tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/research-funding-238/articlesResearch funding – The Conversation2024-02-27T19:11:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2243952024-02-27T19:11:04Z2024-02-27T19:11:04ZUniversities Accord: there’s a push for a Higher Education Future Fund, but some unis ‘hate’ it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578210/original/file-20240227-22-t7tqt7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=130%2C107%2C7809%2C5190&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/selective-focus-photography-of-brown-wooden-book-shelf-2952871/">Engin Akyurt/ Pexels </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The federal government has released the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/accord-final-report">final report</a> on a Universities Accord. Taking more than a year to prepare, it is billed as a “blueprint” for reform for the next decade and beyond. It contains 47 recommendations across student fees, wellbeing, funding, teaching, research and university governance. You can find the rest of our accord coverage <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/universities-accord-121839">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>One of the most contentious recommendations so far from the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/accord-final-report">Universities Accord final report</a> is for a “Higher Education Future Fund”. </p>
<p>The fund would be established with money from both the federal government and universities, ultimately reaching A$10 billion in assets. The idea is the government would match funding from universities, which would provide money from their own “untied” revenue. </p>
<p>This means universities could not use any of the non-government funding they have gained that they currently spend on research, buildings and other institutional priorities.</p>
<p>So would a fund work and is it a good idea? </p>
<h2>Why have a future fund?</h2>
<p>The report says the federal government should set a target to more than double the <a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-accord-final-report-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-recommend-224251">number of government-supported university students</a> in Australia by 2050. The future fund would help support this growth, by providing “built and digital infrastructure, including student housing”. It could also include spaces such as libraries and things like cyber-security.</p>
<p>The fund would be managed by the Board of Guardians of Australia’s <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/">Future Fund</a>, Australia’s sovereign wealth fund. This board also manages the Medical Research Future Fund, the Future Drought Fund and <a href="https://www.futurefund.gov.au/en/About-us/Our-funds">four other funds</a>.</p>
<p>Any grants paid by the higher education fund would be approved by an independent board.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman with a backpack walks outside a building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578211/original/file-20240227-24-rsshh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578211/original/file-20240227-24-rsshh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578211/original/file-20240227-24-rsshh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578211/original/file-20240227-24-rsshh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578211/original/file-20240227-24-rsshh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578211/original/file-20240227-24-rsshh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578211/original/file-20240227-24-rsshh1.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 Higher Education Future Fund could potentially be used to fund student housing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/woman-in-green-long-sleeve-shirt-and-black-pants-standing-near-brown-tree-during-daytime-OdkwWv49QL8">Lisa McIntyre/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How would it work?</h2>
<p>The accord final report suggests wealthier universities would pay more as the fund would “recognise universities’ capacity to pay”. The report contains little detail on how this would be achieved, but it seems likely the fund would redistribute resources from universities with more “untied non-government revenue” (from sources such as international student fees and business ventures) to those with less. </p>
<p>This appears to be a development of the proposed levy on international student fee income floated in the accord <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/resources/accord-interim-report">interim report</a> last year. </p>
<p>This was <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-would-a-levy-on-international-student-fees-mean-for-australian-universities-215794">criticised</a> by higher education experts as being “<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-universities-accord-draft-contains-spiky-ideas-but-puts-a-question-mark-over-the-spikiest-one-of-all-210383">unhelpful and unworkable</a>”. Wealthier universities <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/state-governments-and-private-companies-could-pay-for-uni-fees-20230717-p5dov2.html">also opposed</a> the idea. </p>
<p>So the review panel may not be surprised to see the future fund is being similarly criticised. </p>
<p>As the Group of Eight chair Mark Scott (who is also <a href="https://theconversation.com/mark-scott-appointed-chair-of-the-conversation-media-group-199768">chair</a> of The Conversation’s board) noted in a <a href="https://go8.edu.au/universities-accord-recognises-crucial-role-of-research-and-education-as-the-key-to-australias-economic-future">statement</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is extremely poor public policy, and taxing the very system the report identified as underfunded is not a solution.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Scott added it could also undermine Australia’s “successes in international education and damage our global reputation”. </p>
<p>But not all universities think alike. According to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/low-bar-to-entry-under-university-reform/news-story/133b1ab82dbb8828f74b1ef0a02da0fb">The Australian</a>, Western Sydney University Vice-Chancellor Barney Glover (who was also a <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/panel">member of the accord review panel</a>) thinks the fund is “important future proofing” for the sector, but there is work to do on the details. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-would-a-levy-on-international-student-fees-mean-for-australian-universities-215794">What would a levy on international student fees mean for Australian universities?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What about the impact on research funding?</h2>
<p>Asking universities to surrender some of their own funds for a communal fund seems to be inconsistent with other areas of the report. </p>
<p>The report calls for increased targets for how much Australia spends on research and development as a proportion of GDP and for a “pathway” to fund the “full economic cost of research”. At the moment, Australia’s university research is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-universities-accord-draft-contains-spiky-ideas-but-puts-a-question-mark-over-the-spikiest-one-of-all-210383">significantly subsidised</a> by international student fees. </p>
<p>If funds were taken away from individual universities for a future fund, this would likely take funds away from research. Universities would gain more direct funding for research, but would loose some of their international student fee income which they currently reallocate to research.</p>
<p>Monash University (which is also a member of the Group of Eight) said the fund would “blunt” the impact of its research. As Vice-Chancellor Sharon Pickering <a href="https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/monash-statement-on-australian-universities-accord-final-report">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>[It will] diminish Monash’s ability to deliver on the Accord’s objectives and aspirations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The fund’s proposed model stands in contrast to that of the Australian Government Future Fund, which was set up in 2006 to soak up big federal government <a href="https://theconversation.com/future-funds-or-future-eaters-the-case-against-a-sovereign-wealth-fund-for-australia-5450">surpluses</a> generated from the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/rearvision/tTherhe-minie%20ang-boom-that-changed-australia/7319586">mining boom</a>. In other words, it was funded fully by the government. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nobel-laureate-brian-schmidts-big-ideas-for-how-australia-funds-and-uses-research-204015">Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt's big ideas for how Australia funds and uses research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>But a fund has some merit</h2>
<p>Yet there are reasons to support a future fund for higher education. It would be prudent to use some of the revenue from the current boom in <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/Quick_Guides/OverseasStudents">international students</a> to generate revenue long into the future. </p>
<p>Collective action from the sector to set itself up for the future could also be more powerful and better coordinated than separate actions of individual institutions. And it is progressive to redistribute resources from those with more to those with less.</p>
<p>We also know affordable housing is a crucial issue for many Australians, and students are among those with the fewest resources. The huge numbers of international students has also <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-international-students-flock-back-they-face-even-worse-housing-struggles-than-before-covid-195364">increased pressure</a> on student housing. </p>
<p>While Australian universities have not been expected to provide student housing, we already have some structures set up via university colleges and student residences as well as <a href="https://www.uwa.edu.au/study/student-life/accommodation">housing services</a> that seek to match good landlords with responsible students.</p>
<p>So it is not unreasonable to expect universities to be part of the solution of student accommodation pressures.</p>
<p>However, history suggests it will be politically difficult. In 1988, the federal government levied universities (or “<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01383577">clawed back</a>” funds) to establish the Australian Research Council. </p>
<p>This was the subject of <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ824682">fraught and prolonged negotiations</a> between universities and the then education minister <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-review-the-dawkins-revolution-25-years-on-19291">John Dawkins</a>. In the end, the clawback was largely implemented as planned. But the spread of research funding across universities remains highly disputed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An empty lecture theatre." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578213/original/file-20240227-26-yqqpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578213/original/file-20240227-26-yqqpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578213/original/file-20240227-26-yqqpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578213/original/file-20240227-26-yqqpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578213/original/file-20240227-26-yqqpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578213/original/file-20240227-26-yqqpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/578213/original/file-20240227-26-yqqpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A proposed international student levy was opposed by Australia’s wealthier universities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/room-chair-lot-356065/">Pixabay/Pexels</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-accord-gonski-style-funding-is-on-the-table-for-higher-education-this-will-see-some-unis-gain-more-than-others-224246">Universities Accord: 'Gonski-style' funding is on the table for higher education. This will see some unis gain more than others</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What now?</h2>
<p>A future fund is not going to be set up anytime soon. The review panel advises it should not be established until after the full implementation of a recommended new <a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-accord-gonski-style-funding-is-on-the-table-for-higher-education-this-will-see-some-unis-gain-more-than-others-224246">needs-based funding model</a> for universities. </p>
<p>This itself has many moving parts and is likely to involve extensive and intensive discussions and negotiations. </p>
<p>So there is plenty of scope for universities to offset what they consider to be disadvantages with other parts of the proposed accord. </p>
<p>In the meantime, the government is considering the report. When asked about the future fund by <a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-jason-clare-on-the-future-of-education-in-australia-224369">The Conversation’s Michelle Grattan</a>, Education Minister Jason Clare noted some universities “hate” the idea and others “like it”, before adding, “I’ve got an open mind”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224395/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gavin Moodie has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, and has worked at 6 Australian universities.</span></em></p>The fund would be established with money from both the federal government and universities, until it was worth A$10 billion.Gavin Moodie, Adjunct Professor, Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, OISE, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2185952024-01-24T19:06:45Z2024-01-24T19:06:45ZAustralia may spend hundreds of millions of dollars on quantum computing research. Are we chasing a mirage?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/571090/original/file-20240124-19-t230yk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3880%2C2052&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/background-pattern-vNCBkSX3Nbo">Dynamic Wang / Unsplash</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian government is going all in on quantum computing. After investing more than $100 million on “quantum technology” <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jane-hume-2020/media-releases/111-million-investment-back-australias-quantum-technology">in 2021</a>, it is now <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/govt-uses-secret-eoi-in-search-for-quantum-computer/">reportedly</a> considering spending up to $200 million on purchasing a “quantum computer” from a US company. </p>
<p>Is this a sensible decision? You might think so, if you read reports from <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/quantum-computers-eight-ways-quantum-computing-is-going-to-change-the-world/">media</a>, industry and <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/national-quantum-strategy/appendix-categories-quantum-technologies">government</a> predicting that quantum computers will revolutionise many fields of science. Two common examples given are drastically accelerating the <a href="https://spectrum.ieee.org/lithium-air-battery-quantum-computing">design of better batteries</a> and <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/pharmas-digital-rx-quantum-computing-in-drug-research-and-development">drug discovery</a>. </p>
<p>Given the scale of investment, from governments around the world and also private companies, you might think quantum computers are a sure bet to reach these amazing goals. Unfortunately, in the words of US quantum computing theorist Scott Aaronson, the reality is “<a href="https://x.com/DulwichQuantum/status/1740842486262849884?s=20">much iffier</a>”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1740842486262849884"}"></div></p>
<h2>What’s so iffy about quantum computing?</h2>
<p>In a recent <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313269120">perspective article</a> in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, French physicist Xavier Waintal warned of weaknesses in “the quantum house of cards”. Waintal notes that “a simple task such as multiplying 3 by 5 is beyond existing quantum hardware” and that a useful quantum computer might “require an improvement by a factor of one billion” on the error rate of current devices.</p>
<p><a href="https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-computing-skeptics">Skeptical voices such as Waintal’s are growing louder</a> as success still seems a long way off, despite huge investments of time and effort. While companies like IBM and Google are still spending on quantum computing, China’s tech giants are <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/baidu-donate-quantum-computing-lab-equipment-beijing-institute-2024-01-03/">dumping their own quantum computing labs</a>.</p>
<p>It’s possible that a chain of breakthroughs could occur over the next few years, leading to useful quantum computers. We have seen other technologies, such as traditional computing chips, make huge improvements in short amounts of time. </p>
<p>However, improvements in traditional computing have resulted from massive investment over many decades. Before we can decide whether such a large investment is worth it for quantum computers, we need a clear understanding of their applications. </p>
<h2>What would quantum computers really be good for?</h2>
<p>One application that first drew attention to the idea of quantum computers (in the 1990s) is their ability to <a href="https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/73/6/521/1041912/Shor-s-factoring-algorithm-and-modern-cryptography?redirectedFrom=fulltext">break some kinds of encryption</a> commonly used to store and transmit data. However, <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33386-6_10">new encryption methods</a> have since been developed that would be safe from quantum computers.</p>
<p>Now attention has moved to the potential ability of quantum computers to solve problems in biology and chemistry, such as drug discovery and battery design. The idea is that biology and chemistry are governed by <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_duignan_why_simple_salt_water_is_so_much_more_than_it_seems">the same laws of quantum mechanics</a> that control the workings of quantum computers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-quantum-computation-and-communication-technology-7892">Explainer: quantum computation and communication technology </a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This argument seems plausible, but it has some problems. One is that, although chemistry and biology do follow the laws of quantum mechanics, in many cases their behaviours are almost indistinguishable from non-quantum ones. </p>
<p>In fact, there is <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02199">no guarantee</a> that quantum computers will be able to outperform current computers when applied to problems in biology and chemistry. </p>
<p>It’s possible that once we have built a quantum computer we will be able to find ways to make it solve problems in biology and chemistry faster than a normal computer, but it’s far from guaranteed.</p>
<h2>Can AI outdo quantum computers?</h2>
<p>Quantum computing advocates are not alone in wanting to better simulate chemistry and biology. Many other scientists are working on this problem as well.</p>
<p>For example, quantum chemistry and molecular simulation are two very active research fields. These scientists are making rapid progress on solving many of the problems that supposedly justify the development of quantum computers. </p>
<p>Most excitingly, these fields are taking advantage of recent developments in artificial intelligence to massively improve the scale and accuracy with which they can simulate biology and chemistry. In <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00096">one recent example</a>, researchers trained an AI algorithm on a huge dataset and used it to study a large range of chemical and biological systems with impressive accuracy and speed.</p>
<h2>Quantum alternatives</h2>
<p>“Useful” quantum computers are still some distance away, if they ever eventuate. And even if they are built, they may not be as useful as their advocates hope. </p>
<p>So while it’s reasonable for our government to invest in quantum computing research, we should be realistic about what we hope to get out of it. And we shouldn’t neglect other avenues in the quest to understand chemistry and biology at the most fundamental levels.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-has-a-national-quantum-strategy-what-does-that-mean-205232">Australia has a National Quantum Strategy. What does that mean?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Just as a smart investment strategy is to diversity, we should do the same with our research funding, backing many different potentially exciting technologies. We should be humble about our ability to know which research directions are the most promising, as the future is incredibly hard to predict. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need a quantum computer in the first place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218595/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy Duignan receives funding from Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Quantum computers are proving extremely difficult to build, and there is no guarantee they will live up to their designers’ hopes.Timothy Duignan, Lecturer, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2158662024-01-16T13:41:32Z2024-01-16T13:41:32ZCongress is failing to deliver on its promise of billions more in research spending, threatening America’s long-term economic competitiveness<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569192/original/file-20240114-27-122rn5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=107%2C116%2C5883%2C3871&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Federal funding was essential to the development of the COVID-19 vaccine.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/VirusOutbreakMalaysia/581dec54b4fa47c1a85266ebf75aadff/photo?Query=covid%20mrna%20vaccine&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=248&digitizationType=Digitized&currentItemNo=NaN&vs=true">AP Photo/Vincent Thian</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/government-shutdown-debate-fuels-house-republican-civil-war-1859677">battle to keep the government open</a> may feel just like the crisis of the day. But these fights pose immediate and long-term risks for the U.S. </p>
<p>The federal government spends tens of billions of dollars every year to support fundamental scientific research that is mostly conducted at universities. For instance, the basic discoveries that made the <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2023/press-release/">COVID-19 vaccine possible</a> stretch back to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02483-w">early 1960s</a>. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, <a href="https://new.nsf.gov/tip/updates/nsf-pilot-assess-impact-strategic-investments-regional-jobs">support jobs and regional economies</a> and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.</p>
<p>If Congress can’t reach an agreement, then a temporary government shutdown <a href="https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/01/new-turmoil-over-possible-government-shutdown/393314/">could happen on Jan. 19, 2024</a>. If lawmakers miss a second Feb. 2 deadline, then <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/what-fiscal-responsibility-act-means-rd-funding">automatic budget cuts</a> will hit future research hard. </p>
<p>Even if lawmakers <a href="https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/the-week-of-january-8-2024">avoid a shutdown</a> and pass a budget, America’s future competitiveness could suffer because federal research investments are on track to be <a href="https://fas.org/publication/fy24-chips-short-7-billion/">billions of dollars below</a> targets Congress set for themselves less than two years ago.</p>
<p><a href="https://public.websites.umich.edu/%7Ejdos/">I am a sociologist</a> who studies how <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=26387">research universities contribute to the public good</a>. I’m also the executive director of the <a href="https://iris.isr.umich.edu/">Institute for Research on Innovation and Science</a>, a national university consortium whose members share data that help us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits. </p>
<p>Our data shows how endangering basic research harms communities across the U.S. and can limit innovative companies’ access to the skilled employees they need to succeed. </p>
<h2>A promised investment</h2>
<p>Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate. </p>
<p>Congress had just <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/">passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act</a>. The “science” part of the law promised <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02086-z">one of the biggest federal investments</a> in the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov">National Science Foundation</a> – America’s premier basic science research agency – in its 74-year history.</p>
<p>The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf">benefit of all Americans</a>” by investing in research.</p>
<p>But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. The government is again poised to shut down. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is likely to be a casualty of political dysfunction. The budget proposals released so far <a href="https://fas.org/publication/fy24-chips-short-7-billion/">fall $5 billion to $7.5 billion short</a> of what the CHIPS act called for in fiscal year 2024. Deal or no deal, science is on the chopping block in Washington. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=380%2C171%2C7799%2C4831&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.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">A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/teacher-in-a-stem-class-at-the-lab-developing-a-royalty-free-image/1348130740?phrase=research%20lab%20ai">Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Research’s critical impact</h2>
<p>That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect. </p>
<p>Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies like artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere. </p>
<p>But disrupting federal research funding also directly <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-feels-the-pain-of-science-research-budget-cuts-75119">affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/proximity-and-economic-activity-an-analysis-of-vendor-business-tr">Businesses nationwide thrive</a> by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-federal-budget-funds-scientific-research-its-the-economy-that-benefits-80651">economic health of your hometown and the nation</a>. </p>
<p>Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly <a href="https://irisweb.isr.umich.edu/reports/spending_report/15114/53a139385e/5293dc024f/ne">supported U.S. employers</a>, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>A Detroit welding shop that sells gasses many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy. </li>
<li>A Dallas-based <a href="https://www.beckgroup.com/projects/texas-university-systems-national-center-innovation-advanced-development-manufacturing/">construction company</a> that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.</li>
<li>More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a <a href="https://utahforge.com/">Department of Energy project</a> to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.</li>
</ul>
<p>When Congress’ problems endanger basic research, they also damage businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from <a href="https://irisweb.isr.umich.edu/reports/new-vendor-report/15115/24ae1564e6/3be59f6032/ne">federally funded research</a> done by our consortium’s members.</p>
<h2>Jobs and innovation</h2>
<p>Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac5949">corporate innovation</a> and to U.S. leadership in key fields, like AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure <a href="https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-industry-of-ideas-measuring-how-artificial-intelligence-changes-labor-markets/">research expertise</a>. </p>
<p>In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. <a href="https://irisweb.isr.umich.edu/reports/employee-report/15110/e656278fea/1c4bfff4a0">Our data shows</a> that they go on to many types of jobs, but are particularly important for leading tech companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.</p>
<p>More comprehensive numbers don’t exist, but that same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private-sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.</p>
<h2>High stakes</h2>
<p>The last shutdown was the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/politics/last-federal-government-shutdown-longest-dg/index.html">longest in 40 years</a>, but even short delays in research funding have <a href="https://weiyangtham.com/files/tcps_funding-delays.pdf">big negative effects</a> on the scientific workforce and lead expert researchers to look outside the U.S. for jobs. Temporary cuts to research funding hurt too because they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac046">reduce high-tech entrepreneurship and decrease publication</a> of new findings. </p>
<p>Lasting stagnation or shrinking investments would have even more pronounced effects. Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries, and fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would make one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. Whether the current budget deal succeeds or fails, basic research is on the table and the stakes are high.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Owen-Smith's research is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap. He is executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science (IRIS).</span></em></p>The latest government showdown over the budget risks not only a shutdown but jobs, regional economies and America’s competitiveness in AI and other advanced fields.Jason Owen-Smith, Professor of Sociology, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2195722023-12-14T13:10:22Z2023-12-14T13:10:22ZCRISPR and other new technologies open doors for drug development, but which diseases get prioritized? It comes down to money and science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565611/original/file-20231213-19-56i402.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2070%2C1449&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">So many diseases to treat, so little money and time.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/covid-19-vaccine-loop-royalty-free-image/1288570747">Andriy Onufriyenko/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prescription drugs and vaccines revolutionized health care, dramatically decreasing death from disease and improving quality of life across the globe. But how do researchers, universities and hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry decide which diseases to pursue developing drugs for?</p>
<p>In <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lWAD9d8AAAAJ&hl=en">my work</a> as director of the <a href="https://pharmacy.uconn.edu/hopes/">Health Outcomes, Policy, and Evidence Synthesis</a> group at the University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, I assess the effectiveness and safety of different treatment options to help clinicians and patients make informed decisions. My colleagues and I study ways to create new drug molecules, deliver them into the body and improve their effectiveness while reducing their potential harms. Several factors determine which avenues of drug discovery that people in research and pharmaceutical companies focus on.</p>
<h2>Funding drives research decisions</h2>
<p>Research funding amplifies the pace of scientific discovery needed to create new treatments. Historically, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1921">major supporters of research</a> like the National Institutes of Health, pharmaceutical industry and private foundations funded studies on the most common conditions, like heart disease, diabetes and mental health disorders. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.18553%2Fjmcp.2022.28.7.732">breakthrough therapy</a> would help millions of people, and a small markup per dose would generate hefty profits.</p>
<p>As a consequence, research on rare diseases was not well-funded for decades because it would help fewer people and the costs of each dose had to be very high to turn a profit. Of the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/patients/rare-diseases-fda">more than 7,000 known rare diseases</a>, defined as <a href="https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/about">fewer than 200,000 people affected</a> in the U.S., <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56187/">only 34 had a therapy approved</a> by the Food and Drug Administration before 1983.</p>
<p>The passage of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1002191">Orphan Drug Act</a> changed this trend by offering tax credits, research incentives and prolonged patent lives for companies actively developing drugs for rare diseases. From 1983 to 2019, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-021-01901-6">724 drugs</a> were approved for rare diseases.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Person sluicing a bucket of ice water over another person's head" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565616/original/file-20231213-27-em9ehu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The viral ALS ice bucket challenge in 2014 was a fundraising success.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/IceBucketChallenge/4dd78b9ab4044aef8a09a6f7d688b168">Elise Amendola/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Emerging social issues or opportunities can significantly affect funding available to develop drugs for certain diseases. When COVID-19 raged across the world, funding from <a href="https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/9/19/learning-lessons-from-mrap-operation-warp-speed">Operation Warp Speed</a> led to vaccine development in record time. Public awareness campaigns such as the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/10/01/1126397565/the-ice-bucket-challenge-wasnt-just-for-social-media-it-helped-fund-a-new-als-dr">ALS ice bucket challenge</a> can also directly raise money for research. This viral social media campaign provided 237 scientists <a href="https://www.als.org/stories-news/ice-bucket-challenge-dramatically-accelerated-fight-against-als#">nearly US$90 million</a> in research funding from 2014 to 2018, which led to the discovery of five genes connected to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, commonly called Lou Gehrig’s disease, and new clinical trials.</p>
<h2>How science approaches drug development</h2>
<p>To create breakthrough treatments, researchers need a basic understanding of what disease processes they need to enhance or block. This requires developing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1569">cell and</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/expanding-alzheimers-research-with-primates-could-overcome-the-problem-with-treatments-that-show-promise-in-mice-but-dont-help-humans-188207">animal models</a> that can simulate human biology. </p>
<p>It can <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs">take many years</a> to vet potential treatments and develop the finished drug product ready for testing in people. Once scientists identify a potential biological target for a drug, they use <a href="https://theconversation.com/discovering-new-drugs-is-a-long-and-expensive-process-chemical-compounds-that-dupe-screening-tools-make-it-even-harder-175972">high-throughput screening</a> to rapidly assess hundreds of chemical compounds that may have a desired effect on the target. They then modify the most promising compounds to enhance their effects or reduce their toxicity. </p>
<p>When these compounds have lackluster results in the lab, companies are likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12967-016-0838-4">halt development</a> if the estimated potential revenue from the drug is less than the estimated cost to improve the treatments. Companies can charge more money for drugs that <a href="https://digital.kwglobal.com/publication/?i=456831&p=13&view=issueViewer&pp=1">dramatically reduce deaths or disability</a> than for those that only reduce symptoms. And researchers are more likely to continue working on drugs that have a greater potential to help patients. In order to obtain FDA approval, companies ultimately need to show that the drug causes more benefits for patients than harms. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2sAGtqm3o1g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Casgevy, a CRISPR-based treatment for sickle cell anemia, is considered a milestone in gene therapy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sometimes, researchers know a lot about a disease, but available technology is insufficient to produce a successful drug. For a long time, scientists knew that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2031054">sickle cell disease</a> results from a defective gene that leads cells in the bone marrow to produce poorly formed red blood cells, causing severe pain and blood clots. Scientists lacked a way to fix the issue or to work around it with existing methods. </p>
<p>However, in the early 1990s, basic scientists discovered that bacterial cells have a mechanism to <a href="https://theconversation.com/human-genome-editing-offers-tantalizing-possibilities-but-without-clear-guidelines-many-ethical-questions-still-remain-200983">identify and edit DNA</a>. With that model, researchers began painstaking work developing a <a href="https://www.broadinstitute.org/what-broad/areas-focus/project-spotlight/crispr-timeline">technology called CRISPR</a> to identify and edit genetic sequences in human DNA. </p>
<p>The technology finally progressed to the point where scientists were able to successfully target the problematic gene in patients with sickle cell and edit it to produce normally functioning red blood cells. In December 2023, <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-gene-therapies-treat-patients-sickle-cell-disease">Casgevy became the first CRISPR-based drug</a> approved by the FDA.</p>
<p>Sickle cell disease made a great target for this technology because it was caused by a single genetic issue. It was also an attractive disease to focus on because it affects around 100,000 people in the U.S. and is <a href="https://doi.org/10.2147/ijgm.s257340">costly to society</a>, causing many hospitalizations and lost days of work. It also <a href="https://theconversation.com/sickle-cell-disease-can-be-deadly-and-the-persistent-health-inequities-facing-black-americans-worsen-the-problem-212434">disproportionately affects Black Americans</a>, a population that has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-black-patients-do-want-to-help-with-medical-research-here-are-ways-to-overcome-the-barriers-that-keep-clinical-trials-from-recruiting-diverse-populations-185337">underrepresented in medical research</a>.</p>
<h2>Real-world drug development</h2>
<p>To put all these pieces of drug development into perspective, consider the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm">leading cause of death in the U.S.</a>: cardiovascular disease. Even though there are several drug options available for this condition, there is an ongoing need for more effective and less toxic drugs that reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. </p>
<p>In 1989, epidemiologists found that patients with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.11.1343">higher levels of bad, or LDL, cholesterol</a> had more heart attacks and strokes than those with lower levels. Currently, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/facts.htm#">86 million American adults</a> have elevated cholesterol levels that can be treated with drugs, like the popular statins Lipitor (atorvastatin) or Crestor (rosuvastatin). However, <a href="https://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/Clinical/Article/06-22/Using-National-Guidelines-to-Determine-Hyperlipidemia-Treatment/67209">statins alone</a> cannot get everyone to their cholesterol goals, and many patients develop unwanted symptoms limiting the dose they can receive.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two blister packs of burnt orange pills with days of the week listed on each dose" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565617/original/file-20231213-14492-77b8o9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are several statins on the market to treat high cholesterol levels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/daily-statin-dose-royalty-free-image/643755285">Peter Dazeley/The Image Bank via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So scientists developed models to understand how LDL cholesterol is created in and removed from the body. They found that LDL receptors in the liver removed bad cholesterol from the blood, but a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1074248418769040">protein called PCSK9</a> prematurely destroys them, boosting bad cholesterol levels in the blood. This led to the development of the drugs <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1074248418769040">Repathy (evolocumab) and Praluent (alirocumab)</a> that bind to PCSK9 and stop it from working. Another drug, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.2045">Leqvio (inclisiran)</a>, blocks the genetic material coding for PCSK9. </p>
<p>Researchers are also developing a <a href="https://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/Online-First/Article/12-23/Novel-Gene-Therapy-Slashes-LDL-in-Patients-With-Hypercholesterolemia/72152">CRISPR-based method</a> to more effectively treat the disease.</p>
<h2>The future of drug development</h2>
<p>Drug development is driven by the priorities of their funders, be it governments, foundations or the pharmaceutical industry. </p>
<p>Based on the market, companies and researchers tend to study highly prevalent diseases with devastating societal consequences, such as <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33756057/">Alzheimer’s disease</a> and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/data/index.html">opioid use disorder</a>. But the work of advocacy groups and foundations can enhance research funding for other specific diseases and conditions. Policies like the Orphan Drug Act also create successful incentives to discover treatments for rare diseases. </p>
<p>However, in 2021, 51% of drug discovery spending in the U.S. was directed at <a href="https://www.evernorth.com/articles/specialty-drug-trends-and-utilization">only 2% of the population.</a>. How to strike a balance between providing incentives to develop <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-price-of-a-miracle-should-we-limit-spending-on-lifesaving-drugs-79609">miracle drug therapies</a> for a few people at the expense of the many is a question researchers and policymakers are still grappling with.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219572/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>C. Michael White does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Drug development takes a great deal of time, money and effort. While future profits play a big factor in which diseases gets prioritized, advocacy and research incentives can also tilt the scale.C. Michael White, Distinguished Professor of Pharmacy Practice, University of ConnecticutLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2103832023-07-27T20:10:55Z2023-07-27T20:10:55ZThe Universities Accord draft contains ‘spiky’ ideas, but puts a question mark over the spikiest one of all<p>When he released the Universities Accord interim report last week, Education Minister Jason Clare drew attention to the echidna on the front cover. </p>
<p>As he <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/speech-national-press-club">explained</a>, he had asked the review team to be bold.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To offer up a few big spiky ideas. They took me at my word, hence the echidna on the front page.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Clare also says he wants the ideas in the report to the “pulled apart” as they are digested and debated. One of the spiky ideas he is referring to is a levy on international student fees. </p>
<p>But overhanging the whole accord debate is the spikiest question of all: increasing public funding for universities and academic research in a cost-of-living crisis.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1680828203986989057"}"></div></p>
<h2>What does the report say?</h2>
<p>The report acknowledges many stakeholders have been arguing that research funding needs to be “put on a sounder and more predictable footing”. It also notes the current research grant system does not cover the full cost of research, with universities having to pick up the rest of the bill. </p>
<p>It says more consideration should be given to “moving over time” to ensure <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/funding-outcome/grants-dataset/trend-visualisation/ncgp-trends-funding-overview#:%7E:text=The%20National%20Competitive%20Grants%20Program,down%20filters%20and%20click%20elements.">National Competitive Grants</a> (funding via the Australian Research Council) cover the full cost of undertaking research.</p>
<p>Despite these signals, some stakeholders were disappointed the review did not come out with a clear position when the problems are already well known. For example, Science and Technology Australia <a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/universities-accord-an-epic-fail-on-research/">branded</a> the report an “epic fail,” saying it had “disastrously missed an historic moment to recommend a ramp up of Australia’s research investment”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-job-ready-graduates-scheme-for-uni-fees-is-on-the-chopping-block-but-what-will-replace-it-209974">The Job-ready Graduates scheme for uni fees is on the chopping block – but what will replace it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The history and politics of uni funding</h2>
<p>The last major review of higher education in Australia was the 2008 <a href="https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A32134">Bradley review</a>. This <a href="https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20090521174530152">recommended</a> more taxpayer funds for university teaching and research. Instead, in 2013 Labour made a <a href="https://theconversation.com/university-cuts-help-pay-for-gonski-school-reforms-13471">A$2.3 billion cut</a> to the higher education sector to help pay for the Gonski school reforms. </p>
<p>Since then, all governments have expected universities to fend for themselves. </p>
<p>The basic political reason is no education minister (even if they wanted to and most have not wanted too) can convince their colleagues there are votes in university funding. Or as former University of Melbourne vice-chancellor and current head of the Prime Minister’s Department Glyn Davis <a href="https://theconversation.com/glyn-davis-why-i-support-the-deregulation-of-higher-education-36766">noted in 2015</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>all recent governments have cut university funding per student in real terms. There is no evidence that any paid a political price for doing so.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>But this continues to be a problem</h2>
<p>This is a simple way to understand university funding in Australia. </p>
<p>In 1998, <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/At_the_Crossroads_-_FINAL_2.pdf">federal funding</a> for university research was 0.3% of GDP. As of 2021 it was 0.17%. </p>
<p>Australian National University vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt has <a href="https://theconversation.com/nobel-laureate-brian-schmidts-big-ideas-for-how-australia-funds-and-uses-research-204015">also noted</a>, Australian government expenditure on academic research as a percentage of GDP is the lowest among the world’s advanced economies. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1650983340751613952"}"></div></p>
<h2>How unis have responded so far</h2>
<p>To meet their funding needs, the university sector upped both domestic and international student enrolments. Consequently, non-government sources of university revenue <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Public-attitudes-on-education-FINAL.pdf">increased</a> from 21.7% 1995 to 43% in 2019.</p>
<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-by-2024-146672">A$12 billion a year</a> on research. </p>
<p>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 international students are absolutely crucial to research funding in Australian universities. </p>
<h2>An international student levy</h2>
<p>But rather than demand more public funds for research, at this stage, the interim report turns the issue back onto universities. It does so by floating a levy on international student fees.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[to] provide insurance against future economic, policy or other shocks, or fund national and sector priorities such as infrastructure and research.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Admittedly the review notes “further examination” needs to be given to this idea, “including consideration of some level of investment from governments”.</p>
<p>The levy has already been met with scepticism from the sector. The University of Melbourne’s vice-chancellor <a href="https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/july/vice-chancellors-statement-on-universities-accord-interim-report">Duncan Maskell said</a> he believes the levy is “likely to undermine Australia’s global reputation”. </p>
<p>Students would effectively be taxed for studying in Australia, when they already pay high up front fees to do so.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/international-students-are-returning-to-australia-but-they-are-mostly-going-to-more-prestigious-universities-193391">International students are returning to Australia, but they are mostly going to more prestigious universities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>International students as soft diplomacy?</h2>
<p>Despite the levy, the review couches international students in diplomatic terms. It says it sees international education </p>
<blockquote>
<p>less as an industry and more as a crucial element of Australia’s soft diplomacy, regional prosperity and development.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The idea that international students will also be imbued with Australian values when they return home takes us back to the Cold War-era <a href="https://theconversation.com/colombo-plan-an-initiative-that-brought-australia-and-asia-closer-3590">Colombo Plan</a> to train up anticommunist leaders throughout Asia. </p>
<p>And it is not likely to work. International students today have a lot of choice as to where to study, and Western values <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/australian-international-education-has-failed-soft-power-test">rank low</a> on their list of priorities. If there are political tensions, they are more likely to <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-ways-australia-can-get-ahead-in-attracting-and-retaining-chinese-international-students-148444">support their home country</a> anyway. </p>
<p>The student levy also seems unhelpful (and unworkable) from a domestic perspective. </p>
<p>Monash University vice-chancellor Margaret Gardner <a href="https://lens.monash.edu/@education/2023/04/11/1385663/responding-to-the-australian-universities-accord-challenge-margaret-gardner-ac-monash-university">has noted</a> there are only seven universities whose research income amount to 20% or more of total operating revenue and nine whose share of postgraduate research students amount to more than 5% of total enrolments.</p>
<p>Given this research intensity in less than ten universities out of <a href="https://www.studyaustralia.gov.au/english/study/universities-higher-education/list-of-australian-universities#:%7E:text=Australia%20is%20home%20to%2043,in%20each%20state%20or%20territory.">more than 40</a> in Australia, the likelihood of redistributing the international student tax across the sector would be messy. And may see Australia take from research strong to give to the research weak at the expense of the whole sector.</p>
<p>It could also see funds diverted into projects like student housing instead of research. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-major-review-has-recommended-more-independence-for-decisions-about-research-funding-in-australia-204184">A major review has recommended more independence for decisions about research funding in Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>We simply need more funds</h2>
<p>When the Universities Accord is finalised in December, the federal government wants a document that will drive social equity, increase the number of qualified people for jobs and keep Australian universities in the top rankings worldwide. </p>
<p>We cannot do this by simply rearranging the system. More government funding is needed. As COVID showed us, we cannot reply on international students to fund research indefinitely. </p>
<p>We need a target to increase university funding in line with other OECD countries. For example, the United Kingdom has full funding for competitive research grants. </p>
<p>In 2022, the Australian Institute <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/At_the_Crossroads_-_FINAL_2.pdf">estimated</a> it would cost and extra $2.6 billion per year restore university research funding back to 1998 levels (of 0.3% of GDP). </p>
<p>But to do this, difficult political discussions need to be had – and cabinet needs to be convinced to put funds where they are needed, but not necessarily where they will win votes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210383/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gregory Michael McCarthy 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>Overhanging the whole accord debate is the question of increasing public funding for universities and academic research in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.Gregory Michael McCarthy, Emeritus Professor, School of Social Sciences, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2092792023-07-21T15:49:33Z2023-07-21T15:49:33ZHorizon Europe: how the UK’s delay in rejoining EU funding scheme is damaging scientific research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538106/original/file-20230718-42266-x1m5qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=15%2C0%2C5081%2C2880&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/female-male-scientists-working-on-their-1073659406">Gorodenkoff / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en">Horizon Europe</a> is the largest and richest funding programme for scientific research in the world. Run by the European Union (EU), it has a budget of €95.5 billion (£83 billion) spread over seven years – from 2021 to 2027. </p>
