t the June Senate Estimates inquiries Senator Carr (Labor, Victoria) asked the costs to date of the six reviews that the Minister for Eduction, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, has directed his department undertake. It comes to something over $3.6 million of which the "Research and Infrastructure Taskforce" accounts for $440,000 while the "Science and Innovation Mapping Project" has received another $930,000.

    However, these costs are a minor consideration compared to what has the earmarks of a preordained cost cutting exercise in amalgamations which in all probability will result in a further dumbing down of Australian research and its inevitable consequences on the quality of Australia's enabling sciences community, innovation, medical science, industrial research and in due course the community's wellbeing.

    The process is comparable to the insidious damage we are heir to with the damage to our river systems, devastation through land salinity or, to get close up and personal, the effect of progressive senile psychoses.

And it's not as if we haven't been warned. It takes really only a small effort to pick through the material published by Dr. Nelson's department to gauge the thrust of the exercise.

To coincide with the release of the 2003-04 Federal Budget Dr. Nelson put forth, "a ten year plan to create a diverse, equitable and high quality higher education sector for Australia's future. As part of this initiative a number of reviews were to be undertaken into key areas to assess their effectiveness," (our emphasis).

The research sector is one of the areas in the reform package that is to be assessed in terms of evaluating and streamlining current arrangements. This assessment includes a number of initiatives:

• a comprehensive evaluation of the 1999 Knowledge and Innovation reforms to ensure that the policy framework for Australia’s block research funding schemes are effective;

• development of a national strategy on research infrastructure; and

• establishment of a high level taskforce to examine scope for closer collaboration between universities and major publicly funded research agencies.

The egregious absence of critical independent assessment of the adequacy of present resourcing and the more than a sniff of "efficiency" through "restructuring" ought to be unsettling. If that sounds paranoid, read DEST's "Scope" for the undertaking. The stultifying odour of micromanagement is pervasive.

Scope

The Evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the reforms in addressing the goals set out in Knowledge and Innovation, namely the achievement of:

• stronger connections within the university research system and between it and the national innovation system;

• an enhanced institutional management of research;

• an improved research training environment; and

• an improved programme of integration, incentives, co-ordination and advisory structures.

Effectiveness will be reviewed with reference to the key principles of public funding adopted in Knowledge and Innovation, namely:

• excellence;

• institutional autonomy and responsiveness;

• student choice;

• linkage and collaboration; and

• transparency, contestability and accountability.

The Evaluation will also address the efficiency of the existing administrative arrangements and the performance of research and research training programmes introduced through Knowledge and Innovation. With respect to the [Research Training Scheme] RTS, [Institutional Grants Scheme] IGS and [Research Infrastructure Grants Scheme] RIBG schemes, the Evaluation will assess the validity of current research performance indicators, their weightings in the performance formulae, their effect on particular disciplines, universities and student groups, and the effectiveness and impact of the current transition arrangements.

In particular, the following Knowledge and Innovation reforms will be addressed:

• Funding for research training – the effectiveness and efficiency of RTS;

• Performance-based funding to institutions for research and research infrastructure – the effectiveness and efficiency of the IGS and the RIBG;

• Encouragement of strategic planning and verification of research and research training quality at institutional level – the effectiveness and efficiency of Research and Research Training Management Reports (RRTMRs) and the external quality verification framework;

• Regional Support Package – effectiveness of the $6 million set aside to ensure that no regional institution suffers deterioration in research funding, from its starting position, in the first three years of the new arrangements; and

• Contestability of funding for the Institute of Advanced Studies (IAS) of the Australian National University (ANU) – effectiveness of the provision to the ANU of IAS access to the new competitive and formula driven research and research training schemes, in exchange for making a portion of the IAS block grant contestable.

Sound like a tall order for the designated evaluators? -- So, (1) who is to do it, (2) how is to be done and (3) when are the assessments to be completed?

And will the evaluation not only be independent but be seen to be so?

1. The Evaluation Team will consist of an Internal Policy Group (IPG) drawn from a number of senior executives of Government Departments. The IPG will be assisted by a five member External Reference Group (ERG) in the scoping and consultation process. (our emphasis)

2. The management of the Evaluation will be conducted by the IPG within the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) and chaired by the Manager, Innovation and Research Branch, Higher Education Group.

    An Issues Paper will be prepared by the IPG for circulation by the end of July 2003. The paper will canvas key issues for the Evaluation inviting submissions from interested parties. The paper will also identify the key questions to be addressed through public consultations. The IPG will run a series of short stakeholder workshops in the following major capital cities: Sydney; Melbourne; Brisbane; Adelaide; Perth; and Canberra. (our emphasis)

3. (a) Release of Issues Paper: end July 2003

    (b) Provision of Consultation Report to Minister: end October 2003.

[Speedy Gonzales had better had better keep close to the curb.]

Who are to be the External Reference Group

Professor Chris Fell (Chair), President of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS)

Professor Kerry Cox, Vice-Chancellor, University of Ballarat.

Mr Greg Harper, Deputy Chief Executive Officer with the Australian Research Council (ARC). Mr Harper has broad business financial management experience.

Professor Deryck M Schreuder, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Western Australia and current President AVCC.

Professor Richard Oliver, Director of the Australian Centre for Necrotrophic Fungal Pathogens Murdoch University.

According to a July 17^th media release from DEST, "Dr Mike Sargent AM, Deputy Chancellor of the University of Canberra, board member of the Australian Research Council, and Chair of the Australian Research and Education Network Advisory Committee, will chair the Taskforce."

DEST is inviting submissions in response to the Issues Paper to be released before the end of July. Perhaps such submissions might also serve were they made available by their authors further afield than just DEST's website.

And a reminder

In the first half of 2002 the British Government released two external reports that dealt with the scientific infrastructure of British universities (commissioned from JM Consulting, Ltd) and the professional well being of Britain's scientific community, the "Roberts' Report" (see the UK government's response in Investing in Innovation).

Nothing comparable is being  undertaken by Dr. Nelson.

 

And this past April the United States' National Science Board updated its report on Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21^st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation. In the forward Warren Washington, Chair of the NSB, writes, "The report  presents the findings and recommendations developed by the task force and approved unanimously by the National Science Board. (see Mapping Science and Engineering Infrastructure and Beyond)

 

The National Science Board consists of 24 members plus the Director of the National Science Foundation. Appointed by the President, the Board serves as the policy-making body of the Foundation and provides advice to the President and the Congress on matters of national science and engineering policy.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web