy lectures in Cambridge, was a pioneer. He left us with the blueprint for the modern computer, which was developed and extended by people who followed him.
Turing’s “interesting thought bubbles” were not obviously of practical use at the time, and came out of left field whilst working on various code-breaking projects at Bletchley Park. </p>
<p>This philosophical work into computers and cognitive science continues, of course. Some of it has turned into very profitable businesses indeed. According to early mainframe computer maker and tycoon <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703686304575228630504567558">Max Palevsky</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…many of us early workers in computers were philosophy majors. You can imagine our surprise at being able to make rather comfortable livings.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32942/original/85wkgwjb-1381710363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32942/original/85wkgwjb-1381710363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32942/original/85wkgwjb-1381710363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32942/original/85wkgwjb-1381710363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32942/original/85wkgwjb-1381710363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32942/original/85wkgwjb-1381710363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32942/original/85wkgwjb-1381710363.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Steve Jobs took acid, worked out of his parents’ garage and studied philosophy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/John G. Mabanglo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>True innovators like Palevsky, Steve Jobs and Turing are bowerbirds of philosophical ideas. They are the kind of people that may go unrecognised in their lifetimes. In Jobs’ case, he initially worked out of the family garage, took arts subjects (famously, courses in calligraphy, but <a href="http://www.crunchbase.com/person/steve-jobs">also philosophy</a>), got involved with drugs and “dropped out”. People like this don’t always have single-minded career trajectories, nor start out trying to be socially and economically “productive”. They often use their wide-ranging thinking to enormous benefit and profit only much later.</p>
<p>Successful countries know this, and this is why they fund the humanities - disciplines that provide ideas for those exceptional (and not so exceptional) people that might be hungry for them. Countries such as the US rarely have agonising debates about the relevance of the arts like we do. </p>
<p>Again, this kind of fundamental work does not always need to be given buckets of money. But it has to go on, and in a relatively wealthy society we are well placed, morally and otherwise, to fund some speculative investments in these areas. Can it be done on normal academic salaries, without the need for additional funding? I address this later. </p>
<h2>Artificial intelligence (AI)</h2>
<p>On a related theme, few would question the value of artificial intelligence. We have just had a visit from the world’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/shes-got-a-mind-all-of-her-own-20130909-2tgc0.html">most realistic robot</a>. Yet, not many would recognise the importance that philosophy plays in this area. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32944/original/vv4r33wp-1381710741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32944/original/vv4r33wp-1381710741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32944/original/vv4r33wp-1381710741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32944/original/vv4r33wp-1381710741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32944/original/vv4r33wp-1381710741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32944/original/vv4r33wp-1381710741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32944/original/vv4r33wp-1381710741.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Japan has been working on realistic humanoid robots, with the help of philosophy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Franck Robichon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Closely associated with cognitive science, entire journals and conferences are now devoted to AI research. Philosophers contribute vitally to debates that clarify concepts in the field such as “representation”, “perceptual content”, “mental image”, and so on. Philosophers such as Dennett, Searle and Dreyfus are prominent here. The highly ranked journal <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=bbs">Behavioral and Brain Sciences</a> contains regular contributions from philosophers. </p>
<p>This kind of work often does need large amounts of money to keep it going. There is the potential of conducting experiments. For a variety of reasons, these experiments usually don’t come cheap. “Phantom limb” experiments and empirical work on visual perception, for example, are being conducted by philosophers interested in issues at the intersection of AI and cognitive science. Like the sciences, this needs double-blind trials, labs, equipment, and other paraphernalia.</p>
<h2>Fuzzy logics</h2>