<p>Until 2020, the UK was a full member of the Horizon programme –- and net beneficiary, meaning it got more money from the scheme than it put in to join. Brexit changed that. Being outside the EU means the UK must negotiate to become an associate member of Horizon Europe – which has many but not all the benefits of full membership.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-fiddling-while-science-burns-over-rejoining-eus-horizon-research-programme-br90rj5mv">ongoing negotiations</a> between the EU and UK over associate membership, which has support from the scientific community. However, the current protracted delay in this process is <a href="https://sciencebusiness.net/news/researchers-go-unpaid-delay-uk-association-horizon-europe-starts-bite">causing significant</a> <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-launches-formal-consultations-with-eu-over-access-to-scientific-programmes">damage</a> to UK <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/feb/27/uk-scientists-fear-brain-drain-as-brexit-rows-put-research-at-risk">science and research</a>.</p>
<p>Research by its very nature is long term. For Horizon, EU issues calls for proposals, and teams of scientists from different institutions in several countries <a href="https://rea.ec.europa.eu/horizon-europe-who-should-apply_en">apply for the funding</a>. That means scientists in other countries need clarity over the UK’s position to have the confidence to continue working with our researchers. </p>
<h2>Damaging uncertainty</h2>
<p>None of us currently has any certainty that the UK will be <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/dismay-sunak-delays-horizon-europe-decision-again">involved in Horizon Europe going forward</a>, and if so, to what extent. International partners are understandably cautious about inviting us into early discussions about collaborating on research projects. They have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/06/scientists-react-to-news-of-uk-rejoining-horizon">similar concerns about future UK eligibility</a> and about additional red tape. </p>
<p>This is a problem because large research consortia can often begin to form more than a year before a detailed proposal is finally submitted. Consequently, we are already seeing <a href="https://royalsociety.org/-/media/news/2019/brexit-uk-science-impact.pdf">fewer opportunities for UK-based researchers to collaborate</a> with EU counterparts. This ultimately reducies our impact in scientific research for the future. </p>
<p>For example, the University of East Anglia’s participation in collaborative Horizon proposals fell 63% between 2016 (the year of the EU referendum) and 2022. This was accompanied by a 69% fall in collaborative Horizon funding over the same period.</p>
<p>Collaboration across borders is absolutely crucial for generating world class research. Truly outstanding research tends to be done by <a href="https://www.unesco.org/en/scientific-research-cooperation-why-collaborate-science-benefits-and-examples">people working internationally</a>. Multiple perspectives, complementary expertise and diverse approaches to problem solving are all vital ingredients in research. It’s what needed for it to be capable of providing solutions to the complex and interdisciplinary challenges faced by populations across the world. </p>
<p>These challenges include climate change, food and nutrition, infectious diseases, sustainable agriculture, the healthcare needs of ageing populations, water security, energy efficiency, initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and of course artificial intelligence (AI).</p>
<p>But these challenges don’t begin and end at national borders, so it is vital to build and deliver international responses, achieving greater scale and impact. Countries should be enabled to achieve far more collectively compared to purely national efforts.</p>
<h2>Disappearing advantage</h2>
<p>One of the other advantages of Horizon Europe is that there is one single, <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/horizon-europe-the-framework-programme-for-research-and-innovation-laying-down-its-rules-for-participation-and-dissemination.html">overarching regulatory structure</a>, which applies uniformly to all participants. </p>
<p>Dislocation from Horizon Europe introduces undue layers of administrative bureaucracy and complexity not only for UK universities, but for our current and future collaborators elsewhere. We would very much prefer to operate under the same regulatory environment for research as universities and research institutions in the rest of Europe. </p>
<p>Consider this: Germany, and then the UK, were the <a href="https://dashboard.tech.ec.europa.eu/qs_digit_dashboard_mt/public/sense/app/1213b8cd-3ebe-4730-b0f5-fa4e326df2e2/sheet/d23bba31-e385-4cc0-975e-a67059972142/state/analysis">top two performers</a> under Horizon 2020, the predecessor to Horizon Europe which ran from 2014 to 2020. </p>
<p>However, in the <a href="https://sciencebusiness.net/news/Horizon-Europe/heres-what-first-two-years-horizon-europe-look-numbers">first two years of Horizon Europe</a>, the UK fell to seventh place, having been overtaken – in participations – by Spain, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Belgium. Our international research collaborators do not like uncertainty.</p>
<p>The UK’s historically strong directional influence over EU science and research is also now being eroded, despite recent UK ministerial rhetoric about the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plan-to-forge-a-better-britain-through-science-and-technology-unveiled">UK becoming a “science superpower”</a>. Over a period of several decades, UK universities built up enviable positions as globally significant and agenda setting institutions. However, in the last couple of years, the UK has led far fewer international research projects. It has not been permitted to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/21/cambridge-university-astrophysicist-loses-esa-project-role-over-brexit-row-nicholas-walton">lead collaborative Horizon projects</a> since 2021. </p>
<p>What this means is that the international research activities of UK universities have generally become smaller, more selective and more focused. The longer term effect of this is that we import fewer ideas and new approaches into the UK.</p>
<h2>Plan B</h2>
<p>On April 6, 2023, the UK government published its blueprint for an alternative, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pioneer-global-science-for-global-good">domestic research and innovation funding scheme</a>, called “Pioneer” and previously known as “Plan B”. This would be initiated in the event that UK association to Horizon Europe not be negotiated. While there are some positive aspects to the £14.6 billion Pioneer programme, it does not match up to the opportunities offered by full UK association to Horizon Europe. </p>
<p>For example, countries such as <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_3728">New Zealand, Canada and Japan</a> have
all either joined Horizon Europe or are currently in discussions to do so, which will further expand its geographic reach. A domestic scheme cannot substitute for the access to such global networks of scientists and the infrastructure.</p>
<p>Horizon Europe isn’t perfect. High levels of <a href="https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/swd-2023-132-monitoring-evaluation-he.pdf">oversubscription</a>, accompanying <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/performance-and-reporting/programme-performance-statements/horizon-europe-performance_en#:%7E:text=The%20success%20rate%20of%20proposals,fund%20all%20high%20quality%20proposals.">low success rates</a> and <a href="https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f54dbfed-7743-11ec-9136-01aa75ed71a1">inconsistent feedback</a> have been a worry for some time. Research proposals that achieve an international level of excellence are routinely rejected. But the reality is that Horizon Europe is the largest and most successful research framework programme available to UK researchers.</p>
<p>Successive EU framework programmes (the predecessors to Horizon Europe) have proven to be highly effective at facilitating and stimulating high quality pan-European collaborations, to the extent that the UK was a <a href="https://dashboard.tech.ec.europa.eu/qs_digit_dashboard_mt/public/sense/app/1213b8cd-3ebe-4730-b0f5-fa4e326df2e2/sheet/d23bba31-e385-4cc0-975e-a67059972142/state/analysis">top five collaboration partner</a> for each of the other 27 EU member states under Horizon 2020. In particular, the opportunities for the arts, humanities and social science disciplines within Horizon Europe are unparalleled.</p>
<p>The UK’s overriding priority should continue to be full association as soon as possible, in order to limit the damage that the delay of two and a half years plus is having on our cooperation with international research partners.</p>
<p><em>This article was prepared with the help of Ian Beggs, European funding manager at the University of East Anglia.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Lettice receives funding from UKRi and has previously received funding from EU.</span></em></p>UK scientists are now participating in fewer collaborations with European research teams.Fiona Lettice, Pro-vice-chancellor Research and Innovation, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2099772023-07-20T04:28:18Z2023-07-20T04:28:18ZMedical Research Future Fund has $20 billion to spend. Here’s how we prioritise who gets what<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538404/original/file-20230719-15-3n1kch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=52%2C276%2C4940%2C3046&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-doing-a-sample-test-in-the-laboratory-4033148/">Edward Jenner/Pexels</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/medical-research-future-fund">Medical Research Future Fund</a> (MRFF) is a A$20 billion fund to support Australian health and medical research. It was set up in 2015 to deliver practical benefits from medical research and innovation to as many Australians as possible. </p>
<p>Unlike the other research funding agencies, such the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), most of the MRFF funding is priority-driven. It seeks to fund research in particular areas or topics rather than using open calls when researchers propose their own ideas for funding.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-how-you-run-a-1b-scheme-science-fund-backers-lead-chorus-for-reform-20230619-p5dhni.html">Nine newspapers</a> outlined this week, researchers have criticised the previous Coalition government’s allocation of MRFF funds. There is widespread consensus the former health minister had <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-centre-never-built-and-a-hospital-that-missed-out-the-coalition-s-unusual-20b-research-fund-20230619-p5dhng.html">too much influence</a> in the allocation of funds, and there was limited and sometimes no competition when funding was directly allocated to one research group.</p>
<p>The current Health Minister, Mark Butler, has instituted a <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/billion-dollar-medical-research-grants-process-under-review/">review</a>. So how should the big decisions about how to spend the MRFF be made in the future to maximise its value and achieve its aims? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nobel-laureate-brian-schmidts-big-ideas-for-how-australia-funds-and-uses-research-204015">Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt's big ideas for how Australia funds and uses research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Assess gaps in evidence</h2>
<p>Research priorities for the MRFF are set by the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/committees-and-groups/australian-medical-research-advisory-board-amrab?language=und">Australian Medical Research Advisory Board</a>, which widely consults with the research sector. </p>
<p>However, most researchers and institutions will simply argue more funding is needed for their own research. If the board seeks to satisfy such lobbying, it will produce fragmented funding that aligns poorly with the health needs of Australians.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Scientist at a busy bench in a lab" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538406/original/file-20230719-17-nbp4qi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most researchers will argue more funding is needed for their research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/scientist-in-laboratory-3735736/">Polina Tankilevitch/Pexels</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A better approach would be to systematically assemble evidence about what is known and the key evidence gaps. Here, the board would benefit from what is known as a “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15484602/">value of information</a>” framework for decision-making. </p>
<p>This framework systematically attempts to quantify the most valuable information that will reduce the uncertainty for health and medical decision-making. In other words, it would pinpoint which information we need to allow us to better make health and medical decisions.</p>
<p>There have been <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30288400/">attempts</a> to use this method in Australia to help inform how we prioritise hospital-based research. However, we now need to apply such an approach more broadly.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-has-left-australias-biomedical-research-sector-gasping-for-air-145022">COVID has left Australia's biomedical research sector gasping for air</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Seek public input</h2>
<p>A structured framework for engaging with the public is also missing in Australia. The public’s perspective on research prioritisation has often been overlooked, but as the ultimate consumers of research, they need to be heard. </p>
<p>Research is a highly complex and specialised endeavour, so we can’t expect the public to create sensible priorities alone.</p>
<p>One approach used overseas has been developed by the <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/">James Lind Alliance</a>, a group in the United Kingdom that combines the public’s views with researchers to create agreed-on priorities for research. </p>
<p>This is done using an intensive process of question setting and discussion. Priorities are checked for feasibility and novelty, so there is no funding for research that’s impossible or already done.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="Doctor writes on a tablet" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/538407/original/file-20230719-19-ttgtn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research priorities aren’t always obvious.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/crop-doctor-writing-prescription-on-paper-6098057/">Laura James/Pexels</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The priorities from the James Lind Alliance process can be surprising. The top priority in the area of <a href="https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/irritable-bowel-syndrome/top-10-priorities.htm">irritable bowel syndrome</a>, for example, is to discover if it’s one condition or many, while the second priority is to work on bowel urgency (a sudden urgent need to go to the toilet). </p>
<p>While such everyday questions can struggle to get funding in traditional systems that often focus on novelty, funding research in these two priority areas could lead to the most benefits for people with irritable bowel syndrome.</p>
<h2>Consider our comparative advantages</h2>
<p>Australia is a relatively small player globally. To date, the MRFF has allocated around <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/medical-research-future-fund-mrff-grant-recipients?language=und">$2.6 billion</a>, just over 5% of what the United States allocates through the National Institute of Health funding in a <a href="https://www.who.int/observatories/global-observatory-on-health-research-and-development/monitoring/investments-on-grants-for-biomedical-research-by-funder-type-of-grant-health-category-and-recipient">single year</a>.</p>
<p>A single research grant, even if it involves a few million dollars of funding, is unlikely to lead to a medical breakthrough. Instead, the MRFF should prioritise areas where Australia has a comparative advantage. </p>
<p>This could involve building on past success (such as the research that led to the HPV, or human papillomavirus, vaccine to prevent cervical cancer), or where Australian researchers can play a critical role globally.</p>
<p>However, there is an area where Australian researchers have an absolute advantage: using research to improve our own health system. </p>
<p>A prime example would be finding ways to improve dental care access in Australia. For example, a randomised trial of different ways of providing insurance and dental services, similar to the <a href="https://www.rand.org/health-care/projects/hie.html">RAND Health Insurance Experiment</a> conducted in the United States in the 1970s. </p>
<p>This could provide the evidence needed to design a sustainable dental scheme to complement Medicare. Now that is something the MRFF should consider as a funding priority.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/expensive-dental-care-worsens-inequality-is-it-time-for-a-medicare-style-denticare-scheme-207910">Expensive dental care worsens inequality. Is it time for a Medicare-style 'Denticare' scheme?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209977/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Barnett receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and the National Health and Medical Research Council. He is a member of the NHMRC Research Committee; this article represents his own views.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Clarke receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund via grants held at the University of Melbourne.</span></em></p>The Medical Research Future Fund should prioritise areas where Australia has a comparative advantage.Adrian Barnett, Professor of Statistics, Queensland University of TechnologyPhilip Clarke, Professor of Health Economics, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2062352023-06-20T20:13:46Z2023-06-20T20:13:46ZScientific fraud is rising, and automated systems won’t stop it. We need research detectives<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530541/original/file-20230607-19-8xsepz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C592%2C3994%2C3083&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Unsplash</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Fraud in science is alarmingly common. Sometimes researchers <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/31/neuroscientist-pleads-guilty-to-fraud-gets-two-year-suspended-sentence/">lie about results and invent data</a> to win funding and prestige. Other times, researchers might pay to stage and publish entirely bogus studies to win an undeserved pay rise – fuelling a “paper mill” industry worth <a href="https://ioppublishing.org/news/increasing-confidence-and-trust-in-research/">an estimated €1 billion a year</a>.</p>
<p>Some of this rubbish can be easily spotted by peer reviewers, but the peer review system has become badly stretched by ever-rising paper numbers. And there’s a new threat, as more sophisticated AI is able to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01780-w">generate plausible scientific data</a>. </p>
<p>The latest idea among academic publishers is to use automated tools to screen all papers submitted to scientific journals for telltale signs. However, some of these tools are easy to fool.</p>
<p>I am part of a group of multidisciplinary scientists working to tackle research fraud and poor practice using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience">metascience</a> or the “science of science”. Ours is a new field, but we already have our own <a href="https://aimos.community/">society</a> and our members have worked with funders and publishers to investigate improvements to research practice.</p>
<h2>The limits of automated screening</h2>
<p>The problems with automated screening are highlighted by a <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common">new screening tool</a> publicised last month. The tool suggested around one in three neuroscience papers might be fraudulent. </p>
<p>However, this tool detects suspected fraud simply by flagging authors with a non-institutional email (such as gmail.com) and with a hospital affiliation. While this could catch some fraud, it will also flag many honest researchers, and the tool flagged a whopping 44% of genuine papers as potentially fake. </p>
<p>One big problem with simple screening tools is that fraudsters will quickly find workarounds. For instance, telling their clients to use their institutional email address to submit the paper. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/research-fraud-the-temptation-to-lie-and-the-challenges-of-regulation-58161">Research fraud: the temptation to lie – and the challenges of regulation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Given the amount of money to be made, fraudsters have the time and motivation to find workarounds to automated screening systems.</p>
<p>This is not to say automated tools have no place. They have been used successfully to <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/19/turned-cancer-researcher-literature-watchdog/">check papers for faulty experiments</a>, and to hunt for pilfered text reworked to <a href="https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/19/tortured-phrases-lost-in-translation-sleuths-find-even-more-problems-at-journal-that-just-flagged-400-papers/">avoid plagiarism checkers</a>.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-integrity-hub/">project</a> launched by the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers which aims to use screening tools to tackle fraud is also welcome. But automated tools cannot be the only line of defence. </p>
<h2>A crowdfunded detective</h2>
<p>There are remarkably few people who hunt through published research to detect scientific fraud. Perhaps the best known is the Dutch microbiologist Elisabeth Bik, who is an expert at catching manipulated images in scientific papers.</p>
<p>Bik has single-handedly caught multiple massive fraudsters, with the dodgy papers eventually being retracted from the scientific record. </p>
<p>Bik’s work is a tremendous public service. However, she isn’t paid by a university or a scientific publisher. Her detective work – which has seen her face <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/22/world-expert-in-scientific-misconduct-faces-legal-action-for-challenging-integrity-of-hydroxychloroquine-study">harassment and court cases</a> – is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001lqvg">crowd funded</a>.</p>
<p>With the billions of dollars in the publishing world, can’t a few million be found for quality control? In the meantime, one of our best-known lines of defence relies on good will and passion.</p>
<p>In Australia, spending just 0.1% of the annual scientific research budget on quality control would be A$12 million per year. This would be enough to fund a whole office of detectives and also training for researchers in good scientific practice, increasing the return on investment for the remaining 99.9% of the annual budget. </p>
<h2>Call the fraud police</h2>
<p>A solution – or at least a partial one – seems obvious: somebody should employ lots of people like Bik to check quality. However, “somebody should” is a dangerous phrase, because it could easily mean nobody will.</p>
<p>Research funders wait for scientific publishers to take action. Publishers expect universities and other institutions to do something. Those institutions in turn look to government for a solution.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, paper mills are happily making a mint, and the world’s pool of scientific evidence is becoming increasingly contaminated by rubbish.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fabricating-and-plagiarising-when-researchers-lie-33732">Fabricating and plagiarising: when researchers lie</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Quality control systems need not be expensive, as we don’t need to check every paper in detail. Random spot checks might be effective. </p>
<p>Say one in every 300 submissions gets checked by the “fraud police”. That’s a small probability, but people are notoriously bad at judging small probabilities, as proved by the popularity of lotteries.</p>
<p>There would also need to be consequences, such as notifying all the institutions and funders involved, and an expectation of a rapid response. If an institution were involved in multiple cases, publishers could flag all papers from that institution for extra checks. </p>
<h2>Publicity would be a good start</h2>
<p>Of course, this could disadvantage honest researchers from that institution – but personally I would like to know if my colleagues had been submitting fraud. And given institutions rarely publicise the wrongdoing of their own staff, it may be the first I hear about it. </p>
<p>If honest researchers pressure their institutions to act, it would be a tremendous change. Publishers can’t be the only line of defence in tackling fraud. </p>
<p>Funding for <a href="https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6">stronger screening systems</a> is a great start, but we also need to spend money on people. We need to turn the arms race with the fraudsters into a brains race, because we have the better brains.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206235/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Barnett receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council. He is affiliated with the Association for Interdisciplinary Metaresearch & Open Science. </span></em></p>The only way for science to fight the booming fake research industry is to fund smart, dedicated people to stay ahead of the fraudsters.Adrian Barnett, Professor of Statistics, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2040152023-04-25T20:01:34Z2023-04-25T20:01:34ZNobel laureate Brian Schmidt’s big ideas for how Australia funds and uses research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522510/original/file-20230424-18-1zns3x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=51%2C17%2C5760%2C3768&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><em>This article is part of our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/search?q=Universities+Accord+big+ideas&sort=relevancy&language=en&date=all&date_from=&date_to=">big ideas for the Universities Accord</a>. The federal government is calling for ideas to “reshape and reimagine higher education, and set it up for the next decade and beyond”. A review team is due to finish a draft report in June and a final report in December 2023.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Education makes Australian citizens <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/integrated-data-research/benefits-educational-attainment/healthy-behaviour">healthier</a>, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/mapping-australian-higher-education-2018">wealthier</a> and <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/integrated-data-research/benefits-educational-attainment/civic-engagement-tolerance-and-trust">more engaged with society</a>. At the same time, government-funded research in higher education <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11123-017-0503-9">drives economic productivity</a> in ways other government funding does not. Together, the future of Australian prosperity depends on the education and research undertaken within its tertiary education system, and especially our universities.</p>
<p>The Australian higher education system has served Australia well over the past 30 years, but it is not fit for the rapid pace of change to which the world will be subjected over the coming decades. If Australia is going to remain the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-hornes-lucky-country-and-the-decline-of-the-public-intellectual-80743">lucky country</a>”, we are going to have make more of our own luck.</p>
<p>The federal government’s call for “<a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/universities-accord">lasting reform</a>” for Australian universities with the Universities Accord offers a timely opportunity to take action. </p>
