In January 2001 Adrian Gibbs, wrote:

 

Australia needs an in-depth study of the structure of its science 'industry' to devise new ways that will foster the career and skill building of younger scientists, foster innovation, expose established scientists to selection based on their ability to do good science, not just build networks. There are lots of ways in which this could be achieved by small modifications of the existing system, and by diminishing the influence of those described by Prof Barry Ninham as the bureausaurs:  1)  Science priorities should be set by bodies that have a majority of active working scientists / industrialists, etc not bureausaurs;  2)  The major funding bodies should abandon their present charade of 'external refereeing' and large selection panels, and replace them with small paid selection panels of top scientists, who examine and compare all competing proposals; one panel to assess the quality of the proposals, another separate panel to assess the quality of past endeavours; 3)      A significant proportion of research funding should be reserved for young non-tenured scientists, and should be awarded to them without the requirement for the assured patronage of an older established person, and should be fully and independently funded for a minimum of 5 years. The older tenured staff would then have to compete for younger staff, who would be free to move if better scientific opportunities appeared elsewhere, or where required, for the optimal realization of their work. Younger scientists would in this way be setting some of the scientific agenda, and be able to build their own skills and careers.

And just over eight years later, in May 2009, Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Science, pointed out in commenting on the 2009-10 federal budget, that while funding for an additional 100 post-doctoral fellowships is highly commended and appreciated, there is still a critical lack of support for mid-career researchers. He also noted  that the budget's focus is on material infrastructure; human infrastructure still doesn't get a great deal of attention. Support for mid-career researchers is needed to ensure the next generation of university teachers and scientists. "We do need people in the future who can make effective use of the new state-of-the-art facilities [funded by the Super Science initiative]".

Unfortunately, the issues raised by Professor Gibbs are still with us and in certain ways have become exacerbated. The stultifying of creativity that probably will be an outcome of  Labor's rebadging of the Coalition's Research Quality Framework into the awkwardly named Excellence in Research for Australia is likely to be exacerbated by the enforcement of a hubs and spokes approach.

Why?

Because -- instead of substantially increased and appropriately allocated research funding being made directly available to principle investigators by a thoroughly revamped ARC and NHMRC peer review system -- with a significant proportion for early and mid-career researchers with creative imaginations -- the resources will be funnelled through the bureausauric system.

With rare exceptions university administrations work hard to perpetuate the illusion that universities are entities somehow distinct from their research and teaching faculties. A not unreasonable analogy would be a hospital with an administration but lacking, doctors, surgeons and nurses.