<p>Logic, another invention of the polymath Aristotle, needs to be understood in its standard forms, before coming to grips with its <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/">paraconsistent </a> and “fuzzy” variants. These logics allow scope for partial truth, where truth-values range between completely true and completely false. </p>
<p>This turned out to be a very important, and very practical, innovation. Once a topic only of interest to philosophers drawing funny symbols on whiteboards who muttered darkly in dusty corridors of Arts faculties, fuzzy logics now <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0967066193916198">run our cars</a> and <a href="http://mathematica.ludibunda.ch/fuzzy-logic6.html">washing machines</a>, and much else besides. </p>
<p>Symbolic logic of all kinds - which would come under the category of “interesting thought bubbles” if anything did - are an invention of philosophers of various stripes down through the ages, beginning with Aristotle and continuing to the present day. The work of Carnap, Tarski, Frege and Boole is important - the latter devised “Boolean” logic which lies at the heart of the digital revolution and powers our search engines. </p>
<h2>Linguistics</h2>
<p>This subject did not form out of nothing either. It arose from philosophical speculation about the nature of meaning, among other influences. Chomsky, de Saussure and others all studied or contributed to philosophy. Before he went barking mad, Friedrich Nietzsche was, at 24, a professor of classical philology.</p>
<p>In general, philosophy has a tendency to spawn new disciplines like this - semantics, semiotics, and so on are philosophically-infused allied fields. In this sense its importance to civilisation is immeasurable. Similarly, it’s hard to estimate the value of disciplines like linguistics as a social good. And, of course, like everything else, they need money to keep them going.</p>
<h2>Social ideas</h2>
<p>Regardless of one’s political leanings, one would be hard-pressed to say that Marxism and Leninism haven’t had have an influence. Rightly or wrongly, this system of thinking shaped much of the 20th century. Marx himself produced a <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/index.htm">PhD thesis</a> on the work of pre-Socratic thinker (and originator of the idea of the atom) Democritus. </p>
<p>Conservative thinking is also grounded in philosophy. Consider the work of Burke, Locke, Mill, Hayek, and the like, to whom our senior politicians often refer. Former prime minister John Howard calls himself a “Burkean conservative” and PM Tony Abbott apparently <a href="http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2010/january/1347590202/louis-nowra/whirling-dervish">immersed himself</a> in Burke’s ideas while at Oxford. Plato wrote a treatise called <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html">The Republic</a> that still resonates and influences people today. The US Constitution is also <a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=99156">indebted to Locke’s work</a>, and secularism is arguably an outcome of British empiricism. </p>
<p>How can we estimate the value of such social ideas? Philosophy spreads fundamental ideas about both our social institutions and us as human beings. These ideas can be very powerful. Indeed, for better or worse, they help to make us the people we are. New ideas of this kind need to be encouraged and promoted (and critically assessed). </p>
<p>In today’s society - unlike the world of private patronage in the past - funding is sometimes needed to support their genesis and development. Again, this is where the ARC comes in.</p>
<h2>Business innovation</h2>
<p>It often assumed that philosophy and business don’t mix. However, recently it has been suggested that Chinese philosophy can <a href="http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2012/06/18/the-eastern-way-how-chinese-philosophy-can-power-innovation-in-business-today/">guide business innovation</a> in surprising ways. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wof_jK8YuGQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Javier Fernandez-Han shows the connection between innovation and philosophical thinking.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a recent TED talk, acclaimed young inventor Javier Fernandez-Han showed that the process of innovation is very similar to philosophical thinking, including the use of metaphors, similes and thought experiments. According to Fernandez-Han, what the world really needs is not the mindless “liking” and “poking” mentality of social media, but the deeper, probing kind of thinking that philosophy promotes.</p>
<p>While on the subject of innovation, a <a href="http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/sciencemedicine/tp/042810GreekScientificInventions.htm">surprising number</a> come from ancient Greek philosophers: the sundial, the fulcrum/lever, innovations in geometry, algebra and trigonometry, the concept of proportion and irrational numbers, a water pumping device, and one of the first military weapons, a machine for propelling stones, among many others.</p>
<p>Examples of philosophical invention during the so-called “modern period” include the panopticon (a prison design), and the mechanical calculator (attributed to Pascal). Is it coincidence that periods of history famous for an explosion of innovation - ancient Greece, for example, and the renaissance - were also times when the study of philosophy was taken very seriously? </p>