<p>In my <a href="https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/%7Ebrian/accord.pdf">personal submission</a> to the accord process, I outline three big ideas to help reset higher education to deliver the system Australians need and deserve. The first is to provide each Australian with <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/calls-for-a-nose-to-tail-rethink-of-tertiary-education-/102216834?utm_campaign=abc_radionational&utm_content=twitter&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_radionational">lifetime access to a single higher education system</a>, spanning both university and vocational education. </p>
<p>In this piece I want to focus on my other two big ideas – improving the way we fund and then translate research. These offer some of the biggest and easiest bang-for-buck solutions we can enact.</p>
<h2>Australia’s research ecosystem</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A modern library, with curved bookshelves" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522478/original/file-20230424-28-lxouej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522478/original/file-20230424-28-lxouej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522478/original/file-20230424-28-lxouej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522478/original/file-20230424-28-lxouej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522478/original/file-20230424-28-lxouej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522478/original/file-20230424-28-lxouej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522478/original/file-20230424-28-lxouej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=981&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research funding in Australia has become very reliant on university fees from international students.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Martin Adams/Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Australia’s research ecosystem has become <a href="https://andrewnorton.net.au/category/international-students/reliance-on-international-students-series/">highly reliant</a> on funding via cross-subsidies from international student fees. Currently, Australian government expenditure in research and development – expressed as a fraction of GDP by the OECD as “<a href="https://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/government-budget-allocations-rd-gbard">GBARD</a>” – is the lowest of the world’s advanced economies and is <a href="https://www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard.htm">continuing to decline</a>. </p>
<p>Instead, universities now spend more on research (using international student fees) than the government. This does not happen in other advanced economies. </p>
<p>Compounding this is the fact government funding of directed research for national benefit is short-term, ad hoc, not strategically planned across agencies, and is poorly aligned to university planning timescales. Over the past seven years as Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, I have seen dozens of different programs across various government agencies come and go with no overall coordination. </p>
<p>Research funding is also not fully integrated with workforce and major equipment needs, and this all leads to shortfalls in key areas of national research need. For example, if we look at critical minerals, the research infrastructure that underpins earth science is completely absent in planning and funding.</p>
<p>Universities, government, and business are not working together on the big research issues facing Australia. To fix this, Australia urgently needs a fully funded core sovereign research capability. We also need to better translate research beyond universities to the real world. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-universities-accord-could-see-the-most-significant-changes-to-australian-unis-in-a-generation-194738">The universities accord could see the most significant changes to Australian unis in a generation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>We need to identify and properly fund sovereign research</h2>
<p>Sovereign research capability is about Australia being able to fund and undertake the research it deems vital to its national interests. </p>
<p>We must identify the core set of sovereign research capabilities necessary for the future security and prosperity of the Australian people. And we must fund these activities in full (including overheads), without the need of cross-subsidies from non-domestic sources. This requires a whole-of-government approach. </p>
<p>This core research should be expected to be uniformly excellent. It should include curiosity-driven research as well as research looking at practical solutions to existing problems (“applied research”). It should also go beyond technological developments to support the vibrancy of Australian democracy and culture. </p>
<p>A large fraction of the sovereign curiosity research money should be competitively allocated via existing bodies, the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council grant system.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-major-review-has-recommended-more-independence-for-decisions-about-research-funding-in-australia-204184">A major review has recommended more independence for decisions about research funding in Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>We need to make it easier to translate research</h2>
<p>In addition to fully funding sovereign research capabilities, we must also rethink how we fund research translation for the public good. This is the process whereby we move research from labs or journals out into the real world. </p>
<p>When we fund applied research, we need to be strongly focused on outcomes. This includes the government directing funding for specific missions in areas of national need. This could be long-term, with timeframes of five to 20 years. </p>
<p>Independent expert-based boards would be given a budget to achieve specific goals within a time horizon, and invest across industry, government and the research sector to achieve these goals. This would replace <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/trailblazer-universities-program">current schemes</a> for translating top-down government priorities. </p>
<p>In addition, we need a new suite of agile “bottom-up” supports for individuals’ ideas. This would also replace existing <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/linkage-program-supporting-industry-research-collaboration">research translation schemes</a>, which have typically been “set-and-forget” investments. without an expert stewardship over the ten-year-plus cycle necessary to get globally competitive capabililty. </p>
<p>Projects should be closely monitored and defunded when progress is deemed insufficient. Expert panels could also work with the private sector to rapidly increase investment of such programs when commercially justified. </p>
<p>Funding programs need to pay particular attention to the areas of market failure. Such a system should not crowd out existing private <a href="https://www.wipo.int/technology-transfer/en/index.html">technology transfer</a>, but do things that will not otherwise happen, and better connect industry, government and academia in the research ecosystem. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two colleagues work at a computer." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522477/original/file-20230424-14-80rbgd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522477/original/file-20230424-14-80rbgd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522477/original/file-20230424-14-80rbgd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522477/original/file-20230424-14-80rbgd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522477/original/file-20230424-14-80rbgd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522477/original/file-20230424-14-80rbgd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522477/original/file-20230424-14-80rbgd.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">We need to rethink how we move research from labs or journals out into the real world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Schnobrich/Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Blue-sky thinking</h2>
<p>The foundational research done in universities underpins the sovereign capability of the nation to increase productivity, improve health and wellbeing, remain secure, and to solve and adapt to challenges that face society. This is the research universities do that leads to new products, jobs and industries never envisaged when the research cycle begins. </p>
<p>Work just in my own area of astro-particle physics has underpinned the WiFi, camera, GPS and touch screen of your phone, not to mention many recent startups across Australia. </p>
<p>But most of the value created for Australia is actually through indirect productivity spillovers. These are the people, ideas and capabilities created by Australian research that find their way in thousands of ways into Australia society that allow us to do more for less.</p>
<p>These are hard to measure, and emerge with a considerable lag, but our best estimates are that they are large. Government has a special role in funding this activity, as firms cannot typically capture the benefits of this work.</p>
<p>International education is becoming increasingly globally competitive. The margin from international student fees Australian universities are so reliant on to fund their research is bound to drop over coming decades. </p>
<p>So as part of a sovereign research capacity, Australia should set a minimum level for government sponsored foundational research as a fraction of GDP. This would bring Australia in line with other nations with advanced economies.</p>
<p>And if all universities are expected to undertake excellent research, a base amount of research funding should be made available either through student-based allocations or another mechanism. Alternatively, new types of future higher education institutions could have research dropped from their mission entirely. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A scientist works in a lab." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522479/original/file-20230424-18-syoue2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522479/original/file-20230424-18-syoue2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522479/original/file-20230424-18-syoue2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522479/original/file-20230424-18-syoue2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522479/original/file-20230424-18-syoue2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522479/original/file-20230424-18-syoue2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/522479/original/file-20230424-18-syoue2.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">If all universities are expected to undertake excellent research, they should be funded to do so.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ThisIsEngineering/Unsplash</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Making our own luck</h2>
<p>Australian universities and their research have for many years made Australians’ lives and our world better. The government’s accord process gives us the chance to make sure our universities can continue to deliver on this promise for our future generations.</p>
<p>But we must act and this action must take serious stock in how we fund and translate research in Australia today. </p>
<p>If we fail to value and fund university research in the way that we need, and should, the so-called Lucky Country might just run out of luck. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Professor Brian Schmidt is the 2011 Nobel laureate in physics and Vice-Chancellor of The Australian National University. This article is based on his <a href="https://www.mso.anu.edu.au/%7Ebrian/accord.pdf">individual submission</a> to Universities Accord review.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204015/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Schmidt is Vice Chancellor of the Australian National University which is dependent on research funding from government, business, and philanthropy. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is Chair of the Group of Eight, Chair of Fulbright Australia, Chair of the Australian Genomics Advisory Board, and non-executive director of Australia Astronomy Limited. He is a member of the Australian National Science and Technology Council and the Singaporean Academic Research Council. </span></em></p>Our higher education system has served Australia well over the past 30 years. But it is not fit for the rapid pace of change the world will be see over the coming decades.Brian Schmidt, Vice-Chancellor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2043402023-04-24T21:42:07Z2023-04-24T21:42:07ZCanadian science pioneers’ role in the Human Genome Project shows why it’s crucial to fund research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/522693/original/file-20230424-1269-xtr2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=149%2C17%2C1623%2C991&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The research and vision of Canadian scientists were key foundations of the Human Genome Project. Today, lack of funding threatens discovery research in Canada.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Pixabay)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On April 25, the world will celebrate <a href="https://www.genome.gov/dna-day">DNA Day</a>, marking two events: the 70th anniversary of the <a href="https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/DNA-structure-discovery-cambridge-70th-anniversary">discovery of the double helix</a> and the 20th anniversary of the <a href="https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project">Human Genome Project</a>, which sequenced humans’ genetic blueprint for the first time.</p>
<p>For the Human Genome Project, Canadians were at the forefront. </p>
<p>The distinguished Canadian medical geneticist Charles Scriver of McGill University, <a href="https://healthenews.mcgill.ca/in-memoriam-charles-r-scriver/">who recently passed away</a>, convinced the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in the United States in 1986 to bring together the parties who could fund and execute the Human Genome project. This objective has been acknowledged as prescient. </p>
<p>The meeting was attended by Nobel Prize winners <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1980/gilbert/biographical/">Walter Gilbert</a> and <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/watson/biographical/">James Watson</a>, and is described as a major catalyst for the Human Genome Project in <em><a href="https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Book_of_Man.html?id=ys5qAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y">The Book of Man: The Human Genome Project and the Quest to Discover Our Genetic Heritage</a></em>.</p>
<h2>From inspiration to sequencing the genome</h2>
<p>Scriver was well aware of the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234203/">significance sequencing the human genome</a> would have on clinical genetics and the impact it would have on the health of patients, including identifying genetic causes of diseases.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-hryHoTIHak?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Human Genome Project.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To move forward from Scriver’s inspiration, a proof of principle project was needed. This was provided by the discovery of the gene for cystic fibrosis (CF) by Lap-Chee Tsui and Jack Riordan, who were then at the University of Toronto, and Francis Collins, then at the University of Michigan. In 1990 they indicated: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1990.11704019">More broadly, the cloning of the CF gene provides a fast start in the international effort to clone and map the entire human genome</a>”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These pioneers performed the very challenging task of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2475911">identifying the gene mutation in unaffected people (those with a single mutated gene)</a>. CF is a recessive genetic condition, meaning a person must inherit two mutated genes — one from each parent — to develop the disease. Today as a result of Canadian discovery science, <a href="https://www.cysticfibrosis.ca/registry/2021AnnualDataReport.pdf">patients with cystic fibrosis have a median age of survival of 57 years</a>, compared to 35.9 years in 2001.</p>
<p>One of these pioneers went on to lead the even more challenging Human Genome Project. Collins received Canada’s Gairdner International Award in 2002 for “<a href="https://www.gairdner.org/winner/francis-s-collins">his outstanding leadership in the Human Genome Project and particularly for the international effort to map and sequence human and other genomes</a>.”</p>
<p>This was a rare occurrence of a scientist winning a second Gairdner International Award, with Collins receiving his first Gairdner for the CF gene discovery, along with Tsui and Riordan, in 1990.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/solving-the-puzzle-of-cystic-fibrosis-and-its-treatments-is-a-nobel-prize-worthy-breakthrough-175335">Solving the puzzle of cystic fibrosis and its treatments is a Nobel Prize-worthy breakthrough</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another Gairdner International award winner recognized for leadership in the Human Genome Project is <a href="https://www.gairdner.org/winner/james-d-watson">Watson</a>. This year’s DNA Day will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the double helix, for which Watson was later recognized with a <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/summary/">Nobel prize in 1962</a>.</p>
<p>It was belatedly recognized that the experimental data for the double helix was actually an <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/speedread/">X-ray of a crystal of DNA by the late Rosalind Franklin</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/closing-the-gender-gap-in-the-life-sciences-is-an-uphill-struggle-112920">Closing the gender gap in the life sciences is an uphill struggle</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The consequences of the discovery of DNA and the sequencing of the Human Genome have been monumental for health research globally. As <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2030694">summarized in 2021 by Collins</a>, the genes for over 5,000 rare diseases were discovered as well as insight into Alzheimer’s disease, schizophrenia, heart disease and cancer.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HkRqgeLE_fs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Charles Scriver, Canadian Medical Hall of Fame laureate 2001.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Astonishingly, it is through DNA that all of us can follow the trajectory of our families through genetic genealogy. Remarkably, the Nobel Prize in 2022 was awarded to Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany for the <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2022/press-release/">new field of paleogenomics</a>. His discoveries involving the intricate sequencing of genomic DNA from our extinct human ancestors led to the discovery of a new branch of human ancestors now known as the Denisovans.</p>
<p>Today, the genetic genealogy of modern and ancient humans has been extended through the analysis of the DNA of over 7,000 different genomes. This new study has defined the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.abi8264">geographic location of the trajectory of our ancestors</a> extending to over 800,000 years ago! DNA Day is a worthy celebration.</p>
<h2>Can DNA Day be of significance in Canada?</h2>
<p>The dedication of our accomplished discovery researchers Tsui, Riordan and Scriver inspired and led to the Human Genome Project. However, the project did not involve Canada. The major reason for this was funding. </p>
<p>The Human Genome Project was largely funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to the labs of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.042692499">Robert Waterston at Washington University and Eric Lander at MIT</a>. In addition, John Sulston was funded in the United Kingdom as part of the trio who actually sequenced the human genome.</p>
<p>Journalist and political commentator Paul Wells recently lamented the <a href="https://paulwells.substack.com/p/building-pyramids-from-the-top-down">decades of deteriorating funding for Canadian discovery research</a>. In 2019, Canada was ranked 18th globally in researchers per 1,000 population down from its 8th rank in 2011. </p>
<p>Without funding improvements, Canada will continue to lose the talent it was once proud to have. This loss is unsustainable for meeting the challenges of future pandemics, climate change and the continuing ravages of disease.</p>
<p>Scriver, Tsui and Riordan should inspire pride for the value of discovery research in Canada that globally saves human lives. Canada should remember their legacy on DNA day.</p>
<p><em>John Bergeron gratefully acknowledges Kathleen Dickson as co-author.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204340/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Bergeron 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>On DNA Day, Canada should be inspired by the lifesaving discoveries of its researchers. However, lack of funding threatens Canadian researchers’ ability to meet the challenges of the future.John Bergeron, Emeritus Robert Reford Professor and Professor of Medicine, McGill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2033842023-04-06T13:56:35Z2023-04-06T13:56:35ZDo glitzy awards like the Earthshot Prize actually help solve problems of climate change? – podcast<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/519693/original/file-20230405-18-4mobwa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6000%2C3763&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prince William presented the Earthshot Prize in 2022. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/catherine-princess-of-wales-and-prince-william-prince-of-news-photo/1245409333?adppopup=true">Chris Jackson/Staff via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every year, tens of billions of dollars are spent by universities, research institutes and private companies to develop solutions for climate change. Yet when a government decides to fund research for a piece of technology or branch of science, it rarely makes news.</p>
<p>In recent years, high-profile climate solutions prizes have started to buck that trend. These prizes are often awarded to innovators or researchers who are proposing solutions to the many problems facing the planet. Compared to traditional funding pathways, the amounts are relatively small – in the thousands or sometimes millions of dollars – and they are often backed by billionaires and celebrities. </p>
<p>In this episode of The Conversation Weekly, we speak with three researchers who study how climate research is funded to find out whether the pomp and circumstance of these prizes outweighs the actual research they fund, or whether they actually play an important role in the larger effort to find climate solutions.</p>
<iframe src="https://embed.acast.com/60087127b9687759d637bade/642dc0d763f9a20011272a86" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="190px"></iframe>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-561" class="tc-infographic" height="100" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/561/4fbbd099d631750693d02bac632430b71b37cd5f/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Climate innovation prizes often work like a competition or a bounty. Someone, usually a rich benefactor, will offer a sum of money to the first person who can accomplish a particular goal or solve a certain problem, and people will compete for the pot of money.</p>
<p>The first innovation prize was announced almost 300 years ago, explains <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qCDtCNoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">David Reiner</a>, a professor of technology policy at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. In the 1700s, sailors were easily able to measure their latitude using stars, but tracking one’s position east to west required accurate timekeeping. “So a prize was launched by British Parliament offering 20,000 pounds,” says Reiner. “They were trying to find a clock that would be viable on a ship.”</p>
<p>This prize, roughly equivalent to a million and a half British pounds today, triggered a number of inventions that eventually led to the invention of the marine chronometer. The accurate timekeeping device revolutionized navigation at sea. </p>
<p>The nature of research funding has changed dramatically since the 1700s, as <a href="https://profiles.sussex.ac.uk/p337203-abdulrafiu-abbas">Abbas Abdul</a>, a research fellow who studies science policy at the University of Sussex in the U.K., explains. He says the kind of work that gets funded today is “interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research” and often done at large, Western universities. Climate prizes can “fill in the gaps of this research,” in particular with regard to climate adaptation, says Abdul. One of the reasons they are good at that is that climate prizes are often awarded to researchers or inventors in the global south who are outside of traditional funding systems. </p>
<p>Climate innovation prizes are not without their controversy, though. They are often bankrolled by the extremely wealthy and are announced at extravagant awards ceremonies hosted by celebrities who fly in for the occasion. These are far from carbon neutral events. But according to <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bBgc5gEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Mark Maslin</a>, a professor of earth systems science at University College London in the U.K., the entertainment is part of the value. Maslin was hired by the BBC to fact-check their broadcast of the Earthshot Prize awards ceremony in 2022. “The reason why the BBC asked me to actually check the scripts is because the whole show was put on by the BBC Light Entertainment Unit, as opposed to the science unit,” he explains. According Maslin, that’s a good thing. “It is little bit of razzmatazz, and it basically says ‘Guess what? Solving climate change is cool.’ And this is something that hasn’t actually happened until very recently.” Maslin believes that getting hopeful messages about climate solutions into popular media can help inspire people to action and that climate prizes are an excellent way to do just that. </p>
<p>Listen to the full episode to explore how, despite their small dollar amounts, climate prizes play a unique cultural role in the search for climate solutions.</p>
<hr>
<p>This episode was written and produced by Katie Flood and hosted by Dan Merino. The executive producer is Mend Mariwany. Eloise Stevens does the show’s sound design, and the theme music is by Neeta Sarl.</p>
<p>You can find us on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/TC_Audio">@TC_Audio</a>, on Instagram at <a href="https://www.instagram.com/theconversationdotcom/">theconversationdotcom</a> or <a href="mailto:podcast@theconversation.com">via email</a>. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/newsletter">free daily email here</a>. A transcript of this episode will be available soon.</p>
<p>Listen to “The Conversation Weekly” via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our <a href="https://feeds.acast.com/public/shows/60087127b9687759d637bade">RSS feed</a> or find out <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-listen-to-the-conversations-podcasts-154131">how else to listen here</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203384/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Reiner is Assistant Director of the Energy Policy Research Group at the University of Cambridge, which is supported by grants from UK and European research councils and by sponsors of our Energy Policy Forum from government and industry.
