There's More to Universities' Infrastructure than Sandstone, Bricks and I-Beams. (October 22, 2008)

Fast-tracking the beginnings of upgrading universities' inanimate infrastructure of capital and research facilities is welcome news even though being bred from the world's current financial woes. However, it leaves unaddressed the inadequate funding of the research to be undertaken within the new or refurbished walls.

The Australian Research Council's (ARC) National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP) maintains that:

As part of its commitment to nurturing the creative abilities and skills of Australia's most promising researchers, the NCGP provides:

• support for the highest-quality research leading to the discovery of new ideas and the advancement of knowledge

• financial assistance towards facilities and equipment that researchers need to be internationally competitive

• support for the training and skills development of the next generation of researchers

• incentives for Australia’s most talented researchers to work in partnership with leading researchers throughout the national innovation system and internationally, and to form alliances with Australian industry.

But for year after year those grants are inadequately funded. One researcher, a Sydney University Medallist who went on to Stanford University to obtain his PhD in engineering and returned to an Australian academic appointment eventually went back to California. The move was triggered by a European colleague who said: "Leon, you're doing some damn good work -- for a cripple."

The ARC's Discovery Grants are the backbone of non-medical university research but the number of applications has risen significantly over recent years, and this year only one application in five (20.4%) was successful. Furthermore, while Discovery Projects grant funding has on average risen above 60% of successful applicants' requests only once in the past five years -- in 2005 it was 61% -- this year it reached a new low of 54%.

The ARC has set itself a floor of 20% for application success rates which has lead at least some in the research community to voice suspicions that the ARC is able to keep the success rate for applications above 20% by approving grants at a substantially reduced allocation for each project.

Professor Margaret Sheil, ARC's CEO told The Australian's Jill Rowbotham: "Researchers ask for more, in the expectation they will be cut. What I think of as fully funded is about 80% of the ask."

So what is the current state of play?

Say you ask for a grant of $100,000 + on-costs of 28% (real oncosts will probably be 55% but 28% is what the ARC allows)

You had hoped to get $80,000 + oncosts = $102,400

You will need to get (your university will need to supply) an additional $21,600 to make up the oncost deficit = $124,000

You get $54,000 + oncosts = $70,000 from the ARC

In short your research will be underfunded by $54,000, and that's allowing that you only expected to get an $80,000 grant.

Perhaps Professor Sheil felt she had tossed off a good one-liner but she, the government, and the nation are dealing with a very serious problem in cutting the legs out from under the university research community, and it will not be solved through one line quips.