Australia¡¯s government has been advised to scrap the country¡¯s research assessment exercise, water down ministerial grant vetoing powers and introduce a two-stage application process to reduce the time researchers waste on unsuccessful funding bids.

But the panel reviewing the Australian Research Council (ARC) has baulked at a proposal to refocus the agency squarely on discovery research.

In a 20 April , the reviewers highlighted the ARC¡¯s role as a ¡°guardian¡± of basic research and a ¡°safe haven for intellectual curiosity¡±. But the panel said the ARC¡¯s act should outline its responsibilities to fund both basic and applied research, shrugging off a learned academy¡¯s recommendation that the act be rewritten to focus on the former.

In a to the panel, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS) said ARC funding had drifted towards translational research, which was already supported by more than 200 other funding programmes across 12 federal departments.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°Fundamental research should be the primary focus of the ARC,¡± the AAS submission says. ¡°It is government responsibility to fund¡­discovery. When we run out of knowledge, we run out of new ways of doing things.¡±

The AAS said that schemes to encourage industry engagement and commercialisation should be ¡°delegated¡± to another agency. While the reviewers did not adopt this recommendation, they said the ARC¡¯s remit should exclude ¡°experimental development¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The report also says national security concerns should be the only grounds on which ministers can withhold funding from recommended projects that meet eligibility guidelines. In such cases, the minister must explain the decision to parliament or ¨C if security issues preclude open disclosure ¨C the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

The report notes that interventions in grant-awarding processes have occurred at least six times over the past 18 years. ¡°Overriding expert advice is anathema to the world¡¯s best practice,¡± it says.

As expected, the panel advised the government to terminate Excellence in Research for Australia and its sister Engagement and Impact assessment. Their resources could be ¡°more effectively redeployed¡± to guide grant administration and help pinpoint future research priorities, the report says.

It also advocates ¡°more streamlined¡± grant administration processes including two-stage applications that allow for ¡°rapid initial assessment¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The AAS said that the report had emphasised the ARC¡¯s ¡°critical role¡± in Australian research. ¡°The recommendations in the review provide a strong basis to support¡­the ongoing effectiveness of the ARC,¡± said academy president Chennupati Jagadish.

Science & Technology Australia?chief executive Misha Schubert said two-stage applications would be a ¡°game changer¡± for the productivity, well-being and morale of Australian researchers.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering said the recommendations would strengthen research, reduce administrative burdens and minimise the potential for political interference. But?chief executive Kylie Walker said the review had not addressed funding issues, instead ¡°relegating¡± them to the Universities Accord.

She also expressed disappointment that the review had not tried to tackle the uncertainty caused by ¡°irregular and unpredictable¡± grant outcome dates.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The report also recommends the establishment of an ARC board and says a ¡°provision for annual appropriation¡± should be inserted into the ARC Act, allowing funding streams to be indexed without the need for amendments to the act.

Universities Australia chief executive Catriona Jackson said the recommendations would support a system with ¡°strong governance, peer review and genuine transparency at its core. We look forward to a favourable government response.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com