Abbas Abdul has nothing to disclose.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Maslin is a Professor of Earth System Science and the UNFCCC designated point of contact for UCL. He is a founding director of Rezatec Ltd, co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership, a member of Cheltenham Science Festival advisory committee and a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board, Sheep Included Ltd and NetZeroNow advisory boards. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, The Children's Investment Fund Foundation, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.</span></em></p>Climate innovation prizes only make up a small amount of climate research funding but are very high-profile events.Daniel Merino, Associate Science Editor & Co-Host of The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The ConversationNehal El-Hadi, Science + Technology Editor & Co-Host of The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The ConversationLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2007482023-03-05T14:25:45Z2023-03-05T14:25:45ZNigeria needs to take science more seriously - an agenda for the new president<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512858/original/file-20230301-24-5fs2sk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nigeria's new president must prioritise capacity retention of the country's scientists. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/young-african-female-research-scientist-and-senior-royalty-free-image/1440536900?phrase=science%20in%20nigeria&adppopup=true">Getty Images </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nigerians voted to elect a new president <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerians-vote-election-hoping-better-economic-times-2023-02-25/">on 25 February</a> and he will be sworn in on 29 May 2023. One of his responsibilities must be to lead the country in taking science more seriously. Science should be the fulcrum of Nigeria’s development.</p>
<p>As a fellow and <a href="https://nas.org.ng/past-presidens/">past president</a> of the <a href="https://nas.org.ng/">Nigerian Academy of Science</a>, the umbrella body of Nigeria’s leading scientists, I offer the following tips for Nigeria’s new president:</p>
<h2>Increase funding for scientific research</h2>
<p>Nigeria has shown a deep neglect of science. Science and technology are seriously underfunded and minimally used in national development. For example oil refineries are shut down and <a href="https://guardian.ng/features/nigeria-not-ready-for-local-vaccine-manufacture-two-years-after-covid-19/">Nigeria cannot produce vaccines locally</a>, having stopped in <a href="https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2017/06/15/ray-of-light-as-nigeria-commences-local-vaccines-production/">1991</a>.</p>
<p>The first time Nigeria had a Ministry of Science and Technology <a href="https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:33035/#:%7E:text=Nigeria's%20Federal%20Ministry%20of%20Science,developed%20nations%20of%20the%20world%E2%80%9D.">was in 1980</a>, 20 years after independence. The first national science and technology policy was <a href="https://www.osgf.gov.ng/resources/policies/science-and-technology#:%7E:text=The%20first%20National%20Science%20and,of%20life%20for%20the%20people.">produced in 1986</a>, six years later.</p>
<p>During the first 20 years of the ministry, it had 10 ministers, each with a different agenda and policy. </p>
<p>Nigeria’s first real attempt at funding public research <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/442334a">was in 2006</a>, when the government planned to create a US$5 billion endowment fund for science and technology. But the political will to do this wilted in the face of a lack of commitment of funds to execute the proposal. Since then, funding science and research in Nigeria has been as erratic and unpredictable as the political changes.</p>
<p>An attempt was made in 2012 <a href="https://allafrica.com/stories/201202211496.html">to revive the fund</a> with an independent board, headed by President Goodluck Jonathan himself. But when he left office in 2015 there was still no fund. </p>
<p><a href="https://guardian.ng/features/fg-sets-up-n3bn-national-research-fund/">In 2016</a>, the federal government announced a N3 billion (US$6.5 million) National Research Fund. A committee to manage it was only set up 17 months later. </p>
<p>Despite the promise of the Buhari government in 2021 to dedicate <a href="https://von.gov.ng/nigeria-to-spend-0-5-of-gdp-on-research/">0.5% of GDP to research and innovation</a>, the budgetary allocation to the relevant ministry remained abysmally low at <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1345422/gross-domestic-expenditure-on-randd-as-percentage-of-gdp-in-nigeria/">0.14% of GDP in 2022</a>. This was about the same level for the previous years - 0.13% and 0.14% for 2020 and 2021.</p>
<p>If Nigeria is to benefit from science and research, and harness technology and innovation to transform the economy and improve the social well-being of citizens, then the country must stop playing lip service to funding science and research activities.</p>
<p>The new government must rapidly harness science, technology and innovation as tools for national development. For example, the country could benefit from the development of solar energy to improve and stabilise the erratic electric supply, and from genomic studies to develop new therapeutics and vaccines for improved health and increased animal production. </p>
<p>Nigeria must increase the budgetary allocation to fund science and research annually from the current 0.14% of GDP to at least 1% in the next four years.</p>
<p>It must also expand the scope and funding capacity of the <a href="https://tetfund.gov.ng/">Tertiary Education Trust Fund</a> to sustainably fund long term interdisciplinary research directed at solving Nigeria’s health, environment and other developmental challenges.</p>
<p>The new president must also see to it that the proposal to establish the Nigeria National Research and Development Foundation is realised before the end of his first year in office. Not much has been heard about this proposal lately.</p>
<h2>Retain the capacity that’s built</h2>
<p>The new president must recognise the need to prioritise capacity retention over capacity building. This should be through creating and sustaining a scientific and research environment that enables our highly trained workforce to conduct research activities productively and with relevance. </p>
<p>Too many of Nigeria’s scientists leave the country because of lack of employment opportunities, socio-cultural issues, poor remuneration and non-attainment of professional fulfilment. For instance, nine out of 10 medical and dental consultants with less than five years of experience planned to leave Nigeria <a href="https://punchng.com/9-of-10-medical-consultants-leaving-nigeria-mdcan/#:%7E:text=The%20statement%20read%20in%20part,countries%20over%20the%20preceding%20two">as at December 2022</a>. Similarly, <a href="https://punchng.com/57000-nurses-left-nigeria-in-five-years-nannm/#:%7E:text=Kindly%20share%20this%20story%3A,spanning%20from%202017%20to%202022.">57,000 nurses left Nigeria between 2017 and 2022</a> leaving a ratio of one nurse to 1,660 patients, based on the population. <a href="https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/lifestyle/japa-thousands-of-nigerians-are-leaving-the-country-and-many-more-plan-to-quit-jobs/s67pssr">Software engineers</a> are leaving too. </p>
<p>The research environment can be improved through easier access to foreign exchange and reduced importation charges for imported research equipment, supplies and reagents. Research also requires a stable electricity supply. Electricity production in Nigeria <a href="https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/nigeria/electricity-production#:%7E:text=Electricity%20Production%20in%20Nigeria%20reached,Mar%202005%20to%20Jun%202022.">reached</a> 7,637 GWh in June 2022, for a population of <a href="https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/nigeria/electricity-production#:%7E:text=Electricity%20Production%20in%20Nigeria%20reached,Mar%202005%20to%20Jun%202022.">219 million</a>. For comparison, South Africa’s <a href="https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/south-africa/electricity-production#:%7E:text=Electricity%20Production%20in%20South%20Africa,Jan%201985%20to%20Dec%202022.">electricity production </a> reached 17,536 GWh in December 2022, for a population of <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/south-africa-population/#:%7E:text=The%20current%20population%20of%20South,year%20according%20to%20UN%20data.">61 million</a>. </p>
<h2>Appoint a chief scientific adviser</h2>
<p>As a matter of urgency, the president must appoint a chief scientific adviser charged with coordinating all science and research activities for the economic development of the country and social well-being of citizens. </p>
<p>Currently, science and research activities are scattered among different ministries and parastatals working in silos, carrying out uncoordinated work of little relevance to national development. The adviser to the president would assist in bringing all these together to ensure relevant focus and to reduce duplication and wastage of resources.</p>
<h2>Start producing vaccines locally</h2>
<p>The new president must consider local vaccine production as a national health security issue. He must ensure local vaccine production begins within the first two years in office. This will reduce costly dependence on foreigners for the country’s vaccine needs and safeguard national health security. Currently Nigeria produces no vaccines but a production plant <a href="https://guardian.ng/news/nigerias-vaccine-production-plant-ready-in-2024/">is scheduled to commence production in 2024</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-it-will-take-to-produce-vaccines-in-nigeria-moneys-just-the-first-step-153497">What it will take to produce vaccines in Nigeria: money's just the first step</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200748/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Oyewale Tomori 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>Here’s what Nigeria’s new president should do to elevate science in the country.Oyewale Tomori, Fellow, Nigerian Academy of ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag: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/1875032022-08-18T12:39:23Z2022-08-18T12:39:23ZFake research can be harmful to your health – a new study offers a tool for rooting it out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479736/original/file-20220817-7931-21c2t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=374%2C64%2C8240%2C5489&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Although most medical research is reliable, studies that are flawed or fake can lead to patients undergoing treatments that might cause harm.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/two-biotechnologists-examining-data-for-medical-royalty-free-image/881494610?adppopup=true">skynesher/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you are suffering with chronic pain, diabetes, heart problems or any other condition, you want to be confident that your doctor will offer you an effective treatment. You certainly don’t want to waste time or money on something that won’t work, or take something that could do you harm. </p>
<p>The best source of information to guide treatment is medical research. But how do you know when that information is reliable and evidence-based? And how can you tell the difference between shoddy research findings and those that have merit?</p>
<p>There’s a long journey to the publication of research findings. Scientists design experiments and studies to investigate questions about treatment or prevention, and follow certain scientific principles and standards. Then the finding is submitted for publication in a research journal. Editors and other people in the researchers’ field, called peer-reviewers, make suggestions to improve the research. When the study is deemed acceptable, it is published as a research journal article. </p>
<p>But a lot can go wrong on this long journey that could make a research journal article unreliable. And peer review is not designed to catch fake or misleading data. Unreliable scientific studies can be hard to spot – whether by reviewers or the general public – but by asking the right questions, it can be done. </p>
<p>While most research has been conducted according to rigorous standards, studies with fake or fatally flawed findings are sometimes published in the scientific literature. It is hard to get an exact estimate of the number of fraudulent studies because the scientific publication process catches some of them before they are published. One study of 526 patient trials in anesthesiology <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15263">found that 8% had fake data and 26% were critically flawed</a>. </p>
<p>As a professor in medicine and public health, I have been studying bias in the <a href="https://www.cuanschutz.edu/centers/bioethicshumanities/facultystaff/lisa-bero-phd">design, conduct and publication of scientific research for 30 years</a>. I’ve been developing ways to prevent and detect research integrity problems so the best possible evidence can be synthesized and used for decisions about health. Sleuthing out data that cannot be trusted, whether this is due to intentional fraud or just bad research practices, is key to using the most reliable evidence for decisions. </p>
<h2>Systematic reviews help suss out weak studies</h2>
<p>The most reliable evidence of all comes when researchers pull the results of several studies together in what is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597">known as a systematic review</a>. Researchers who conduct systematic reviews identify, evaluate and summarize all studies on a particular topic. They not only sift through and combine results on perhaps tens of thousands of patients, but can use an extra filter to catch potentially fraudulent studies and ensure they do not feed into recommendations. This means that the more rigorous studies have the most weight in a systematic review and bad studies are excluded based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria that are applied by the reviewers.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/egJlW4vkb1Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Systematic reviews explained.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To better understand how systematic reviewers and other researchers can identify unreliable studies, my research team interviewed a group of 30 international experts from 12 countries. They explained to us that a shoddy study can be hard to detect because, as one expert explained, it is “designed to pass muster on first glance.” </p>
<p>As our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006">recently published study reports</a>, some studies look like their data has been massaged, some studies are not as well designed as they claim to be, and some may even be completely fabricated. </p>
<p>Our study provides some important ideas about how to spot medical research that is deeply flawed or fake and should not be trusted. </p>
<p>The experts we interviewed suggested some key questions that reviewers should ask about a study: For instance, did it have ethics approval? Was the <a href="https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/writing-resources/trial-registration#">clinical trial registered</a>? Do the results seem plausible? Was the study funded by an independent source and not the company whose product is being tested?</p>
<p>If the answers to any of these questions is no, then further investigation of the study is needed. </p>
<p>In particular, my colleagues and I found that it’s possible for researchers who review and synthesize evidence to create a checklist of warning signs. These signs don’t categorically prove that research is fraudulent, but they do show researchers as well as the general public which studies need to be looked at more carefully. We used these warning signs to create a screening tool – a set of questions to ask about how a study is done and reported – that provide clues about whether a study is real or not.</p>
<p>Signs include important information that’s missing, like details of ethical approval or where the study was carried out, and data that seems too good to be true. One example might be if the number of patients in a study exceeds the number of people with the disease in the whole country. </p>
<h2>Spotting flimsy research</h2>
<p>It’s important to note that our new study does not mean all research can’t be trusted. </p>
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic offers examples of how systematic review ultimately filtered out fake research that had been published in the medical literature and disseminated by the media. Early in the pandemic, when the pace of medical research was accelerating, robust and well-run patient trials – and the systematic reviews that followed – helped the public learn which interventions work well and which were not supported by science.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="https://theconversation.com/ivermectin-is-a-nobel-prize-winning-wonder-drug-but-not-for-covid-19-168449">ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug</a> that is typically used in veterinary medicine and that was promoted by some without evidence as a treatment for COVID-19, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02958-2">was widely embraced</a> in some parts of the world. However, after ruling out fake or flawed studies, a systematic review of research on ivermectin found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3">it had “no beneficial effects</a> for people with COVID-19.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, a systematic review of corticosteroid drugs like dexamethasone found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014963">the drugs help prevent death</a> when used as a treatment for COVID-19.</p>
<p>There are efforts underway across the globe to ensure that the highest standards of medical research are upheld. Research funders are asking scientists to publish all of their data so it can be fully scrutinized, and medical journals that publish new studies are beginning to screen for suspect data. But everyone involved in research funding, production and publication <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00025-6">should be aware</a> that fake data and studies are out there. </p>
<p>The screening tool proposed in our new research is designed for systematic reviewers of scientific studies, so a certain level of expertise is needed to apply it. However, using some of the questions from the tool, both researchers and the general public can be better equipped to read about the latest research with an informed and critical eye.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187503/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Bero is Senior Editor, Research Integrity for Cochrane, an international non-profit organization that publishes systematic reviews.</span></em></p>A new screening tool to help study reviewers identify what’s fake or shoddy in research may be on the horizon. And everyday people can apply some of the same critical analysis tools.Lisa Bero, Research Professor Public Health and Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1880032022-08-03T02:19:14Z2022-08-03T02:19:14ZMore money and smarter choices: how to fix Australia’s broken NHMRC medical research funding system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/477068/original/file-20220802-20-61z3pd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3000%2C1998&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/health-care-researchers-working-life-science-639884194">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most health research in Australia is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which distributes around <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/new-grant-program/overview">$800 million each year</a> through competitive grant schemes. An additional $650 million a year is funded via the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/medical-research-future-fund-mrff-2nd-10-year-investment-plan-2022-23-to-2031-32">Medical Research Future Fund</a>, but this focuses more on big-picture “missions” than researcher-initiated projects. </p>
<p>Ten years ago, around 20% of applications for NHMRC funding were successful. Now, only about 10–15% are approved. </p>
<p>Over the same ten-year period, NHMRC funding has stayed flat while prices and population have increased. In inflation-adjusted and per capita terms, the NHMRC funding available has fallen by 30%.</p>
<p>As growing numbers of researchers compete for dwindling real NHMRC funding, research risks becoming “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-high-status-gig-economy-how-we-have-failed-our-researchers-20220720-p5b347.html">a high-status gig economy</a>”. To fix it, we need to spend more on research – and we need to spend it smarter.</p>
<h2>More funding</h2>
<p>To keep pace with other countries, and to keep health research a viable career, Australia first of all needs to increase the total amount of research funding.</p>
<p>Between 2008 and 2010, Australia matched the average among OECD countries of investing 2.2% of GDP in research and development. More recently, Australia’s spending has fallen to 1.8%, while the <a href="https://data.oecd.org/chart/6Mot">OECD average</a> has risen to 2.7%.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-has-left-australias-biomedical-research-sector-gasping-for-air-145022">COVID has left Australia's biomedical research sector gasping for air</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>When as few as one in ten applications is funded, there is a big element of chance in who succeeds. </p>
<p>Think of it like this: applications are ranked in order from best to worst, and then funded in order from the top down. If a successful application’s ranking is within say five percentage points of the funding cut-off, it might well have missed out if the assessment process were run again – because the process is always somewhat subjective and will never produce exactly the same results twice.</p>
<p>So 5% of the applications are “lucky” to get funding. When only 10% of applications get funding, that means half of the successful ones were lucky. But if there is more money to go around and 20% of applicants are funded, the lucky 5% are only a quarter of the successful applicants.</p>
<p>This is a simplistic explanation, but you can see that the lower the percentage of grants funded, the more of a lottery it becomes.</p>
<p>This increasing element of “luck” is demoralising for the research workforce of Australia, leading to depletion of academics and brain drain.</p>
<h2>The ‘application-centric’ model</h2>
<p>As well as increasing total funding, we need to look at how the NHMRC allocates these precious funds. </p>
<p>In the past five years, the NHMRC has moved to a system called “application-centric” funding. Five (or so) reviewers are selected for each grant and asked to independently score applications. </p>
<p>There are usually no panels for discussion and scoring of applications – which is what used to happen. </p>
<p>The advantages of application-centric assessment include (hopefully) getting the best experts on a particular grant to assess it, and a less logistically challenging task for the NHMRC (convening panels is hard work and time-consuming).</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1338667636385726466"}"></div></p>
<p>However, application-centric assessment has disadvantages. </p>
<p>First, assessor reviews are not subject to any scrutiny. In a panel system, differences of opinion and errors can be managed through discussion.</p>
<p>Second, many assessors will be working in a “grey zone”. If you are expert in the area of a proposal, and not already working with the applicants, you are likely to be competing with them for funding. This may result in unconscious bias or even deliberate manipulation of scores.</p>
<p>And third, there is simple “noise”. Imagine each score an assessor gives is made up of two components: the “true score” an application would receive on some unobservable gold standard assessment, plus or minus some “noise” or random error. That noise is probably half or more of the current variation between assessor scores.</p>
<h2>Smarter scoring</h2>
<p>So how do we reduce the influence of both assessor bias and simple “noise”?</p>
<p>First, assessor scores need to be “standardised” or “normalised”. This means rescaling all assessors’ scores to have the same mean (standardisation) or same mean and standard deviation (normalisation). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nhmrc-program-grant-overhaul-will-it-change-the-medical-research-landscape-in-australia-78343">The NHMRC program grant overhaul: will it change the medical research landscape in Australia?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This is a no-brainer. You can use a pretty simple Excel model (I have done it) to show this would substantially reduce the noise.</p>
<p>Second, the NHMRC could use other statistical tools to reduce both bias and noise. </p>
<p>One method would be to take the average ranking of applications across five methods:</p>
<ul>
<li>with the raw scores (i.e. as done now)</li>
<li>with standardised scores</li>
<li>with normalised scores</li>
<li>dropping the lowest score for each application</li>
<li>dropping the highest score for each application.</li>
</ul>