<p>How do we assess ideas like these when they are first proposed, and how do we determine which ones to fund, given limited resources?</p>
<h2>Thought experiments</h2>
<p>Philosophers usually don’t do physical experiments. They do thought experiments instead. Plato’s metaphor of the cave, and the notion of a deeper reality underlying and explaining our knowledge of appearances, <a href="http://www.lingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4911&sid=b13a4758c45fb5dd0891044e85b1b5ce">influenced Chomsky’s notion of an innate grammar</a>, central to linguistics. </p>
<p>Thinking philosophically, Einstein wondered what it would be like to ride a beam of light holding a mirror: would one see one’s reflection whilst travelling at the speed of light? This, and thought experiments like it, changed the entire paradigm of physics. These have ushered in an entirely new way of doing things, leading to countless spin-off benefits. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32947/original/zn2ypzqr-1381711119.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32947/original/zn2ypzqr-1381711119.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32947/original/zn2ypzqr-1381711119.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32947/original/zn2ypzqr-1381711119.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32947/original/zn2ypzqr-1381711119.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32947/original/zn2ypzqr-1381711119.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32947/original/zn2ypzqr-1381711119.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">Philosopher Thomas Nagel wondered what it is like for a bat to be a bat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lee Carson</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Adam Smith had his “invisible hand” metaphor, a concept that profoundly changed economics. John Rawls contributed the idea of the “veil of ignorance” to political science. More recently, Thomas Nagel wondered <a href="http://rintintin.colorado.edu/%7Evancecd/phil1000/Nagel.pdf">“what it is like to be a bat?”</a> and Australian philosopher Frank Jackson speculated about a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument">future neuroscientist who could not experience colour</a>. </p>
<p>These “experiments” had an enormous impact on modern day cognitive science. Daniel Dennett recently published an entire book on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools-Thinking/dp/1480512222">“intuition pumps”</a>, philosophical techniques that help to test our assumptions on a range of important topics.</p>
<h2>Local ideas</h2>
<p>Let’s not forget Australia’s contributions to philosophy. Cambridge Don <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=oXxXxBXewzgC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=Hugh+Mellor+australian+philosophers&source=bl&ots=UpTtqCBiwl&sig=qpM857PFfzASosbddhcdJy0E7e8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hf4wUovcKImsiAfJ2YGwDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Hugh%20Mellor%20australian%20philosophers&f=false">Hugh Mellor once said that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…it is well that philosophy was not an Olympic sport, for Australasia has produced more good philosophers per square head than anywhere else.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>An example is Jack Smart and U. T. Place’s idea of consciousness being contingently identical to brain processes (revolutionary in the 1950s). D. M. Armstrong’s development of this thesis, and the doctrine now known as “Australian Materialism”, all of which are recognised internationally. Then there are Singer’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306">radical contributions</a> to moral philosophy and the animal rights movement, and our lesser-known contributions to research on time and space, formal logic, metaphysics, and countless other fields. The comprehensive two-volume ARC-funded book - <a href="http://www.springer.com/philosophy/philosophical+traditions/book/978-94-007-6957-1">History of Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand</a> - is due out in 2014.</p>
<p>Philosophy, in short, sometimes helps to push back the frontiers of innovation in surprising ways. Dense philosophical concepts are not always well-understood in advance, and it is only in hindsight are they fully appreciated. They don’t come with bells and whistles or with signs shrieking “Potential Innovative New Idea!” to funding committees. </p>
<p>Indeed, were a funding body to assess a project in “fuzzy” logic when the idea was first mooted it is likely the applicants would have been shown the door.</p>
<h2>Philosophical research funding</h2>
<p>None of the examples given above might seem as initially “valuable” as a cure for prostate cancer to be sure, but there’s no telling how important they might be in the long term. Ideas have a long currency, and they are not always immediately relevant of useful. A plausible argument might be made that curing prostate cancer is <em>less</em> important than good ideas. Good ideas that lead to a debunking of fixed views and which drive us, as a society, toward conceptual innovation in a variety of fields. </p>
