Australian authorities should pay less attention to the ¡°front end¡± of the research funding process and take more interest in the finished product, according to a leading scientist.

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) nanotechnologist Christopher Barner-Kowollik said that his adopted country¡¯s ¡°bean counting¡± approach to research funding made the grant application process far too complex and inflexible.

¡°For pages [submitted] per A$100,000 [received], we easily hold the world record,¡± he said. ¡°Yet I¡¯ve submitted multiple final reports that no one¡¯s ever read.

¡°There¡¯s a tendency to micromanage every little bit of the way and be very soft on accountability.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

He said that the ¡°detailed budget lines¡± in Australian grant documents specified exactly how much money could be spent on things like staff, travel and consumable materials, while recipients needed to outline the ¡°deliverables¡± in ¡°ever more specific¡± ways.

This betrayed the government¡¯s misunderstanding of ¡°how an innovation cycle functions¡±, he said. Breakthroughs like the laser and mRNA technology had come from researchers with no idea where their efforts would lead. ¡°If you look into the history of great inventions, none has ever been made on a grant with a plan.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Professor Barner-Kowollik is QUT¡¯s deputy vice-chancellor for research and principal investigator in its Centre for Materials Science. Recently named the?winner of this year¡¯s?, he has also claimed the Australian Academy of Science¡¯s??for chemistry.

He said ¡°milestones¡± could prove helpful in applied research involving industry partners, but not in basic research. Many of the ¡°most sophisticated overseas agencies¡±, such as the research council in his native Germany, had ¡°fully moved away from all of this¡±.

Grant winners were given free rein on how they spent the money, within legal parameters. ¡°Whether you spend it on a postdoctoral researcher or equipment is totally up to you.¡±

Australian funders, by contrast, were constantly fielding requests from researchers wanting to adjust the amounts that could be spent on consumables or personnel. ¡°It¡¯s a lot of busy work [that] removes the agency from the researchers. A better approach would be to trust researchers, give them flexi-budgets and leave them alone,¡± he said.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°And when it comes to reporting the outcomes of the research, let them write a meaningful scientific report that is sent out to the reviewers of the original grant. Let the experts determine [whether it] is good scientific progress. The report gets reviewed and the researcher gets actual feedback ¨C and the government or funding agency as well.¡±

Professor Barner-Kowollik said routine grants from the German Research Foundation came with flexible budgets, while the most prestigious awards did not even require applications or proposals. An example is the €2.5 million (?2.1 million)?, whose recipients are selected on the strength of their career achievements.

Max Planck Society institute directors have to survive a ¡°gruelling¡± selection process, but are then given ¡°absolute freedom to do whatever they like in research. The past 70 years have led to 37 Nobel prizes with that approach.¡±

Australia has the wherewithal to realise similar achievements, Professor Barner-Kowollik said. ¡°We¡¯ve got wonderful diversity. We attract people from all over the world. But when it comes to leveraging these strengths and trusting people, we fall short.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°It¡¯s always geared towards the smallest common denominator. It¡¯s like we fear our own courage.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com