<p>The last two “drop one score” methods aim to remove the influence of potentially biased assessors.</p>
<p>The applications that make the cutoff rank on all the methods are funded. Those that are always beneath the threshold are not funded.</p>
<p>Applications that make the cut on some tests but fail on others could be sent out for further scrutiny – or the NHMRC could judge them by their average rank across the five methods. </p>
<p>This proposal won’t fix the problem with the total amount of funding available, but it would make the system fairer and less open to game-playing.</p>
<h2>A less noisy and fairer system</h2>
<p>Researchers know any funding system contains an element of chance. One <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/5/e002800">study of Australian researchers</a> found they would be happy with a funding system that, if run twice in parallel, would see at least 75% of the funded grants funded in both runs.</p>
<p>I strongly suspect (and have modelled) that the current NHMRC system is achieving well below this 75% repeatability target. </p>
<p>Further improvements to the NHMRC system are possible and needed. Assessors could provide comments, as well as scores, to applicants. Better training for assessors would also help. And the biggest interdisciplinary grants should really be assessed by panels.</p>
<p>No funding system will be perfect. And when funding rates are low, those imperfections stand out more. But, at the moment, we are neither making the system as robust as we can nor sufficiently guarding against wayward scoring that goes under the radar.</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>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Blakely was a member of the Peer Review Advisory Committee of the NHMRC, convened in 2021–22 to advise the NHMRC on improving the peer review process. However, this analysis and recommendations are Tony Blakely's, not a reflection of the final report of the committee.</span></em></p>The first thing Australian medical research needs is more money. The second thing is making funding allocation less of a lottery.Tony Blakely, Professor of Epidemiology, Population Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1866292022-07-08T05:16:55Z2022-07-08T05:16:55Z7 things the Australian Research Council review should tackle, from a researcher’s point of view<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473114/original/file-20220708-16-mt9i28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6547%2C4358&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>Federal Education Minister Jason Clare this week <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/clare/universities-australia-2022-gala-dinner">announced</a> a review of the Australian Research Council (ARC). The review will require thorough reflection, both on a set of key principles to guide research funding and on the nitty-gritty of ARC operations. </p>
<p>As academics who receive ARC grant funding and act as reviewers for this organisation, we have seven suggestions for rethinking the ARC.</p>
<p><strong>1. Include a close discussion of the independence of the ARC from government.</strong></p>
<p>The former government’s acting education minister, Stuart Robert, <a href="https://theconversation.com/disappointment-and-disbelief-after-morrison-government-vetoes-research-into-student-climate-activism-174699">vetoed six grants</a> late last year that had been approved through the ARC’s review system. It was <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/former-education-minister-vetoed-4-2-million-in-recommended-university-research-grants-20181026-p50c3a.html">not the first time</a> this happened, and it raised pressing concerns about perceived or actual political interference. In a <a href="https://socialsciences.org.au/news/joint-statement-from-learned-academies-re-arc-grants-veto/">joint statement</a>, Australia’s Learned Academies said these concerns risked undermining the standing of the ARC, Australia’s research sector, and processes of academic recruitment and retention in Australia more broadly.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1545212331168333824"}"></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>
<p><strong>2. Rethink the relationship between the ARC and industry.</strong></p>
<p>Last December, the former government signalled key changes at the ARC. These included a move to ensure at least 70% of grants under its <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/funding-schemes/linkage-program/linkage-projects">linkage projects</a> scheme connect closely with the government’s six <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/news/modern-manufacturing-initiative-and-national-manufacturing-priorities-announced">national manufacturing priorities</a>. <a href="https://socialsciences.org.au/publications/academy-statement-on-the-proposed-changes-to-the-australian-research-council/">Several other research schemes</a> already cater to Australia’s manufacturing priorities. The move risks squeezing the funding available for basic research.</p>
<p>More worryingly, the Morrison government also <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/industry-gets-more-say-in-australian-research-council-grants/news-story/191ce45ae5417d85dfb3af7f9872e911">announced</a> a move to involve industry representatives in assessing research funding applications. The Academy of Social Sciences <a href="https://socialsciences.org.au/publications/academy-statement-on-the-proposed-changes-to-the-australian-research-council/">expressed concern</a> that the government also planned to expand the ARC <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/about/our-organisation/committees/arc-college-experts">College of Experts</a> (which helps the ARC identify research excellence) to include people without academic research expertise. </p>
<p>Some commentary from non-academics on applications may be appropriate. However, including non-academics in key parts of the assessment process risks undermining a fundamental <a href="https://socialsciences.org.au/publications/academy-statement-on-the-proposed-changes-to-the-australian-research-council/">principle understood globally</a>: researchers with specialist expertise should be responsible for assessing research. </p>
<p>This is not simply an issue of ensuring the best research is funded. It also guarantees that scholarly experts with the appropriate ethical and technical (including safety-related) knowledge scrutinise proposed research.</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><strong>3. Review the overall funding of the ARC.</strong></p>
<p>The review should assess how the current funding for the ARC equates with peer countries and the Australian government’s continued focus on innovation.</p>
<p>The overall <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/funding-research/funding-outcome/grants-dataset/trend-visualisation/ncgp-trends-success-rates">success rate</a> of applications for ARC grants dropped from just over 30% in 2002-07 to exactly 20% in 2017-22. </p>
<p>For two of the ARC’s flagship schemes – Laureate Fellowships and Future Fellowships – the success rates in 2021 were 10% and 15%, respectively. The success rate for applications in the social and behavioural sciences for Laureate Fellowships over 2020 and 2021 was just 4.5% (44 applied, two were funded). </p>
<p>Success rates of 20% or less are not indicative of a healthy research environment. Many superb applications are going unfunded.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/3-big-issues-in-higher-education-demand-the-new-governments-attention-183349">3 big issues in higher education demand the new government's attention</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>4. Consider how the ARC might strengthen its international reach and influence.</strong> </p>
<p>It would be worthwhile to examine whether the ARC could develop partnerships with research councils in other countries, as do many other research councils globally. The ARC might also make more use of international reviewers. </p>
<p>In addition, the review should consider whether the overwhelming emphasis on “national interest” in the ARC process is appropriate in our increasingly global and interconnected world. What about international or global interest as a highlighted criterion?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/national-interest-test-for-research-grants-could-further-erode-pure-research-106061">National interest test for research grants could further erode pure research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>5. Reconsider the application process for ARC schemes to reduce unnecessary burdens on academics and universities.</strong> </p>
<p>Academics are commonly spending six months preparing a detailed 60-page application in a competition for grants in which only 20% and sometimes just 5% are funded. Every line item must be detailed, right down to exhaustively listing each relevant seminar that one might have to attend.</p>
<p>This is time that academics could be putting into research, supporting students and engaging with external stakeholders. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1506149547500011520"}"></div></p>
<p>One possibility would be to make more use of a process than begins with expressions of interest. A two-page “aims and scope” submission could be used to whittle down applications to a core of promising proposals, with those researchers invited to make a full bid. This approach might increase the ARC’s administrative costs, however, and so requires careful thought. </p>
<p>Another possibility might be to bar scholars who submit low-ranked applications from reapplying for the same project for a period of time. A system like this has its downsides, but reduces the burden on the reviewing system - it is worth debating. </p>
<p>There have also been well-publicised delays in announcing ARC grant outcomes. The Discovery Project outcomes due in October or November 2021 were not announced until December 24. The ARC should work to provide clear and consistent guidance on when outcomes will be provided to researchers. In some cases, researchers’ jobs are at stake.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1471775990657404928"}"></div></p>
<p><strong>6. Reflect on how reviewers are chosen.</strong> </p>
<p>The academic review process for the ARC is sound and should be defended against the type of dilution discussed under point 2. However, anecdotally, some colleagues have found some reviewers lack the disciplinary and methodological expertise relevant for particular applications. There may be scope for considering how reviewers are chosen.</p>
<p>Feedback is another area that requires careful consideration. At present, applicants receive no qualitative information on the rationale for the final assessment panel’s decision.</p>
<p><strong>7. Think about how the ARC can rebuild trust with scholars in Australia and internationally.</strong> </p>
<p>Some scholars have <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-resigned-from-the-arc-college-of-experts-after-minister-vetoed-research-grants-175925">publicly resigned</a> from the College of Experts in protest at ministerial vetoes of research grants. We have heard of others who are refusing to review grant applications due to current concerns about the ARC. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1488640248007770112"}"></div></p>
<p>Such resignations and reluctance detract from the capacity of scholars to secure a rigorous assessment of their ideas through the ARC. This has broader negative implications for the academy. </p>
<p>Ensuring that front-line academics are part of the newly announced review could be one important way to rebuild trust.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186629/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Jeffrey receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Grant ID: DP200102424. Craig Jeffrey also conducts reviews of grant applications for the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Dyson reviews applications for and receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Grant ID: DP200102424.</span></em></p>Australian researchers will welcome the newly announced review of how their main source of non-medical federal funding, the Australian Research Council, operates. There’s a lot to consider.Craig Jeffrey, Professor of Geography, The University of MelbourneJane Dyson, Associate Professor in Social Geography & Development Geography, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1833662022-06-13T13:29:32Z2022-06-13T13:29:32ZMolecular research could help Nigeria solve a host of health problems<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464752/original/file-20220523-42302-ho3i3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Molecular research like that conducted at the African Centre of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases in Nigeria is key to medical breakthroughs.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">PIUS UTOMI EKPEI/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Our world and everything in it is made up of innumerable tiny molecules. These molecules are the smallest units of chemical compounds or living things. Viruses, bacteria, parasites, plants, animals, humans: each organism is underpinned by molecules. Studying them allows scientists to understand the basic principles and interactions that govern all forms of life. </p>
<p>Shifts at such basic levels change the way an organism looks or functions. That’s critical in understanding diseases, for one thing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, molecular research enabled scientists to quickly understand how the new coronavirus behaved and how to prevent infection. That, in turn, drove <a href="https://www.scienceboard.net/index.aspx?sec=rca&sub=ASGC_2022&pag=dis&ItemID=4298">vaccine development</a>.</p>
<p>Molecular research could also, in future, make it possible to personalise medicine – basing treatment on a patient’s DNA. And it may be key to progress in the treatment of diseases such as sickle cell anaemia, diabetes and cancer.</p>
<p>There’s a problem, though: molecular research is expensive. It requires specialised equipment and chemicals, which is costly.</p>
<p>In Nigeria, where I conduct molecular research – and in many other African countries – there is very little state funding for research and development. Nigeria’s <a href="https://tetfundserver.com/">TETFund</a>, the government agency responsible for all higher education funding, has very <a href="https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/399432-buhari-approves-n7-5-billion-for-research-grants.html">limited resources</a>. Molecular research is often neglected in funding decisions in favour of other forms of research that could provide immediate solutions to pressing societal needs, such as immediate control measures for disease outbreaks.</p>
<p>As I argued in a recent <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.788673/full">journal article</a>, though, molecular research can help address some of Nigeria’s health needs. Nigeria has a rich <a href="https://medcraveonline.com/IJAWB/factors-affecting-the-population-trend-of-biodiversity-in-the-niger-delta-region-of-nigeria.html">biodiversity</a> of humans, animals and plants whose molecular compositions may hold clues to future advancements in medical science. The country also bears a huge <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02722-7/fulltext">burden</a> of infectious disease. Microorganisms that cause <a href="https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/nigeria-neglected-tropical-diseases-explainer/">diseases</a> abound in the tropical climate of Nigeria. </p>
<p>Investment in research into the molecular characteristics of these microorganisms would go a long way in disease control and management both locally and globally. </p>
<h2>Untapped contributions</h2>
<p>It’s worth noting what Nigeria’s molecular research scientists have already been able to achieve without good resources. </p>
<p>They were at the forefront of sequencing the SARS-CoV-2 genome within days of the first infection being recorded on Nigerian soil. This work allowed them to publish the <a href="https://virological.org/t/first-african-sars-cov-2-genome-sequence-from-nigerian-covid-19-case/421">first SARS-CoV-2 sequence data</a> on the African continent. This was made possible by many years of international and local funding to build capacity at the African Centre of Excellence for the Genomics of Infectious Disease and the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nigerian-scientists-have-identified-seven-lineages-of-sars-cov-2-why-it-matters-144234">Nigerian scientists have identified seven lineages of SARS-CoV-2: why it matters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Imagine how much more could be done and how Nigeria could contribute to global health solutions if its numerous excellent scientists were properly equipped with adequate facilities. </p>
<p>South Africa has demonstrated this dedicated research support via its <a href="https://www.nrf.ac.za/">National Research Foundation</a>. Huge funds have been invested in research for the control of HIV and AIDS and, more recently, COVID-19.</p>
<p>At present, most Nigerian molecular research scientists do not have the specialised research equipment they need. This is because of cost and limited availability. Most of this equipment, and the chemical reagents needed for this work, is imported. There are a few specialised reference molecular laboratories in the country, but not nearly enough to serve the needs of this nation of more than <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=NG">200 million people</a>. </p>
<p>Universities, which are the ideal spaces for such research facilities, don’t offer adequate institutional support for procuring molecular research equipment and reagents. </p>
<p>Yet there are many diseases peculiar to the country and region, for which new treatments could be easily developed with the aid of molecular research. They include genetic diseases like <a href="https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/sickle-cell-disease">sickle cell</a>, noncommunicable diseases like <a href="https://diabetesatlas.org/data/en/country/145/ng.html">diabetes</a>, and infectious diseases like <a href="https://theconversation.com/africa/topics/malaria-762">malaria</a> and <a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/neglected-tropical-diseases#tab=tab_1">neglected tropical diseases</a> (among them river blindness and sleeping sickness or African trypanosomiasis). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-finding-offers-breakthrough-in-beating-african-sleeping-sickness-65569">New finding offers breakthrough in beating African sleeping sickness</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Nigeria – and the African continent – cannot continue to wait for western researchers to find solutions to these peculiar health challenges. </p>
<h2>Concerted effort</h2>
<p>Nigeria has the opportunity to contribute an enormous amount of knowledge to molecular research. For this to happen, a concerted effort is required by the government, institutions, local and international funding bodies, and molecular researchers themselves. </p>
<p>COVID-19 has taught us that a health problem in one place could threaten global health. Therefore all hands should be on deck to tackle health challenges wherever they occur. </p>
<p>There is a strong need for national and international funding bodies to increase funding allocations to improve molecular research capacity in Africa. Also, universities and research institutions should provide an enabling environment by providing easy access to the equipment and facilities that researchers need. Researchers will thus be encouraged to find solutions to health challenges and train more scientists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chinwe Uzoma Chukwudi receives funding from National Institutes of Health, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and African Academy of Sciences. </span></em></p>Molecular research is expensive, but worth it because of the burden of disease that it could relieve.Chinwe Uzoma Chukwudi, Senior lecturer in Molecular Pathology and Microbial Genetics, University of NigeriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1833492022-05-22T20:01:58Z2022-05-22T20:01:58Z3 big issues in higher education demand the new government’s attention<p>Higher education did not figure prominently in the election campaign. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-major-parties-need-to-do-about-higher-education-this-election-180855?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton">biggest issues</a> facing the sector, in particular the arts, humanities and social sciences, could never be fully addressed in six weeks, but the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH) urges the incoming Labor government to act on three issues as a priority.</p>
<p>The first is the impacts in Australia’s universities of the former Coalition government’s <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/job-ready">Job-Ready Graduates Package</a> announced in June 2020. The changes included enormous fee increases for humanities, arts and social science (HASS) subjects. </p>
<p>The second issue is the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/university-research-commercialisation-package/resources/university-research-commercialisation-action-plan">Research Commercialisation Action Plan</a> released in February this year.</p>
<p>Third, the acting minister for education and employment, Stuart Robert, <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/letter-expectations-minister-arc">wrote</a> to the Australian Research Council (ARC) in December 2021 to direct that a significant portion of research funding be awarded to projects that demonstrate a strong connection with Australia’s manufacturing priorities. Research funding for the arts, humanities and social sciences is shrinking. </p>
<p>Taken together, these three policy shifts represent a sustained assault on the arts, humanities and social sciences. Ministerial vetoes of ARC <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/discovery-program/discovery-projects">discovery grants</a> in late 2021 added to the picture of federal government disregard for our fields of education and research and their role in Australian society.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-major-parties-need-to-do-about-higher-education-this-election-180855">Here's what the major parties need to do about higher education this election</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The myths about ‘job-ready’ graduates</h2>
<p>The Job-Ready Graduates Package was announced in 2020. Student <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/feb/08/demand-for-arts-and-humanities-still-high-despite-coalition-university-fee-increases">fee increases</a> of 113% apply to most arts degree subjects from 2022. This has had a <a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/DASSH-statement-March-CPI-education-figures.pdf">direct impact on inflation</a>. </p>
<p>The previous government assumed that studying these subjects will not get you a job, despite its own <a href="https://www.qilt.edu.au/surveys">graduate outcomes data</a> showing the opposite. <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/stats-publications/student-stats/">According to Universities Australia</a>, 36% of domestic students and 11% of international students were enrolled in arts, humanities and social sciences in 2018. Yet the government inferred that these disciplinary fields contribute little to Australia’s cultural and economic interests.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1288599048040185856"}"></div></p>
<p>According to <a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/DASSH_HASS_and_Future_Workforce_FINAL_Report_2018.11_.21_.pdf">research</a> commissioned by the Council of Deans, graduates from the HASS fields make up two-thirds of the Australian workforce. The <a href="https://qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2021-ess-national-report.pdf">QILT Employer Satisfaction Survey</a> of 2021 showed graduates of “society and culture” degrees exceed the national average in their preparedness for employment.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/3-flaws-in-job-ready-graduates-package-will-add-to-the-turmoil-in-australian-higher-education-147740">3 flaws in Job-Ready Graduates package will add to the turmoil in Australian higher education</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A blinkered approach to research commercialisation</h2>
<p>The research commercialisation plan will focus research efforts on the six national manufacturing priorities identified in the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/make-it-happen-the-australian-governments-modern-manufacturing-strategy/our-modern-manufacturing-strategy">Modern Manufacturing Strategy</a>. </p>
<p>Researchers in the humanities and social sciences will find it <a href="https://twitter.com/auDASSH/status/1509358484349132800">almost impossible to attract funding</a> under these priorities. The creative industries might have better prospects in some areas such as design for new technologies.</p>
<p>However, the Coalition government’s own policies were contradictory. The <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/national-research-infrastructure/2021-national-research-infrastructure-roadmap">National Research Infrastructure Roadmap</a>, released in April 2022, points to “outcomes from research in the creative arts, humanities and social sciences disciplines” as being “critical to achieve the economic, social and environmental benefits we strive for”. The roadmap suggested this research will “play an important role in ensuring social acceptance and uptake of research outcomes, adoption of new technologies and ensuring ethical and responsible development and application of emerging technologies”. </p>