<p>As it is often said, most men die <em>with</em> prostate cancer, not <em>from</em> it; a cure for it might be a luxury we don’t necessarily need. However, society really does need new ideas.</p>
<p>Fortunately, in wealthy countries like ours we rarely need to pick and choose. We can have healthy prostates and new ideas as well. Powerful ideas that have real applications can come from the most unlikely sources, and are often recognised as such only retrospectively. </p>
<p>Sometimes these great ideas arise in the normal course of doing philosophical “business”. Sometimes they are an appropriate and integral aspect of routine professional labours. Occasionally, however, they require funding to make the ideas fly. How do we, as a society, determine which ones to back?</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32951/original/hwdx87xx-1381711581.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32951/original/hwdx87xx-1381711581.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32951/original/hwdx87xx-1381711581.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32951/original/hwdx87xx-1381711581.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32951/original/hwdx87xx-1381711581.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32951/original/hwdx87xx-1381711581.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32951/original/hwdx87xx-1381711581.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Would Alan Turing get funding from the ARC?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fkeir David</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Suppose a modern-day Alan Turing turns up to a funding committee, cap in hand, asking for money for his idea to develop a modern-day equivalent of his theory of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Early_computers_and_the_Turing_test">“Turing Machine”</a> (he didn’t call it that, but that’s how it has since become known). He has no evidence for its usefulness or potential value. He doesn’t even know what it might possibly be good for. </p>
<p>Turing is planning to produce his (now famous) short paper for a philosophy journal, <a href="http://loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html">Mind</a>, as a “performance indicator” in return for the funding from the public purse. He’s asking for several thousand dollars, mainly to fund research and development work for this idea, and to relieve him from a heavy university teaching load. Should the funding committee give him the money?</p>
<p>It’s likely that hard-nosed critics of the ARC would refuse his application and give him his marching orders. There is likely to be little recognition that this apparently simple little idea would, in time, spawn the digital revolution—arguably the most important revolution of the 20th century, which we are still feeling the effects of today. This idea would change everything, from medicine, to communications, literacy, and commerce. Nothing would be the same <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/touring-turing">after it</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The fact remains that everyone who taps at a keyboard, opening a spreadsheet or a word-processing program, is working on an incarnation of a Turing machine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I am not suggesting that there is no wasteful spending in Arts funding. Clearly there is. I get as annoyed as others do when I see my taxes going to fund projects that, in my view, seem to have little obvious merit. However, I’d be prepared to admit my ignorance, and would be reluctant to dismiss such projects without having read the proposals in detail. My point is that over-the-top attacks on humanities funding <i>simpliciter</i> stands in need of a corrective.</p>
<p>Attacks on the purported extravagant use of public funds for humanities research should not be tantamount to disparaging the disciplines from whence they come - especially in the case of philosophy. </p>
<h2>Reconsidering funding models</h2>
<p>Here’s a positive suggestion for the funding of philosophical research, and humanities scholarship in general: greatly widen the selection and assessment requirements. I propose that all arts funding should be internationally assessed and funded by the collective, pooled resources of a global body set up for this purpose. Call it, for the sake of the argument, “The International Humanities Research Council”.</p>
<p>Perhaps the assessors on the council - not all of whom need be “experts”, but intelligent and interested parties - might be circulated regularly and often. A key rule might be that representatives from a country have to leave the room when a funding application from their own country is assessed. This way, there may be less likelihood of “cliques” occurring, and less chance of any coteries forming for the purpose of mutual backslapping. </p>
<p>There might also be less chance of the <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/static/rigney-interview">“Matthew Effect”</a>, whereby academics who have been successful in getting grants tend to get more.</p>
<p>Once grant applications are “over the line” in terms of being deemed (in principle) worthy of funding, representatives from each country might then make “bids” for particular projects on the “open marketplace” of the council floor.
