The President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS), Professor Tom Spurling in the March Issue of Australasian Science points out --

The National Research Priorities (announced in 2002) and CSIRO’s Flagships (2003) have tried to address priorities, but both have failed to capture the imagination of the nation or even the scientific community. Moreover, there is little value in setting research priorities if these are not coherently connected to funding and policy initiatives to enable adoption and commercial use of the knowledge gained.

But that shouldn't come as a surprise; the four priorities in their final form as enunciated in 2003 are tantamount to statements favouring motherhood when the supply of germ cells is below threshold level.

AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE AUSTRALIA
Transforming the way we utilise our land, water, mineral and energy resources through a
better understanding of human and environmental systems and the use of new technologies

PROMOTING AND MAINTAINING GOOD HEALTH
Promoting good health and well being for all Australians

FRONTIER TECHNOLOGIES FOR BUILDING AND
TRANSFORMING AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES
Stimulating the growth of world-class Australian industries using innovative technologies developed from cutting-edge research

SAFEGUARDING AUSTRALIA
Safeguarding Australia from terrorism, crime, invasive diseases and pests, strengthening our understanding of Australia’s place in
the region and the world, and securing our infrastructure, particularly with respect to our digital systems

In any case Peter McGauran, who as Minister for Science under Brendan Nelson, and who was ultimately responsible for these research priorities, was invited to go elsewhere as Dr Nelson no longer required his services -- the good doctor would manage the science portfolio All By Himself.

During Dr. Nelson's "second term" as Minister for Education, Science and Training he really got stuck into the business of telling the academics and scientists just how things were gonna be.

Consultation? Well, it amounted to Dr Nelson not interrupting when he allowed those for whom he was responsible to voice their opinions and assessments. Actually listening didn't seem to be a matter of consequence.

No matter, what was of consequence was to bring the academic and research establishments to heel, as long as minimal expenditure was involved.

Leaving aside matters of reducing the power of university staff unions and outlawing compulsory payment of student unions fees, the government through the Minister would need to gain much more immediate control of research funding.

And so the Research Quality Framework (RQF), conceived in May 2004, would be the tool as Dr Nelson perceived it, to allocate 100% of the Institutional Grants Scheme and 50% of the Research Training Scheme.

If the RQF were to be developed at arms length from the government it might have some credibility, but there was no intention of that. The Expert Advisory Group, consisting of twelve individuals, were to bring forth a preferred model for an RQF for consideration by the Minister.

After considerable wrangling the EAG's preferred model was disgorged in December last year, just in time for Dr Nelson to move to the Defence portfolio, leaving Julie Bishop to savour its contents.

But before the "preferred model" was in his hands, Dr Nelson must have felt that the research establishment was being just a tad too uppity even though he had already vetoed several approved Australian Research Council (ARC) grant proposals in 2004 and again in 2005 (no reasons given) and told the ARC's board members their services were no longer required but the quality and scrutiny committee needed some additional members (for political correcting?) who are, according to Peter Hoj, CEO of the ARC, "three other so-called community reps, who are Paddy McGuinness, Sir Daryl Dawson and Mr Ross Symonds."

Prof. Hoj— ...We outlined that in 2004 that the minister declined to approve three recommendations that we put to him.

 

Senator WONG—In 2004.

 

Prof. Hoj—2004 for funding in 2005.

 

Senator STEPHENS—How many did he decline this year? So three in 2004-05.

 

Prof. Hoj—Yes.

 

Senator STEPHENS—In 2005-06?

 

Prof. Hoj—I believe it has been widely promulgated that the minister this year declined to approve seven recommendations that were put to him.

 

[EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS & EDUCATION -- Senate Estimates, 15 February 2006 p11]

But there was more --

Senator STEPHENS—Let us move on... to the whole issue of the ARC and the research quality framework. In the November estimates, the department told us that they would initiate a public process to work out how the RQF would apply to both the ARC and the NHMRC. Can you provide us with an update of that progress and your considerations of the application of the RQF to the ARC?
 

Prof. Hoj—I think it would have to be in general terms, because the minister has tasked DEST to do that. So you should direct those questions to DEST. The general picture of the RQF is that the expert advisory group met in late December to finalise its advice to the then minister. It was expected that sometime in 2006 a final proposed model for the RQF would be released, following ministerial approval or modification of the advice given to the minister. I assume that the reason why we have not seen further developments in this area is because of the change of minister, and this complex issue rightly requires detailed familiarisation with it before further developments.
    That is where I think it is at, but the exact process that DEST intend to follow to look at this issue of the RQF and its possible application to other government funded initiatives is one that you would have to explore with DEST.

 

[EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS & EDUCATION -- Senate Estimates, 15 February 2006 p10]

 

However, the matter wasn't raised again during the hearings, but it's unlikely that any additional information would have been forthcoming.

What is remarkable is the grotesque lack of rational behaviour on the part of the government in dealing with the nation's scientists and academics. Were an objective assessment made of the situation how many billions of dollars would be calculated to have been squandered in the ten years of coalition rule through under resourcing while bullying the sectors on which the nation will be most reliant over the coming decades as raw commodities contribute decreasing amounts to the nation's gross domestic product?

And all the while the current account deficient will expand.

Surely looking to short term political gain isn't in the best interests even of sixty-year-old politicians.

Julie Bishop in addressing the House on February 15 in regard to repealing ministerial responsibility for approval of the abortion inducing drug RU486 gave an unemotional, carefully reasoned and well-documented critique in favour of repeal which illustrated her legal background. Whether or not she will carry such reasoning and analysis through to her principal ministerial duties, or be allowed to do so, will become evident over the next few months.

Which brings us back to the Research Quality Framework. So far there has been no compelling demonstration that Britain's Research Assessment Exercise has had a significantly beneficial effect on the quality of research in the United Kingdom, despite all the hand waving in support by its proponents. Certainly the quality of science in Britain during the period has improved. But during the period the resources per se put into science have greatly increased. And concurrently the US has no RAE or equivalent in place but there is a strong reliance on a system of peer review.

 Will Ms Bishop demand and undertake an assessment of the roles the ARC should take in evaluating and funding research projects? Will she institute a strengthening and internationalisation of its peer review system and boost the funding of indirect costs to realistically defray costs?

Will  she undertake to begin to overcome the damage done to the nation's public tertiary education infrastructure because of inadequate indexing of university block grants?

When she undertakes to talk to academics and scientists; will she go beyond the administrators (even to the point of talking to post docs and grad students?), and will she listen and think about what's told her and yes even interrogate to be able to assess how valid the assertions are?

In the case of Brendan Nelson the strong indications were that he had no interest in his portfolio of Education, Science and Training other than to use it as a vehicle for political advancement.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web