<p>The Council of Deans <a href="https://twitter.com/auDASSH/status/1511950479684927490">welcomed</a> this recognition of the value of HASS research.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-governments-2-2bn-10-year-plan-get-a-better-return-on-australian-research-it-all-depends-on-changing-the-culture-176358">Will the government's $2.2bn, 10-year plan get a better return on Australian research? It all depends on changing the culture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>HASS research suffers from meddling in grants</h2>
<p>In December 2021, acting minister Robert asked that discovery grants be assessed under a strengthened national interest test. He also asked the ARC to “bring forward a proposal to enhance and expand the role of the industry and other end-user experts in assessing the National Interest Test of high-quality projects”. </p>
<p><a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/DASSH-Statement-ARC-proposed-changes-December-2021.pdf">We have argued</a> these proposals represent a major shift for researchers in Australia. They would further entrench the changes that are pushing research dollars away from arts, humanities and social sciences.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1511598194530340868"}"></div></p>
<p>Not only this but, <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=1;query=Catharine%20Coleborne;rec=2;resCount=Default">as I noted</a> at a Senate hearing on the ARC Amendment Bill 2018, applying a national interest test to inquiry-driven research links funding decisions to immediate, commercial and political concerns. Our STEM colleagues <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20220513a/full/">agree</a>.</p>
<p>ARC research grants have also been subject to <a href="https://dassh.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/DASSH-STATEMENT-ARC-Veto-19-Jan-2022.pdf">vetoes</a> by government ministers, drawing <a href="https://twitter.com/auDASSH/status/1501707290432655362">condemnation</a> both <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN3949">in Australia and internationally</a>. The vast majority of grant vetoes since <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024901/toc_pdf/AustralianResearchCouncilAmendment(EnsuringResearchIndependence)Bill2018.pdf%3BfileType=application/pdf">2005</a> have affected humanities and social science projects, with the government showing ignorance of our contribution. Senator Amanda Stoker, for example, representing the education minister at a Senate estimates hearing in February, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-value-for-money-liberal-senator-stoker-defends-research-grant-veto-20220216-p59wzi.html">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We are very happy to stand by the decision to reject a research project on how climate shaped the Elizabethan theatre. Presumably it’s something about how the theatre might have needed a roof or something.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1494460482996273153"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-resigned-from-the-arc-college-of-experts-after-minister-vetoed-research-grants-175925">Why we resigned from the ARC College of Experts after minister vetoed research grants</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>The value of our disciplines can be seen in every part of Australian life. Without arts, humanities and social sciences research we would not be using languages to build peace and diplomacy in our region, or have our current social institutions forging democracy. We would not have “Big History”: the study of how how humans and our environment have co-existed and influenced change over time leading to the profound understandings of humanity’s origins through interdisciplinary research. We would have little shared conceptual knowledge of our nation’s ancient histories and Indigenous cultures.</p>
<p>We have extensive collective experience as deans of these disciplinary fields in almost every university in Australia. We argue that researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences have been highly responsive to the need to forge relevant research. </p>
<p>We look forward to working with the next minister for education to implement changes to these policies that will benefit our universities and the hundreds of thousands of students studying in our degree areas.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catharine Coleborne is the President of the Australasian Council of Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (DASSH), the peak body for Deans (and equivalent roles) of these fields across Australia and New Zealand, representing 43 university members.</span></em></p>The Coalition government showed a disdain for the arts, humanities and social sciences. The plight of these disciplines requires action from the incoming Labor government on three fronts.Catharine Coleborne, Dean of Arts/Head of School Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1758122022-05-12T15:52:03Z2022-05-12T15:52:03ZLaboratory mice are usually distressed and overweight, calling into question research findings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460139/original/file-20220427-11-92x0gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C5%2C3840%2C2149&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stressful housing conditions affect the physiology of lab mice.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/laboratory-mice-are-usually-distressed-and-overweight--calling-into-question-research-findings" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Over 120 million laboratory rats and mice are used worldwide each year. Many are used to study distressing conditions like cancer, arthritis and chronic pain, and nearly all spend their lives in small, empty box-like cages: a kind of permanent lockdown. </p>
<p>Our new analysis shows that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-021-01184-0">this restrictive, artificial housing causes rats and mice to be chronically stressed</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27438">changing their biology</a>. This raises worrying questions about their welfare — and about how well they represent typical human patients. </p>
<p>We identified this impact of housing by extracting data from over 200 studies that investigated the effects of cage design on health outcomes known to be stress-sensitive in humans, such as mortality rates and the severity of illnesses like cardiovascular disease, cancer and stroke. </p>
<h2>The importance of housing</h2>
<p>The studies we synthesized all compared conventional “shoeboxes” — the small, barren cages typical in labs — with better-resourced housing containing running wheels, nest boxes, additional space or other items that allow natural behaviours like digging, climbing, exploring and hiding. Across the board, the animals in conventional cages became sicker than ones in better-resourced housing. For example, if given cancer, they developed larger tumours. </p>
<p>Conventionally housed animals were also at greater risk of dying, their average lifespans reduced by about nine per cent. Scientists have known for decades that rats and mice want <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01027-1">more comfort, exercise and stimulation than is normally provided</a>, and that conventional cages therefore induce abnormal behaviour and anxiety. </p>
<p>But this is the first evidence that they also cause chronic distress severe enough to compromise animals’ health.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="three mice in a clear shoebox-sized container" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/459155/original/file-20220421-18-zhno1t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When mice are contained in unstimulating environments — sometimes even lacking the nesting material shown here — they are less healthy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Aileen MacLellan)</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Stressed-out findings</h2>
<p>Our study – <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007824">like many others before us</a> — also found evidence of methodological problems and poor reporting of experimental details. For example, <a href="https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/05/30/most-biomedical-research-is-done-male-animals-thats-a-public-health-problem/">the rodents used were male-biased, with few studies using female animals</a>.</p>
<p>Furthermore, despite investigating housing effects, two-thirds of the studies in our analysis did not fully describe animals’ living conditions. Our findings support many previous suggestions that rats and mice living in barren cages that lack stimulation may not be suitable models, for several reasons. Research animals are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002">typically male</a>, as well as <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912955107">often overweight</a>, sometimes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.12.018">chronically cold</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01718-5">cognitively impaired</a>.</p>
<p>We suspect that the reliance on “CRAMPED” animals — cold, rotund, abnormal, male-biased, enclosed and distressed — could help explain <a href="https://doi.org/10.2174/1871527311312050007">the current low success rates of biomedical research</a>. There are already examples of research studies <a href="https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.114.005464">generating quite different conclusions</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.2119/molmed.2013.00158">depending on how their animals are held</a>, and we now aim to assess the extent to which this occurs. </p>
<p>That housing is critical for rodent biology, yet often poorly described in papers, could also help explain the “replicability crisis”: that at least 50 per cent of preclinical research results <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165">cannot be replicated when other scientists re-run a study</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="a researcher standing in front of a shelf " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460145/original/file-20220427-20-umbai3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=617&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Housing is critical for the well-being of laboratory mice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Understanding Animal Research/Wikimedia Commons)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Canadian policies</h2>
<p><a href="https://ccac.ca/Documents/AUD/CCAC_Animal_Data_Report_2020.pdf">Only one to two per cent of the world’s research animals live in Canada</a>, so why should Canadians care? For one, because this still means 1.5 million to two million animals are being unintentionally stressed: something that anyone who cares about animals will find concerning. But if animal housing does indeed change research conclusions, then that has financial implications too. <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/436571/total-health-research-spending-canada/">Canada spends about $4 billion a year on health research</a>. Following <a href="https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_011">U.S. estimates</a>, if half of that is animal-based, of which only 50 per cent is reproducible, then Canada may be spending around $1 billion a year on non-replicable animal studies.</p>
<p>And even when studies are replicable, well <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxy072">under five per cent of them yield usable medical benefits for humans</a>.
This is a huge contrast with the Canadian public’s expectation that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291604400407">approximately 60 per cent of animal work leads to new human drugs</a>. </p>
<p>Canadian standards require that mice be provided with nesting materials that can keep them warm, but is it time to improve them further?</p>
<p>The “shoeboxes” that rats and mice currently live in should stop being ignored as if a neutral backdrop, and instead be seen as a determinant of health: one we can modify, improve and study. Doing so would allow us to better model the diverse <a href="https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-home-report-consultation-human-rights-and-rental-housing-ontario/housing-human-right">social determinants of human health</a>, and improve animal well-being at the same time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Georgia Mason receives funding from NSERC.
Both authors are members of the University of Guelph's Campbell Centre for the Study of Animal Welfare.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Cait receives funding from NSERC. </span></em></p>Laboratory mice used in medical research are often kept in housing conditions that cause them to be overweight and stressed, with shorter lifespans.Georgia Mason, Professor, Integrative Biology, University of GuelphJessica Cait, Doctoral student, Integrative Biology, University of GuelphLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1827562022-05-10T20:02:24Z2022-05-10T20:02:24ZAustralia’s future depends on science. Here’s what our next government needs to do about it<p>The longer you live through a crisis, the less likely you are to fully appreciate that you’re in one. This is especially true if there is more than one crisis, and they overlap. </p>
<p>In Australia, we’ve experienced several in the past few years: bushfires and floods turbo-charged by climate change, and an enduring pandemic. These events have all taken place during my time as President of the Australian Academy of Science. As my term draws to a close, I’ve paused to reflect on how we’ve managed these overlapping events.</p>
<p>My observation is this: our natural human ability to absorb and respond to the shock and stress of a crisis, while usually a strength, is not serving us well when it comes to complex and sustained crises. Put differently, we appear to have become complacent. Perhaps a better explanation is that we have “crisis fatigue”.</p>
<p>How else to explain the lack of discussion about the fundamental role of science during this election campaign? </p>
<h2>Our future depends on science</h2>
<p>There has been no serious national dialogue concerning climate change and very little talk about the pandemic, which is not over nor likely to be our last. Next to nothing has been said of the role of science in supporting our defence and national security and its role in equipping the public with essential life skills.</p>
<p>Science is about far more than crisis management. It’s about how we understand our present and future, and realise our potential as people.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/706349173" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Both major parties talk about a stronger and better future, with a growing economy and more jobs. But what should this look like?</p>
<p>The Australian Academy of Science offers four recommendations:</p>
<ul>
<li>secure the scientific base through a <a href="https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy-features/australian-science-needs-long-term-investment">long-term investment strategy for science</a></li>
<li>establish a <a href="https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy-features/how-should-australian-parliament-get-its-science-advice?TW">Parliamentary Science Office</a></li>
<li>undertake a national, whole-of-government <a href="https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy-features/national-science-and-research-strategy-australia">review of the science and research system</a></li>
<li>advance a <a href="https://www.science.org.au/curious/policy-features/industry-and-jobs-science-and-technology">cohesive, national approach</a> to secure jobs through the translation of science to industry.</li>
</ul>
<h2>A long-term investment strategy for science</h2>
<p>A strong science sector relies on long-term, consistent and coherent government funding to support discovery and innovation. In investment terms, this is “patient capital” which doesn’t expect quick or easy returns.</p>
<p>This patience can eventually have huge rewards. For example, long-term funding allowed the fundamental understanding of RNA technologies which meant scientists developed a COVID-19 vaccine in less than a year.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/messenger-rna-how-it-works-in-nature-and-in-making-vaccines-166975">Messenger RNA: how it works in nature and in making vaccines</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, Australia’s investment in research and development as a percentage of GDP has declined over the past decade.</p>
<p><iframe id="tanP3" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/tanP3/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In 2021 the Australian government’s investment was 0.56% of GDP, behind nations such as Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and the United States. <a href="https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/publication/the-importance-of-universities-to-australias-prosperity">Research shows</a> that if Australia lifts investment in university R&D by just 1%, the economy would be $24 billion bigger over ten years.</p>
<h2>Independent, expert advice for parliament</h2>
<p>Fiscal and budget policy are complex matters, and not all politicians can be experts. That’s why parliament has a Parliamentary Budget Office to provide independent, non-partisan analysis. </p>
<p>Matters of science are complex too, and becoming more so every day. To make good decisions, our parliament, justice system and public square need ready access to the best available science.</p>
<p>So why doesn’t Australia have a Parliamentary Science Office?</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1522079749321146369"}"></div></p>
<p>Such an office, modelled on the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, would provide impartial scientific advice, evidence and data to all parliamentarians.</p>
<p>Our politicians must be better equipped to distinguish between evidence and fiction, while understanding how science works and how our knowledge base rapidly evolves. </p>
<h2>Review science and research funding</h2>
<p>In 2019–20, Industry Innovation and Science Australia <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/driving-effective-government-investment-in-innovation-science-and-research">reported</a> that the Australian government’s innovation, science and research investment was split across 202 programs and 13 portfolios.</p>
<p>This fragmentation is indefensible, made worse because few funding programs, if any, provide enough money to cover the actual cost of research. This means researchers have to secure multiple grants for work that a single grant would cover in a fit-for-purpose system.</p>
<p>The next government must urgently conduct a whole-of-government review to identify the best operation, funding arrangements and architecture of the Australian science and research system to provide for a secure foundation for at least the next 20 years.</p>
<h2>Translating science to industry</h2>
<p>Applying the knowledge gained from fundamental science underpins the long-term health, security and prosperity of Australians. Australia needs a sustained and secure translation fund to turn science into innovative technologies and other solutions to the challenges we face in an uncertain and rapidly changing world.</p>
<p>Australia must also introduce a coherent strategy to develop education and training programs along with career incentives to deliver the highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce we need to seize and grow the opportunities offered by a strong science base.</p>
<h2>A moment of truth</h2>
<p>As election day approaches, Australia faces a moment of truth. Science can grow the knowledge economy to secure our future economic and social prosperity and prepare us to deal with the known and unknown events that the 21st century will present.</p>
<p>But for that to happen, the next government must prioritise and invest in science and ensure decisions are informed by evidence. At a minimum, anyone wanting to lead our nation should also lay out their vision for science at the final leaders’ debate this Wednesday evening.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Shine has previously received funding from the National health and Medical Research Council . </span></em></p>Science is about more than crisis management – it’s about how we understand our present and future, and realise our potential as peopleJohn Shine, President, Australian Academy of Science; Laboratory Head, Garvan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1788782022-03-22T19:01:57Z2022-03-22T19:01:57ZAustralia wants a space industry. So why won’t we pay for the basic research to drive it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450853/original/file-20220309-17-1pj7nzu.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C7%2C2385%2C1340&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Australian Space Agency</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the past few years, Australia has <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-the-details-emerge-on-australias-new-space-agency-we-might-finally-have-lift-off-96542">formed its own space agency</a> and launched a defence “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/22/peter-dutton-says-space-command-needed-as-some-countries-see-space-as-a-territory-for-their-taking">space command</a>”. Billions of dollars for defence, and hundreds of millions for civilian space, have been allocated from the public purse to develop capability in this growing sector. </p>
<p>This funding covers the <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/news/moon-to-mars-initiative-launching-australian-industry-to-space">Moon-to-Mars Program</a>, the <a href="https://smartsatcrc.com/about/about-us/">SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre</a>, the <a href="https://www.globalaustralia.gov.au/about-us/news-and-resources/australia-invests-space">Modern Manufacturing Initiative</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/19/australian-military-to-set-up-space-division-with-7bn-budget">opportunities in defence</a>, various state-funded projects such as <a href="https://www.saspacemission.com.au">SA-SAT</a>, and more.</p>
<p>This level of investment is unquestionably a good thing. But the great majority of it supports applied research and engineering, and commercialisation of outcomes. None of the new funding goes to basic research.</p>
<p>In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, India, South Korea, China, Russia, and United Arab Emirates – to name a few – basic research in space and planetary science, and science missions, are key elements in strategies to grow their sectors. In Australia, this kind of fundamental work only gets <a href="https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy-and-analysis/decadal-plans-science/australiainspace">around A$2 million a year</a>. It hasn’t budged in a decade. </p>
<h2>Why basic research is important</h2>
<p>Applied research and engineering aims to provide practical solutions to well-defined problems by applying existing knowledge. </p>
<p>Basic research aims to expand knowledge. It’s the most successful mechanism humans have ever invented for generating new knowledge. </p>
<p>Every other major spacefaring nation funds basic research in space and planetary science from the public purse. They do it for a good reason, and it’s not to make planetary scientists like me happy. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-outer-space-matters-in-a-post-pandemic-world-141977">Why outer space matters in a post-pandemic world</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s because in space science, an unusually short thread connects basic research, applied research and engineering, commercial outcomes, and a trained workforce. </p>
<p>Basic research isn’t an optional extra: it’s a crucial catalyst for everything else. </p>
<h2>How it works</h2>
<p>In other nations, scientists like me come up with an idea or hypothesis. Something big and exciting about how we think our Solar System works. </p>
<p>To test that hypothesis, we develop a space mission with engineers from both industry and academia. Because the universe defines the problem, not a human, that team is continually presented with unique challenges, requiring completely new technical solutions. </p>
<p>As a happy byproduct, this process creates an environment that is almost perfectly optimised for technology breakthroughs. I learned this lesson on the very first mission I was on: the UK’s Beagle 2 Mars lander. </p>
<p>The mission didn’t succeed. We didn’t get to sniff for trace methane on Mars. But the technology turned out to be a great way to <a href="https://laboratorytalk.com/article/278557/beagle-2-and-rosetta-technology">detect early-onset tuberculosis</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450858/original/file-20220309-13-145epty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450858/original/file-20220309-13-145epty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450858/original/file-20220309-13-145epty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450858/original/file-20220309-13-145epty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450858/original/file-20220309-13-145epty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450858/original/file-20220309-13-145epty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450858/original/file-20220309-13-145epty.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">Exploring the solar system is the kind of inspiring project that draws people to space science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/17125224860/in/album-72157651214973856/">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And exploring the Solar System to make fundamental new discoveries is a great way to inspire young engineers and scientists. So you inspire your public, you get students interested in STEM careers, and in the long term you get your highly trained workforce of the future.</p>