Let’s imagine that all the applications for future humanities funding go into an international pool with our competitive neighbours who share our democratic ideals (US, UK, Japan, and so on). In principle, it need not be so restricted, for the humanities are important to us all. </p>
<p>Let’s also imagine that whoever funds the idea - whoever wins the “bid” - gets any benefits that might ensue. It’s winner takes all. The ideas themselves might be developed in Australia, but their benefits, if any, would go offshore if that’s where they are funded.</p>
<h2>“The International Humanities Research Council”</h2>
<p>What might happen in such a scenario? I’d expect that the naturally less risk adverse countries with bigger pockets (the US, for example) would take greater risks, and potentially obtain the greater yields from esoteric “blue-sky” ideas. </p>
<p>Countries with a penchant for florid prose, and post-modernist speculations (like France), might back projects with which it had broad philosophical sympathies. They would be welcome to them in my view. </p>
<p>Nations where philanthropists have a strong involvement in funding decisions might support esoteric topics of broad cultural and intellectual appeal (like the <a href="http://www.historyofemotions.org.au">“History of the Emotions”</a>). It’s a personal preference of course, but I can see how this kind of thing might be interesting and culturally enriching, even if it didn’t result in economic-spin offs. Not all innovations have to be measured in such terms.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32954/original/3x5zb5xg-1381712706.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32954/original/3x5zb5xg-1381712706.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32954/original/3x5zb5xg-1381712706.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32954/original/3x5zb5xg-1381712706.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32954/original/3x5zb5xg-1381712706.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32954/original/3x5zb5xg-1381712706.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32954/original/3x5zb5xg-1381712706.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia prefers to fund sporting events over humanities research projects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Roland Weihrauch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Australia has a much lower budget, a degree of intolerance toward the humanities, and prefers to waste public money on large sporting events (which is rarely questioned). Such a country would benefit only from work that is deemed to be immediately and practically “useful” in some sense. They might miss out on benefiting from the really important ideas - such as Turing’s - that eventually garner a great deal of traction and lead to untold economic, technological and/or social advantages. </p>
<p>Historically, Australian innovations tend to be developed and profited from off-shore anyway, so perhaps we are used to this and it would be nothing new. The point is that through global comparisons, and bidding competition, we would quickly know which countries had a genuine interest in promoting humanities research and which didn’t. It would become clear which countries genuinely cared about the arts, and their place in a mature society. </p>
<p>In this scenario, international specialisations in the humanities might occur. This may not be a bad thing. Japan is already well-known as being pre-eminent in the applications of fuzzy logic to industry, known as the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/int.4550070402/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+for+approximately+4+hours+between+09%3A00+EDT+and+14%3A00+EDT+on+Saturday%2C+28+September+2013+as+we+make+upgrades+to+improve+our+services+to+you.+There+will+also+be+some+delays+to+online+publishing+between+25+to+28+September+2013.+We+apologize+for+the+inconvenience+and+appreciate+your+patience.+Thank+you+for+using+Wiley+Online+Library">“fuzzy boom”</a>. This localisation of humanities research might continue apace. With specialisation comes efficiency, and greater economic gains. </p>
<p>The outcomes of such a proposal also might be that international humanities research turns out to be funded quite well overall; perhaps better than at present, and there would be a diversity and spread of opinions with which to assess the value of the projects. Of course, ideas that appealed to no one would understandably fail to receive funding and would wither and die - as perhaps they should.</p>
<p>If nothing else, if implemented, this suggestion might stop the negative harping about “wasteful” government spending in the arts.</p>
<h2>Does philosophical research need additional funding?</h2>
<p>Like any discipline, philosophy is only as healthy as the funding it receives. And, like any other discipline, philosophy needs to pursue new avenues to stay fresh. Sometimes, but not always, this requires additional contributions from the public purse by means of ARC grants.</p>
<p>Can this be done without additional funding from the government? Unfortunately, the fact is that the routine business of merely being employed in a humanities faculty these days is insufficient for philosophical labours - Smart’s point about just needing “paper and pencil” notwithstanding.</p>
<p>This is especially the case in the cash-strapped, bureaucratically bloated, <a href="http://www.uow.edu.au/%7Enillsen/Saunders_article.pdf">managerial tertiary sector</a> that exists today. This perilous situation has been noted in more than one <a href="http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/5/the-rise-and-fall-of-our-bureaucratic-universities">paper</a>. Contrary to popular belief, academics are not well paid compared to politicians and business executives—though, admittedly, they are relatively well paid compared to academics in some other countries (who are paid poorly, so this does not say very much). </p>
