ARC's New CEO, Peter Høj, Speaks in Generalities as Regards Possible Sweeping Changes in Research Funding. (October 27, 2004)

    In his first public statement since become CEO of the Australian Research Council (ARC) three weeks ago, Peter Høj spoke to The Australian's Dorothy Illing. Understandably he discussed his intentions for the ARC in general terms but what he did say suggests the possibility of sweeping changes in how the ARC may "do business" under his stewardship. Yet he was a pains to emphasise that to date he had taken no decisions.

The question of the appropriate balance between discovery and linkage grants, i.e. the funding ratio between basic and applied research, was the first point mentioned in Illing's article. Considering that the percentage of ARC funding has been going increasingly to applied research at the expense of non-medical fundamental research -- a matter of considerable concern because the ARC funds virtually all non-medical basic research in Australia -- will be, or at least should be, closely watched by the opposition parties as well as academe.

Illing also reports that, "Professor Høj questioned whether the ARC spent a disproportionate amount of its funds assessing grant applications through peer review," though the percentage of ARC's $480 million budget is allocated for peer review wasn't stated, nor what alternatives Peter Høj has in mind wasn't revealed. Were it to indicate the determination of funding by ARC administration under the direction of Federal Cabinet the consequences could be horrific. Høj somewhat ambiguously opined "he was not convinced that the ARC paid enough attention to the outcomes of that [peer reviewed] research."

Finally, he was exercised that ARC's limited funding may be spread to thinly, i.e. to many small grants which result in inadequate funding for outstanding projects. And exacerbating the problem is the matter that ARC grants cover only about 53 per cent of the total cost of projects. The remainder is met by other funding schemes often from universities' block funds. Høj told Illing bluntly, "At the moment, with the amount of money in the kitty, the only way we can fund the full cost of research is to either get more money [a move he considered unlikely] . . . or reduce the success rate [of grant applications]."