The Australian Government's Federation Fellowships were introduced as one of its Backing Australia's Ability initiatives. The scheme has been the subject of several TFW pieces, most recently this past August. The question of the effectiveness of the Fellowships has surfaced again, this time in the October issue of Australasian Science.

An attempt to reverse Australia's brain drain, the program according to Australasian Science's Stephen Luntz is "designed primarily to lure expatriate scientists home, or to persuade leading Australian researchers to remain in the country."  The government is also attempting to use the program to attract first rank foreign researchers but without much success.

To date something under fifty such fellowships have been taken up and the Commonwealth Government has stated, "Up to 125 Federation Fellowships with a standard tenure of five years are available under Backing Australia’s Ability, the Australian Government’s 2001 innovation action plan."

    Virtually simultaneously the Canadian Government launched its program to fill 2,000 university research chairs. At last count (June 2003) 926 had been filled. Unfortunately, from a competitive viewpoint the incentives offered are significantly greater than those of the the Federation Fellowships.

 Stephen Luntz travelled to Cambridge University to interview four expat Australian scientists awarded Federation Fellowships to continue their work in Australia. He reports that although three have accepted the awards they do so with mixed feelings. Perhaps the Coalition Cabinet might consider their views seriously. Mark Tester who is working to engineer salt tolerance into rice, currently supports a group of 22; he told Luntz, "Good as [the Federation Fellowships] are, they are placed on top of a crumbling foundation." He also sees significant impediments for basic research because of the restrictive rules governing the number of Australian Research Council Discovery grants one can hold and concludes, "If Australia is going to make an impact in science, we have to centralise resources."

On the other hand embryologist Martin Johnson while not a "big science" person requires "face to face" interaction with peers and says further that scientists like all creative individuals need intellectual stimulation. Luntz quotes him saying bluntly, "We need the best science to be mountains surrounded by hills, not islands in a sea of ignorance." Johnson will in fact receive less support than he has at Cambridge but says Luntz, "He regards the most important part of the Fellowship is the fact that it is 'purely research' whereas at Cambridge he estimates 50% of his time is taken up with administration or teaching."

Anton Middelberg currently has a group of 15 working with him on what might be termed bimolecular nanotechnology and believes that the Fellowship will allow him to continue his work at the University of Queensland. Without the Fellowship he would not have considered returning to Australia for some years.

Finally, Luntz writes that the fourth member of the Australian Cambridge quartet, declined an interview saying he's still not sure he will accept the Fellowship.

When the approach of the Coalition Government to supporting basic research is examined, it is understandable that their are reservations expressed even be those accepting or being offered the Fellowships. The incestuous approach being taken by the Department of Education, Science and Training toward its review of the Evaluation of the Knowledge and Innovation Reforms and the National Research Infrastructure Taskforce smacks more of keeping a lid on expenditure rather than evaluating what is required to support a knowledge infrastructure to place Australia in the twenty-first century's top rank.

    In this context it is noteworthy that in 1992 the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Kim Beazley, requested the National Board of Employment, Education and Training* to report on Higher Education Research Infrastructure.  The Board invited the Boston Consulting Group to assist it in its determination, and in May1993 it forwarded its final report to the Minister.

    The Board recommended an immediate increase above the then $342 million dollars provided by the Commonwealth for university research infrastructure of 37%, i.e. an additional $125 million per annum (1991 dollars, consumer price index (1991) = 106.5). In September 2002 the cpi = 142; so in 2002 dollars a simple calculation yields ((342+125) / 106.5) x 142 = $623 million dollars the amount in current dollars that would have been the recommendation for maintaining university research infrastructure of the 1995 university system, i.e. the year the changes were recommended to begin. The year the Coalition assumed government.

Remarkably, in the current submissions made to DEST in regard to  Evaluation of the Knowledge and Innovation Reforms and the National Research Infrastructure Taskforce only six of the 194 sent even refer to the  National Board of Employment, Education and Training and its work, and in those instances only cursorily.

It would seem that at the very least we might ask:

1. Was the recommended increase of $125 million per annum (1991 dollars) seen as the amount needed to prevent further erosion of the universities'  research infrastructure? If not, what proportion would have been allocated for improvements beyond merely holding the line?

2. What were the effects of the Board's recommendations?

3. Allowing for increases in the demands for research and research training how would that $623 million (2002 dollars) translate to 2003 requirements?

4. Having moved on eight years since 1995 what in fact is the current Commonwealth support for university research infrastructure?

5. In hindsight did the Board and the Boston Consulting Group properly do the job they undertook for the Minister?

Eleven years have passed since the NBEET review and yet the current assessment directed by Dr. Nelson shows no sign of the thoroughness attempted in 1992-93.

Will even these basic questions receive answers?

And it remains to be seen what further injury the Coalition Government's obsession to bring the universities to heel will achieve.

* The membership of the 1992 working party to review higher education research infrastructure funding were:

        Mr Peter Laver, Chair (part time) NBEET

        Prof. MH Brennan, Chair, ARC

        Prof. I Chubb Chair, Higher Education Council

        Prof. JR de Laeter, Deputy V-C, Cutin University

        Prof. JL Lovering, V-C, Flinders University

        Prof. I McCloskey, University of New South Wales

        Prof. B Rawson, Australian National University

        Prof. B. Smith, V-C, University of Western Sydney

        Prof. RHT Smith, V-C, University of New England

        Dr. T Stokes, Counsellor to NBEET

Terms of Reference

Taking account of the importance of research and research training as a key function of higher education institutions, and the range of research activity and infrastructure  in the system, the Board's advice is sought on:

1. The adequacy of the infrastructure in the higher education system to support high quality research across the breath of academic disciplines.

2. The likely pattern of research infrastructure needs in the future, and the levels of research infrastructure funding required to meet them.

3. The mix of a llocative mechanisms for research infrastructure funding at the national level that would best achieve the selectivity, concentration and value to industry that is a focus of Government policy for higher education research.

Alex Reisner

The Funneled Web