<p>A <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=higher_education">2009 study</a> showed that academic salaries declined against average weekly earnings and a range of other professions. Being an academic in the tertiary sector today means being burdened with “administrivia” and having little time for research while being on average salary. </p>
<p>When funding is slashed across the tertiary sector, the first thing to go is usually support for the Arts and disciplines like philosophy. This results in a loss of staff and higher teaching loads. When academics do apply for money from funding bodies such as the ARC - and sadly, academics are now de facto revenue raisers for the institutions that employ them - it is invariably to fund research assistants, teaching relief, and the like. </p>
<p>The majority of money from humanities funding ends up in salaries for support staff and time-release. A lot of this is “on costs” for our cash-strapped universities to fund building maintenance and the like. This explains the seemingly exorbitant projects mentioned earlier. Applying for funding for these expenses are necessary evils in the contemporary tertiary environment if academics are to have hope of finding time to think and write about anything at all.</p>
<h2>A different approach</h2>
<p>A much more radical suggestion than the International Humanities Research Council - or perhaps something to consider in line with it - is giving grants for promising ideas without requiring academics to apply for them. This counterintuitive suggestion has been arrived at from a <a href="http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/04/grant-writing-wasted-time-and-red-queen-effects.html">summary of several empirical studies</a> that looked at the negative costs to productivity of applying for grant applications. </p>
<p>There are a number of points in its favour. Firstly, scientists in Australia spent the equivalent of <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/495314d.html">five centuries preparing research grant proposals in 2012</a>. As only 20.5 percent of applications were effective this means four centuries of wasted effort. As humanities researchers are demonstrably less successful in obtaining grants than scientists, this presumably means even greater waste. </p>
<p>Secondly, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19247851">in a Canadian study</a> it was found that the CAD$40,000 cost of preparing for a grant, and being rejected, exceeded the cost of giving all qualified investigators an average baseline grant of CAD$30,000. </p>
<p>Thirdly, net returns on grants are lower than if they were <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/271374/7/fundingModel.pdf">given at random</a>. </p>
<p>A number of alternative suggestions are considered in response to this: giving grants to everyone who requests them; allocating grants randomly; allocating on the basis of past track record; funding research on the basis only of an abstract. </p>
<p>I would not be partial to giving grants to everyone even if it could be afforded, for reasons mentioned earlier. There are limits to what is worth funding; and yes, among the many excellent proposals that are funded, there is probably some unnecessary waste. </p>
<p>However, something does need to be done to mitigate the waste of <i>applying</i> for grants. This seems an equally, if not more pressing, problem than the purported “waste” of some humanities research projects.</p>
<h2>The practicality of philosophy </h2>
<p>This article is a partial response to those who are negatively judgemental about philosophical research, and who are intent on shamelessly bashing the humanities. I want to suggest these attitudes are frequently (if not always) misinformed. </p>
<p>These negative attitudes are particularly <a href="http://www.aap.org.au/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=1395711">galling for humanities academics</a> as they often formed rashly without having done the courteous thing of reading the ARC grant applications on which such projects are based, or only on the basis of reading the title and the 100-word summary. </p>
<p>Is it too much to ask for those critical of ARC grants to provide evidence that they have done due diligence and actually read the applications? Making assertions about waste is fair enough: making judgemental, uninformed assertions is poor form. I am particularly keen to defend philosophy, since <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/abbott-vows-to-cut-futile-research/story-fni0cx12-1226710934260">examples from this discipline</a> are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3842173.htm">so often unfairly held up to ridicule</a>. </p>
<p>In funding philosophical research, we are, in effect, funding an oft-neglected, “poor cousin” discipline. This discipline has real practical outcomes for individuals and society as a whole, quite independently of the innovations and contributions to civilisation that it might provide.</p>
<p>Continually questioning funding for philosophy is false economics. This is so for a number of reasons, but the practical reasons are perhaps most surprising. As absurd as it may seem, philosophy is, in fact, one of the best subjects for students to study <a href="http://pleasandexcuses.com/2012/09/06/philosophy-major/">to get good grades</a>. A 2011-12 survey of GRE scores by the Educational Testing Service noted that philosophy was the best major in terms of developing verbal and analytical writing skills, and among the top five in developing quantitative skills. </p>