<p>I see this all the time. It’s one of the joys of my job.</p>
<p>Our space program at Curtin University is called Binar, from the Nyungar word for “fireball”. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.binarspace.com/mission/1/">We flew our first satellite, Binar-1</a>, last year. We’ll be flying another six over the coming 18 months. Our eventual goal is a lunar orbiter. </p>
<p>At any one time, around 60 undergraduate engineers are involved in Binar. Last week, dozens of high school students visited us. WA government is supporting a program that will see them flying experiments on Binar spacecraft from next year. That’s what inspiration looks like. </p>
<p>And yes, a collateral benefit is that you make planetary scientists happy. But their discoveries win you credibility and visibility on the world stage, so that’s not a bad thing either. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/vesta-and-ceres/305266254BEC32A6DF24260D6448DD53">Our work on the geophysical evolution of the dwarf planet Ceres</a>, based on Dawn Mission data, is one example.</p>
<h2>Funding cuts have hit home</h2>
<p>In Australia, basic research is formally excluded from the new funding schemes (for example, the <a href="https://business.gov.au/-/media/grants-and-programs/mmidmg/moon-to-mars---demonstrator-mission---grant-guidelines-pdf.ashx?sc_lang=en&hash=50C9092986E7932AD8FF0DD5A6A29189">Moon-to-Mars Demonstrator Mission scheme</a> states “STEM, scientific or research projects without a clear commercialisation pathway” are ineligible activities). So no science missions.</p>
<p>That exclusion, and the lack of funding, means that planetary science is no longer seen as a strategic area by universities. As a result it has been one of the first areas to be cut as belts have been tightened because of COVID. </p>
<p>Colleagues at the Australian National University and Macquarie University have <a href="https://eos.org/opinions/australias-unfolding-geoscience-malady">lost their jobs</a>. In fact, our team at Curtin University is the only substantial group left in Australia. </p>
<h2>Not a zero-sum game</h2>
<p>The Australian model is consistent with a belief that each dollar you spend on science is a dollar less for industry. Is this the case?</p>
<p>NASA doesn’t think so. Its model is built around basic research and science missions. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_economic_impact_study.pdf">A recent NASA-commissioned study</a> found this model was extremely successful at generating benefits for the wider economy. Over a single year, every dollar spent on the agency generated around US$3 in total US economic output. Over longer timescales the return is even higher.</p>
<p>Other agencies, large and small, can demonstrate a similar return on investment with science-based models. <a href="https://www.ukspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Spillovers-in-the-space-sector_March2019.pdf">Each ₤1 the UK Space Agency invests</a> in space science and innovation yields ₤3-4 in direct value to the space industry and additional spillover impacts of ₤6-12.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-isnt-australia-in-deep-space-119533">Why isn't Australia in deep space?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A risky experiment</h2>
<p>No other major spacefaring nation has implemented a strategy that formally excludes basic research. It follows that Australia is engaged in a unique experiment to see whether growth of our space sector is optimised by minimising our ability to generate new knowledge.</p>
<p>With hundreds of millions in new funding for civilian space, and billions for defence, our space sector can’t help but grow. The question is whether that investment is efficiently generating growth. Will our taxpayers see the same return on their investment as taxpayers in those other nations if we delete science? </p>
<p>Overseas space agencies can point to an economic return of three to 12 times the original investment. Can our space agency do better with a model that formally excludes basic research and science missions?</p>
<p>I don’t know the answer. Unfortunately, no one does, because there are no examples or studies to draw on. </p>
<p>My hunch is that this novel strategy is not optimal. Hedging our bets – learning from the strategies of other nations – wouldn’t cost much. </p>
<p>It would mean looking again at that A$2 million of annual funding for basic research. Engaging scientists in how research programs are defined. Possibly even the odd science mission. Doesn’t seem like a lot if it buys you peace of mind.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178878/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phil Bland receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and the Australian Space Agency under its Demonstrator Mission Feasibility scheme. </span></em></p>In Australia, space defence gets billions of dollars in funding, and commercial projects get hundreds of millions. Space science gets only $2 million a year.Phil Bland, Director, Space Science and Technology Centre, Curtin UniversityLicensed 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/1768702022-02-14T13:21:37Z2022-02-14T13:21:37ZFirst gene therapy for Tay-Sachs disease successfully given to two children<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446010/original/file-20220211-13-1kn2g6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2049%2C1463&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">About 1 in 300 people in the general population carry the Tay-Sachs disease gene.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/baby-boy-on-mothers-lap-royalty-free-image/800441978">Ray Kachatorian/Stone via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Two babies have received the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01664-4">first-ever gene therapy</a> for Tay-Sachs disease after over 14 years of development.</p>
<p><a href="https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/tay-sachs-disease/">Tay-Sachs</a> is a severe neurological disease caused by a deficiency in an enzyme called HexA. This enzyme breaks down a fatlike substance that normally exists in very small, harmless amounts in the brain. Without HexA, however, this fatlike substance can accumulate to toxic levels that damage and kill neurons. </p>
<p>One of the symptoms of this disease was first described in 1883 by British ophthalmologist <a href="https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/warren-tay-1843-1927">Warren Tay</a>, who saw a cherry-red spot on the back of the eye of affected infants. In 1887, American neurologist <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097%2F00005053-188714090-00001">Bernard Sachs</a> described the profound neurological symptoms of Tay-Sachs in a seminal paper:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“… Nothing abnormal was noticed until the age of two to three months, when the parents observed that the child was much more listless than children of that age. … The child would ordinarily lay upon its back, and was never able to change its position … it never attempted any voluntary movement … the child grew steadily weaker, it ceased to take its food properly, its bronchial troubles increased, and finally, pneumonia set in, it died August, 1886.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This dismal description of Tay-Sachs <a href="https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/tay-sachs-disease/">remains current</a>, and those with the disease usually die by age 5. Some people develop Tay-Sachs later in life, with symptoms starting in their teens that get progressively worse over many decades.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Illustration of a cherry-red spot on the retina of someone with Tay-Sachs" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445732/original/file-20220210-40846-10w6ivu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Patients with Tay-Sachs often have a cherry-red spot in the retina of their eyes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/eye-retina-in-tay-sachs-disease-illustration-royalty-free-image/1359398669">Kateryna Kon/Science Photo Library via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately there is still no treatment for Tay-Sachs. Aggressive medical treatment can extend survival but doesn’t improve neurological function. The only effective way to treat Tay-Sachs is to restore the HexA enzyme in the brain. This is difficult, however, because the <a href="https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/tay-sachs-disease/">blood-brain barrier</a> prevents most molecules from passing into the brain.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Miguel-Sena-Esteves">I am</a> a member of a team of researchers from UMass Chan Medical School and Auburn University who developed a gene therapy that may help get around this barrier. Our treatment uses two harmless viral vectors to deliver DNA instructions to brain cells that teach them how to produce the missing enzyme. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-021-00017-7">Similar techniques</a> have been used to treat a number of <a href="https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/lysosomal-storage-disorders/">related diseases</a> and other conditions. In the case of Tay-Sachs, these DNA instructions enter the nucleus of these cells and stay there, allowing for long-term production of HexA. Based on our previous studies successfully testing our gene therapy on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.06.021">different</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/gt.2014.108">animal</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2017.163">species</a>, we believe that delivering the treatment to a central part of the brain allows the enzyme to travel along its connections to other regions and to be distributed throughout the entire brain.</p>
<p>The first child who received our gene therapy treatment was age 2 ½, with late-stage disease symptoms. Three months after treatment, they had better muscle control and could focus their eyes. Now at age 5, the child is in stable health and is seizure-free, which usually isn’t possible for patients at this age. A second child treated at age 7 months had improved brain development by the three-month follow-up and remains seizure-free at a little over age 2. </p>
<p>More testing is needed to confirm whether our treatment can fully stop disease progression. Given that this was the first time our treatment was given to humans, we used a conservative dose below the maximum therapeutic effects we saw in our animal studies. My colleagues and I are currently conducting a follow-up clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of increasing doses in a larger number of patients.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e3jlXm6CLns?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Researching rare diseases can lead to advances in medicine as a whole.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2021.03.024">increasing cost</a> of manufacturing these treatments makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to develop and test gene therapy for many ultrarare diseases where the number of patients worldwide is very small and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/clairenovorol/2020/02/28/the-challenges-of-combating-rare-diseasesand-five-innovations-making-a-real-difference/?sh=2ece2a1235a5">profitability low</a>.</p>
<p>We were able to deliver these treatments to the children in our ongoing clinical trials thanks only to funding from a generous family whose own child is a participant. This grassroots approach is a <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/30/rare-disease-crowdfund-purnell/">common theme</a> in ultrarare disease research – development and testing are often supported by parents, foundations and federal grants.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.umassmed.edu/translational-institute-for-molecular-therapeutics/">Translational Institute for Molecular Therapeutics</a> program at UMass Chan Medical School focuses on developing more viral vector gene therapies for an ever-expanding number of ultrarare diseases in collaboration with families and foundations. We believe every patient afflicted with any of the approximately <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41573-019-00180-y">7,000 rare diseases</a> worldwide deserves a chance at a normal life.</p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters?nl=science&source=inline-science-corona-important">Get The Conversation’s most important coronavirus headlines, weekly in a science newsletter</a></em>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Miguel Sena-Esteves received funding from several foundations (National Tay-Sachs and Allied Disease Association, Cure Tay-Sachs Foundation, and the BluGenes Foundation) and the National Institutes of Health during development of the AAV gene therapy for Tay-Sachs disease</span></em></p>Tay-Sachs is a rare and fatal neurodegerative disorder that most commonly affects children. Researchers have developed the first Tay-Sachs treatment to reach clinical trials.Miguel Sena-Esteves, Associate Professor of Neurology, UMass Chan Medical SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1765362022-02-10T19:04:13Z2022-02-10T19:04:13ZThe push for ‘researcher entrepreneurs’ could be a step backward for gender equity<p>Scott Morrison recently <a href="https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-pursues-commercialisation-of-australian-research-with-2-billion-new-money-176033">announced</a> a $2.2 billion <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/university-research-commercialisation-package/resources/university-research-commercialisation-action-plan">Research Commercialisation Action Plan</a> for the next ten years. The plan centres on a competitive grant scheme to promote start-ups and industry partnerships. The prime minister’s message to universities was clear: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“we need to find and develop a new breed of researcher entrepreneurs in Australia”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The statement came on the heels of a <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/letter-expectations-minister-arc">letter of expectations</a> from the acting minister for education and youth to the Australian Research Council in which he encouraged greater collaboration with industry, particularly the manufacturing sector.</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>What might we expect from the rise of researcher entrepreneurs in Australian universities? Who are likely to be seen as exemplars of this new breed?</p>
<p>Given the male-dominated makeup of the industry partners who are meant to lead the commercialisation of research, what we might realistically expect is a major step backward for gender equity in Australian universities.</p>
<h2>Industry stakeholders’ gender gap</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/publications/gender-workplace-statistics-at-a-glance-2021#women-in-leadership">Workplace Gender Equity Agency data</a> paint a grim picture. Women hold only 14.6% of chair positions and 28.1% of directorships in Australia. A mere 18.3% of CEOs and 32.5% of key management personnel are women. Gender equity in leadership roles has even <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/absolutely-no-progress-number-of-female-ceos-in-australia-is-declining-20200916-p55w5m.html">gone backwards</a> in recent years.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/publications/gender-workplace-statistics-at-a-glance-2021#women-in-leadership">Nearly a third of boards and governing bodies</a> have no female directors. By contrast, <a href="http://aicd.companydirectors.com.au/advocacy/board-diversity/statistics">less than 1% of boards</a> have no male directors.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing percentages of boards with no men or no women, 2013-2020" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=196&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=196&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=196&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445544/original/file-20220209-13-1bu97cd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=247&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="source" href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2019-20%20Gender%20Equality%20Scorecard_FINAL.pdf">WGEA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sociological research on business culture can shed light on why these statistics at the highest reaches of industry are so skewed. By understanding how the social networks that support business financing operate, we can begin to appreciate how industry partnerships are likely to be funded. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-governments-2-2bn-10-year-plan-get-a-better-return-on-australian-research-it-all-depends-on-changing-the-culture-176358">Will the government's $2.2bn, 10-year plan get a better return on Australian research? It all depends on changing the culture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An investment culture of patronage</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cover of the book Hedged Out by Megan Tobias Neely" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445338/original/file-20220209-25-hxnwjq.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520307704/hedged-out">UC Press</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A recent insider account of investment culture in one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street focuses on the analysts and traders who manage large financial portfolios. In her book <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520307704/hedged-out">Hedged Out: Inequality and Insecurity on Wall Street</a>, Megan Tobian Neely offers a peek into the highly competitive world of corporate power brokers who make up the financial elite. </p>
<p>Neely’s ethnography follows those connections through what she calls a system of patronage. That is, using one’s own status and power to invest in, support or promote another person. For financial elite at hedge funds, she <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Hedged_Out/5GhEEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%E2%80%9Cselect+group+of+white+men+groom+and+transfer+capital+to+other+elite+white+men%E2%80%9D&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover">writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“patronage is how a select group of white men groom and transfer capital to other elite white men”. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/entrepreneurial-selves">entrepreneurship is not a gender-neutral term</a>. The tight-knit networks that are the source of investment capital create a system of patronage that has redefined the capacity to manage risk and insecurity as a masculine attribute. </p>
<p>It’s not that women are pushed out of the boardroom on purpose. Instead, it’s about cultivating <em>insiders</em>. Protecting one’s investment means relying on investors who are like them, think alike, have the same values, who can help them get ahead, and who are overwhelmingly male.</p>
<p>Research on the professional managerial class in Australia suggests these patterns of patronage are not unique to the rarefied heights of Wall Street investing. Owen McNamara’s Canberra-based <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/taja.12331">study</a> of workplace culture in the Australian Public Service underscored the importance of what one of his research participants dubbed “making coin” from the industry network. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-false-economy-of-sacking-public-servants-in-favour-of-consultants-20180112-h0hlom.html">integration of the public service with consultancy firms</a> relies on a business culture suffused with male bonding. It’s not just locker-room talk. Networkers operate through the easy friendships, banter and camaraderie that comes from shared experience. </p>
<p>Women and gender-diverse people, as well as workers from different socioeconomic backgrounds, struggle to be included. And often they are the butt of the joke. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An all-male modern boardroom" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445298/original/file-20220209-17-1vz9xka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/445298/original/file-20220209-17-1vz9xka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445298/original/file-20220209-17-1vz9xka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445298/original/file-20220209-17-1vz9xka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445298/original/file-20220209-17-1vz9xka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445298/original/file-20220209-17-1vz9xka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/445298/original/file-20220209-17-1vz9xka.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">Male-dominated business culture isn’t a thing of the past.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What about women’s networks?</h2>
<p>These industry networks are the waters in which academic researcher entrepreneurs are expected to swim. These are the invisible social channels and patronage relationships that open the tap of investment. </p>
<p>Patronage relationships convince stakeholders in business to take a risk on unproven ideas. No matter how promising the research, it will be difficult to secure funding for researchers – particularly women and gender-diverse scholars – relegated to the outer edges of the network.</p>
<p>My research on women who start small businesses in Latin America indicates these are global challenges. There, <a href="https://culanth.org/fieldsights/your-family-and-friends-are-collateral-microfinance-and-the-social">women face barriers</a> when trying to leverage their informal interdependencies and social ties, which often fail to convert into individual success and wealth. </p>
<p>Within universities, women’s informal networks and support mechanisms often translate into <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2">higher internal service burdens</a>. This inward-facing networking includes undervalued work such as serving on university committees, program supervision, student recruitment and so on. Women, LGBTQIA+ and faculty of colour also do most of the <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/90007882">extra invisible labour</a> of making universities better and more equitable places to work. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1489727534195519488"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-the-ideal-worker-myth-unis-need-to-become-more-inclusive-for-all-women-men-will-benefit-too-156107">Forget the ideal worker myth. Unis need to become more inclusive for all women (men will benefit too)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These are not the advantageous external patronage connections that propel investments and business partnerships.</p>
<h2>Can research commercialisation support gender equity?</h2>
<p>We can’t simply add gender diversity and stir. Even once we recognise the problem of an insular network through which investment opportunities flow, the solutions aren’t easy. </p>
<p>How can we counter the troubling gender equity effects of pushing researcher entrepreneurs in universities? We can do this via two mutually reinforcing pathways.</p>
<p>First, we can strive for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002">feminist organisational structures</a> that more evenly distribute opportunities and decision-making power. This is an alternative to promoting academic #gurlbosses.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-mentoring-for-women-risks-propping-up-patriarchal-structures-instead-of-changing-them-157965">Why mentoring for women risks propping up patriarchal structures instead of changing them</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Second, we might rethink the value of interdisciplinary scholarship in tackling wicked problems like gender injustice. This perspective is key to successful commercialisation and should not be deemed inferior to patents and inventions. </p>
<p>What good is a recovery plan for “<a href="https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-pursues-commercialisation-of-australian-research-with-2-billion-new-money-176033">building national resilience</a>”, after all, if the benefits only flow to a select few?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176536/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caroline Schuster receives funding from The Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>The male-dominated makeup of the industry partners who are meant to lead the commercialisation of research could undermine the work towards gender equity in Australian universities.Caroline Schuster, Senior Lecturer, School of Archaeology and Anthropology; Director, Australian National Centre for Latin American Studies, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.