Australia's Public Grants System Needs a Full Restructuring Says Brian Schmidt. (November 16, 2012)

When one of the three men awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae tells you that his nation's system of awarding publicly funded research grants is broken to the extent that it needs an extreme makeover, there is a reasonable likelihood that it may be worthwhile listening to him.

Brian Schmidt in a November 14, 2012 opinion piece for The Australian opens by chiding: "While the research community usually focuses on how many research dollars are flowing into the sector, it is of supreme importance that the R&D sector uses its constrained resources effectively to create the knowledge and skill base that will power Australia's economy."

One of the matters disturbing Professor Schmidt is what he sees as those principal investigators as has, are the ones as gets: "I just think we should be aiming for a process that is much more efficient. I also note that it is not just the wizened professors who we need to be worrying about, we need to focus our attention on the research that will lead to the next Nobel Prize or major scientific innovation," and he goes on to note that failure to obtain an ARC grant can mean "having to let go staff, and using your salary to support your research for the next year" because for many researchers the ARC is the only possible source of funding. Typically, 20% of applicants learn of their success, while also learning by how much much their request has been cut -- often 40% to 50%.

Professor Schmidt also refers to a matter that should be rectified but is virtually ignored, the lack of qualified peer reviewers: "It is not at all clear whether this cumbersome process is actually able to judge good projects from bad, because of what is ultimately a lack of specific expertise in the subject area of each grant. This problem is exacerbated by strict conflict-of-interest rules and the small size of our academic community. In the end, intended or not, proposals are largely judged based on the perceived track record of the investigators."

The persistent refusal by both the ARC and the NHMRC to make use of modern communications technology to overcome this problem is nothing short of a disgrace and as Professor Schmidt says rather more fully and politely: "People with track records, such as myself, are almost always successful, but the process makes it exceedingly difficult for young people to get a foot in the door to do independent research - and they are at a stage when researchers are arguably at their most productive. Fellowships, especially for young people without an established track record, are awarded by panels without any letters of recommendation and largely by people not expert in the field."

Furthermore, if you do receive a grant, chances are it will be "highly prescriptive [which serves] to limit a researcher's ability to spend grant money where it is most needed. And all of this administration is done by the ARC, which has an overhead of less than 2% - substantially lower than its international counterparts. The system is strained to the point where the administrative savings are outstripped by the shortcomings imposed."

So what suggestions does Professor Schmidt propose for improvement?

"[S]ubstantially streamlining the grant proposal system, aligning and co-ordinating the compliance requirements between the ARC and the National Health and Medical Research Council, lengthening the term and funding level of the average grant, and ensuring under-funded grants have a plan to use their funds effectively. But the ARC has been patched so many times, I think it is time to think of a more fundamental change." [our emphasis]

He goes on to offer his approach to overcoming the lack of adequate peer review within Australia: "I advocate investing more of the research dollar in groups in five-year contracts - like Britain's "rolling" grants. Funding can be aggregated based on the collective track record of a group over the previous five years and a plan for the next five years. This model allows the group to make strategic decisions on how to allocate funding shortfalls across several projects."

But does this approach really address the problem of inadequate peer assessment and chronic under funding of research proposals? We would suggest that the reviewer base should be markedly broadened using the increasing powers of communications technology and earmarking sufficient funding for the best of young researchers -- and where warranted -- funding interdisciplinary proposals of consortia of young researchers.