<p>In the US, the discipline is recognised as being one of the most demanding, and over there at least, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/is-philosophy-the-most-practical-major/246763/">philosophy enrolments are soaring</a>. As the US is a dynamic, innovative country that we frequently like to compare ourselves to, perhaps we should take notice. They may see something in the value of the arts that we don’t.</p>
<p>Unexpectedly, philosophy one of the best subjects for employability. Studies have shown that, while starting salaries of philosophy graduates might be less than those with business degrees, by mid-career, the salaries of philosophy graduates <a href="http://www.payscale.com/2008-best-colleges/degrees.asp">surpass those</a> of marketing, communications, accounting and business management. And it is probably not necessary to mention the <a href="http://healthcareethicscanada.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/philosophy-degrees-and-famous-people.html">many examples</a> of <a href="http://teach.valdosta.edu/chjames/famousphilosophy.htm">famous or successful people</a> who majored in philosophy, and who turned into business or finance pioneers. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32959/original/csdwsgxb-1381718546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32959/original/csdwsgxb-1381718546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32959/original/csdwsgxb-1381718546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32959/original/csdwsgxb-1381718546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32959/original/csdwsgxb-1381718546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32959/original/csdwsgxb-1381718546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32959/original/csdwsgxb-1381718546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Business magnate George Soros studied philosophy at the London School of Economics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Laurent Gillieron</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The list is surprisingly long, and includes people one would least expect - financier George Soros and Paypal founder Peter Thiel, for example. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/successful-liberal-arts-majors-2012-12#mitt-romney-bain-capital-ceo-and-english-major-at-brigham-young-university-1">Those who had “soft” college majors</a> in other humanities disciplines also fare well (locally, the multimillionaire founder of “Jim’s Mowing”, Jim Penman, is a historian). Others have claimed unambiguously that <a href="http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy">business needs philosophy</a> — an exhortation which runs against the grain of those who think the discipline is excessively funded.</p>
<p>It should be noted that the proportion of ARC funding that is directed towards humanities research is usually vastly overstated. In fact, it is abysmally low compared to funding directed toward the sciences. According to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3841797.htm">former ccience minister Kim Carr</a>, the ratio was typically 80% to the sciences and 10% to the humanities. I am not suggesting at all that this balance is inappropriate. It seems fair and reasonable, as the sciences do require a greater share of government funding. I do, however, object to suggestions that the Arts receive an inflated share.</p>
<h2>Why does it matter?</h2>
<p>Does it really matter if the ARC, or our universities, fund and underwrite the occasional obscure research project in humanities? Are things so tight that we cannot speculate on things that do not have an immediate practical application? </p>
<p>Some of those esoteric ideas will have real traction and make a difference. Others won’t. This is the nature of taking a punt. But this is no different from other areas, for example, putting money into Olympic swimming teams, horse racing carnivals, or backing research for space exploration — and this funding is rarely questioned. My grandfather, a committed SP bookmaker in his day, used to say that all that racing ever produced was horseshit.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32960/original/8cw55vw6-1381718978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32960/original/8cw55vw6-1381718978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32960/original/8cw55vw6-1381718978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32960/original/8cw55vw6-1381718978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32960/original/8cw55vw6-1381718978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32960/original/8cw55vw6-1381718978.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32960/original/8cw55vw6-1381718978.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">Has Hegel taken up more than his fair share of ARC funding?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Underpuppy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To be sure, Hegel’s may not seem so germane these days, but - not being a specialist in the area - I would not bet on it without knowing more about it. I certainly would not rely on Brigg’s or Robb’s untutored opi
nion of projects such as these. Personally, I’d need to read the project proposal myself before jumping to conclusions, and they should too. </p>
