Just
Whose Rump is Being Covered? (February 23, 2005)
|
News & Views item - February 2005 |
Just
Whose Rump is Being Covered? (February 23, 2005)
On December 15 TFW wrote following a story broken by The Australian's Dorothy Illing:
Shades of the Bush Administration? (December 15, 2004)
Over the past couple of years the administration of US President George W Bush has accumulated a well earned reputation for politicising science. Now, whether in emulation or not the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, and to whom the Australian Research Council (ARC) is responsible has overridden the assessment of ARC peer reviewers and canned several approved research grants.
That was followed a month later with:
...Next week, according to the Australian Financial Review's Sophie Morris, the vice-chancellor of Sydney University, Gavin Brown, will allude to the matter in his address to the inaugural Global Colloquium of University Presidents, which will be hosted by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, at New York's Columbia University. Mr Annan will chair plenary sessions on academic freedom and on managing international migration.
Professor Brown told the Financial Review, "I think the appropriate thing is for peer review to be respected. It's a very slippery slope if one has any kind of veto power. I believe there have been cases of particular grants being vetoed at the last moment, despite having gone through all the recommendations of the peer-review process. I believe that is wrong."
Last Wednesday (February 16) During Senate Estimates Senator Kim Carr (Victoria) raised the matter once again. In the Gun was the CEO of the Australian Research Council Peter Høj and members of his staff. In addition Senator Amanda Vanstone (SA) representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson.
Below in its entirety is the transcript of the exchange. It would appear that the apparatchiks of the Department of Education, Science and Training have already got Professor Høj well trained even though he has been the ARC's head for only four months.
|
SENATE Senator CARR—How many ARC grants were issued in the last round? Prof. Hoj—From memory, there were 1,387. I am sure my colleagues will correct me if I am wrong. Senator CARR—That is fine. How many of the grants were vetoed by the minister? Prof. Hoj—I would like to answer that question by reminding you about the ARC Act. The process for looking at grant applications is that the board sets up a committee—a so-called college of experts. That committee makes a recommendation to the board, the board considers the committee’s recommendations and then forwards its recommendations to the minister, and the minister has the prerogative to either approve or not approve the recommendations from the board. In this particular case, I think it is a matter of public record that the minister found that some grants should not be approved. Senator CARR—Which ones were they? Senator Vanstone—As a matter of interest, I think I recall when I was the relevant minister for this doing that myself on one occasion, but I cannot recall what the particular grant was. The officers might be able to help me, as there would be a history of that somewhere. Senator CARR—They might. How many grants did the minister decide to veto? Prof. Hoj—The minister decided to not fund two grants in the round which we announced in November. Senator CARR—What were those two grants? Prof. Hoj—The ARC has always had the policy of not releasing information that could identify the unsuccessful applicants. We do not think it is good for their professional standing, so I would not like to give you that information. Senator CARR—Under the act are you not required to publish directions from the minister? Mr Harper—We are required to publish directions from the minister. Senator CARR—Was this a direction from the minister? Mr Harper—It was in the nature of an exercise of the minister’s power. I would not have seen it as a direction of the minister. Senator CARR—How would he otherwise do it? Mr Harper—The minister received a set of recommendations from the board and took decisions. Senator CARR—He took decisions by directing the ARC not to fund those grants. Prof. Hoj—No. It is the minister who approves the funding. The ARC itself does not approve the funding. The minister exercised his prerogative. Senator CARR—What were the research fields of these two grants that were rejected by the minister? Prof. Hoj—As I said to you before, we understand why you are interested, but I am sure that you will also understand that releasing any information that in any way could lead to an identification of the unsuccessful applicants is something that we would do very reluctantly. Senator CARR—The chairman of this committee read a statement at the beginning of the proceedings stating that there was no area of expenditure that we are exempt from. CHAIR—That is, expenditure, Senator. Senator CARR—This is an expenditure. CHAIR—We are talking about the revelation of people’s names. I do not think that is expenditure. Senator CARR—I asked for the research areas covered by these two grants. Prof. Hoj—At the ARC we divide the wide range of activities we fund into six areas, starting with biological sciences, going across several areas to engineering and then environmental sciences. In this particular case, it is my recollection that both these grants were in the area that we classify as humanities and creative arts. Senator CARR—Which universities were they from? Prof. Hoj—I cannot recall that detail. Senator CARR—Are any of the other officers able to refresh my memory? This is such an uncommon event. Prof. Hoj—At any rate, we are starting to identify who the applicants were. It is hard for me to see what additional value we get from knowing what universities the applications came from. Senator CARR—It tells me whether or not it is a university that has a reputation for excellence in humanities research. If we are talking about Greenwich or a place like that—one of these ‘fly-by-night’ operations that the government seems so keen to approve—it might be a different proposition. But, if it is humanities at Melbourne University I might be very concerned that the minister has chosen not to fund a grant for that university. Prof. Hoj—You will realise that I am fairly new to this position. I am perhaps now straying into an area where I should not, but I believe you can find good and bad research in most organisations. Senator CARR—Yes, you can. You certainly will not find a ministerial office as being the font of all wisdom on research. That is why you are there to provide advice to this parliament, isn’t it? Prof. Hoj—We provide advice. Senator CARR—To this parliament? Prof. Hoj—We provide advice. We get 5,000 applications each year and more than 99.99 per cent of the recommendations we make are acted upon, as we recommend them to be acted upon. Senator CARR—How many other grants has the minister vetoed in his time as education minister? Prof. Hoj—I might have to give that question to Stephen Walker, who has a longer tenure at the ARC than I have. Dr Walker—In the four years that I have been at the ARC I know of one other instance where the minister has declined to approve a grant. Senator CARR—What field was that in? Dr Walker—My understanding is that that was also in humanities and creative arts. Senator CARR—So there have been recommendations in that period—many thousands, perhaps 4,000, 4,500 grants—and three have been knocked back? Prof. Hoj—I stand to be corrected, but I think the ARC probably have about 5,000 active grants at any one time. Senator CARR—I am just thinking about the number of recommendations you have made to the minister, in the period when he has been the minister. He has chosen to reject three in humanities, and you do not want to tell me which three they are. Dr Walker—I think the numbers you indicated were more or less correct. Senator CARR—You do not want to tell me which three they are? Prof. Hoj—We would prefer not to. Senator CARR—I ask you to put that on notice, and I want to know the reasons why you will not provide that information. Prof. Hoj—We will take that on advice. Senator CARR—Will you take that on notice and provide reasons as to why you will not provide that information to this committee? Prof. Hoj—Yes, and I have indicated to you that we believe that we need to protect the identity of the unsuccessful applicants. Senator CARR—You will have to do better than that. Thank you very much. I will pursue the matter in June.
CHAIR—I thank the officers. |
Somehow we believe that it would be at least equally probable that those applicants who had their applications approved by their peers as well as then passed by the ARC board but vetoed by the minister would like to know that. All they know is that they got knocked back not that they were singled out by the minister who seems unwilling to declare openly that he knows better than the "college of experts" set up by the ARC board. Or perhaps they have been told and been informed that it might be wise to remain silent.
EMPLOYMENT,
WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND EDUCATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE