Accusations of Block Grant Manipulation Divide University Sector. (May 27, 2009)

In an interview with The Australian's Bernard Lane, the vice-chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, Ross Milbourne, indicated that some Group of Eight universities are using marriages of convenience with medical research institutes to inflate their research income and prestige and to secure an unfair slice of sought-after block funds for infrastructure.

And it is of course the darling of  Senator Kim Carr, the Excellence in Research for Australia that if brought to parturition, will have such a marked influence on the apportionment of block grant funding.

What has caused a deepening resentment by universities with little ability to develop external research relationships is as Mr Lane notes: "A joint government-university review of how research income is reported and begun this month under the leadership of Edwina Cornish, representing deputy vice-chancellors for research, and Anne Byrne, from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. The review should finish in mid-August." That in turn stems from a 2006 change in the assessing of research funding which allows "so-called joint-venture income to be reported to Canberra, meaning it counts towards the competition for research block funds".

In Professor Milbourne's view a university should not be allowed to report grant income unless it paid at least 50 per cent of the researcher's salary. A suggestion rejected out of hand by both Sydney and Melbourne universities.

John Ingleson, a deputy vice-chancellor at the University of Western Sydney pointed out to Mr Lane: "In 2005, universities as a whole declared just $4.6 million in joint-venture income. In 2006 it was $71 million; in 2007 it was $152million," and went on to say, "It's not just the money (that motivates universities). You use the amount of research income as a proxy for research standing".

One vice-chancellor, requesting anonymity, said: "Now what people are doing is palling up with all of the hospitals where people are doing research, all of the government departments where people are doing research," and claimed that some of the older universities had struck deals whereby they put NHMRC grants won by medical research institutes through the university books. The universities passed on to the institutes 100 per cent of the grants, as well as an agreed share of the extra money secured in research block funds. These funds were intended for universities, not institutes.

In rebuttal Melbourne University's deputy vice-chancellor for research Peter Rathjen told Mr Lane: "It's almost a tall poppy syndrome: 'We're looking to pull back a couple of strong performers in the medical space," and he noted the new $161 million Parkville Neuroscience Facility was an example of the kind of shared investment that showed the genuine nature and large-scale investment of university-institute partnerships: "You won't be able to tell whether it's a university lab or a somebody else lab. The labs are interspersed so we can get the best science done."

Macquarie University's vice-chancellor, Steven Schwartz, suggested that the Gordian Knot could be cut: "One possible way to improve the system is to end (research infrastructure block) funding and tie overhead and infrastructure funds directly to commonwealth research grants. Every grant comes with overhead funds, the system in place in the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health in the US.

"Medical research institutes would get their overheads funded directly, as would any other recipient of an NHRMC grant, so they would no longer be motivated to collude with universities."

He made no suggestion as to how the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research might be weaned off his ERA, and then of course there is the matter of university administration's relinquishing some of their financial powers. All of which is be way of saying of course -- that it's a damn good suggestion.