<p>Perhaps an argument might fairly be made that a project on Hegel, for example, has been excessively funded, and some of it is best directed elsewhere. In some cases this might be a fair point to make. However, this is a slightly different matter. This would warrant a detailed discussion about project budget items (usually rigorously dissected by the ARC). This does not warrant Brigg’s and others’ condescending comments about the “interesting thought bubbles” often pursued by academics. </p>
<p>In other words, it’s time for a little more subtlety in the discussion. The propositions: “All humanities research is wasteful” and “All humanities research is necessary” has been in opposition for a long time, and it is a tired and stale debate.</p>
<p>But in any case, benchmarking research on Hegel with path-breaking work on prostate cancer is more than a little unfair. Surely, a rich country such as ours has enough to go around. Though it is important to have some standards too: I draw the line at funding “postmodernist” views, for reasons I can’t go into.</p>
<p>But more to the point, where else would idle philosophical speculation be done if it were not done in our universities? With Australia’s poor record in philanthropy, I can’t see BHP or Rio Tinto putting their hands up to fund esoteric humanities research (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/andrew-forrest-to-donate-60m-to-university-of-western-australia/story-e6frgcjx-1226739826619">Twiggy Forrest’s latest gift aside</a>). This can only be done in our tertiary institutions. Arguably, that’s what they are there for.</p>
<p>One of the problems in this debate is that specialists in the humanities partly have themselves to blame. They often fail to sell themselves and the value of their work to the general public. They are not encouraged to be good at public engagement. This is partly a function of the peer-reviewed and competitive nature of the tertiary sector, and the degree of self-absorption that most areas of intellectual enquiry entail. It has much to do with the excessive managerialism in universities today. </p>
<p>It is also a function of lack of experience. </p>
<p>If philosophers were more akin to business people, and were required to make a “pitch” for their idea in simple, unambiguous language before their funding masters, or if the assessment process was broadened internationally as I have described, this might be better for all concerned. The recurring debate about “waste” in the humanities might dry up, or at least be placed on a more intelligent footing. A good thing all-round.</p>
<p>Philosopher John Armstrong puts the problem <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-question-universities-need-to-answer-why-do-we-research-6230">like this</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fundamental and blue-sky research … is possible on a large scale only with the profound consent of a whole society. And universities—which are the natural homes of intellectual ambition—are not organised to secure this consent. Those who are fired by the love of knowledge do not see securing such support as fundamental to what they do.</p>
<p>Yet, if we are to carry off the huge task of gaining such committed and widespread support we would have to devote ourselves to a vast project of engagement. We would have to have this task written into the DNA of research culture. And this is the fateful irony. </p>
<p>We want the support that requires a great public but we don’t want to do the things that would win the loyalty of a great public. At worst, we want to demonise the philistines and have their taxes pay for our noble enthusiasms. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fair enough, I say.</p>
<h2>In conclusion</h2>
<p>But in the end, providing a small amount of public money for funding research into the humanities is not about curing cancer, getting a job or making money.</p>
<p>It is about you. Suppose in your dotage you suddenly acquired a passionate interest in the use of bird imagery in Shakespeare’s sonnets. Perhaps you become fascinated by an obscure lemma of substructural logics, or wanted to know all about the theories of a long-forgotten Polish aesthetician. Where, in the panoply of human endeavour, would you go to satisfy your yearning for knowledge?</p>
<p>Naturally, you would go a university library, or a reputable website or journal. This is where one will find the published work of scholars in the humanities. Unfortunately, this work does not come out of thin air. Nor is it free. </p>
<p>Phillipa Martyr’s “test” of whether humanities researchers would fund their research from their own pockets is as absurd as suggesting that physicists buy their own oscilloscopes. The sad thing is, on Brigg’s, Robb’s and Martyr’s economic rationalist thinking, this important research would dry up completely.</p>
<p>It would, indeed, be a farewell to Arts. We’d have healthy prostates but that’s about it.</p>
<p>Humanities research, whether immediately practical or not, is rightly funded from the public purse, and should always be so. It is a measure of our cultural maturity to provide such funding in an intelligent, thoughtful, and measured way, but it also makes good social and economic sense. Long may it continue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19064/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Davies has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Office for Learning and Teaching, the University of Melbourne, the University of Adelaide, SA Arts, and other organisations. </span></em></p>The Coalition - among others - have been recently taking aim at the worth of certain Australian Research Council (ARC)-funded projects. Verbal jousting around the value of philosophy as a humanities discipline…Martin Davies, Associate Professor in Higher Education, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.