Chris McNeill

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Chris McNeill

Responses

Q1. How could the purpose in the ARC Act be revised to reflect the current and future role of the ARC?

For example, should the ARC Act be amended to specify in legislation:
(a) the scope of research funding supported by the ARC
(b) the balance of Discovery and Linkage research programs
(c) the role of the ARC in actively shaping the research landscape in Australia
(d) any other functions?

If so, what scope, functions and role?

If not, please suggest alternative ways to clarify and define these functions.

The ability of ministers/government to veto grants recommended for funding should be abolished.

The balance between discovery and linkage research programs should be redressed to enable and support the best, blue skies research regardless of application. The ARC should focus on funding the most outstanding research regardless of field or application, bench-marked with respect to the international research community. Australia risks an exodus of its most outstanding researchers by forced prioritization of applied projects. Such efforts to undermine basic research also make Australia an unattractive destination for overseas researchers to relocate to. The total amount of funding for basic research made available to the university sector also needs to be increased to rectify years of neglect.

We have many outstanding universities in Australia. These universities are outstanding because we have outstanding academics. These academics deserve to be supported. If we lose them, or fail to secure the next generation of outstanding academics, our universities will become second-rate, undermining an entire sector that provides diverse benefit to Australia beyond simply helping industry.

Q2. Do you consider the current ARC governance model is adequate for the ARC to perform its functions?

If not, how could governance of the ARC be improved? For example, should the ARC Act be amended to incorporate a new governance model that establishes a Board on the model outlined in the consultation paper, or another model.

Please expand on your reasoning and/or provide alternative suggestions to enhance the governance, if you consider this to be important.

The independence of the ARC needs to be preserved. I do worry about the possibility of the minister stacking the board with members from industry who have more of a short-term focus and do not have the concerns of the university sector more broadly in mind.

Q3. How could the Act be improved to ensure academic and research expertise is obtained and maintained to support the ARC?

How could this be done without the Act becoming overly prescriptive?

The right of ministers to veto grants abolished.

Q4. Should the ARC Act be amended to consolidate the pre-eminence or importance of peer review?

Please provide any specific suggestions you may have for amendment of the Act, and/or for non-legislative measures.

The right of ministers to veto grants abolished.

Q5. Please provide suggestions on how the ARC, researchers and universities can better preserve and strengthen the social licence for public funding of research?

Better communicating the benefits of supporting fundamental research.

Q6. What elements of ARC processes or practices create administrative burdens and/or duplication of effort for researchers, research offices and research partners?

Simplify applications - the ROPE section, for example, is burdensome, especially for overseas partner investigators who will receive no funding. A 2-page CV would suffice.

The National Interest Test in its current version should also be removed.

Q7. What improvements could be made:

(a) to ARC processes to promote excellence, improve agility, and better facilitate globally collaborative research and partnerships while maintaining rigour, excellence and peer review at an international standard?

(b) to the ARC Act to give effect to these process improvements, or do you suggest other means?

Please include examples of success or best practice from other countries or communities if you have direct experience of these.

Have set dates for announcements of grants.

Streamline the approval process - the time between panel meetings and announcement of funding is too long.

Reduce the admin burden on partner investigators - they should just be able to include a 2-page CV rather than completing a full ROPE section especially when they are not receiving research funding.

Improve the quality of peer-review by engaging more international reviewers.

Q9. With respect to the ARC’s capability to evaluate research excellence and impact:

(a) How can the ARC best use its expertise and capability in evaluating the outcomes and benefits of research to demonstrate the ongoing value and excellence of Australian research in different disciplines and/or in response to perceived problems?

(b) What elements would be important so that such a capability could inform potential collaborators and end-users, share best practice, and identify national gaps and opportunities?

(c) Would a data-driven methodology assist in fulfilling this purpose?

The value of research should not be measured solely in terms of commercial / industrial outcomes. The health of the university sector should be considered as an indicator of the effectiveness of research funding provided by the ARC. For example, is ARC funding making Australian universities an attractive destination on the international stage? Currently the university sector in Australia is not well. I am not confident that a data-driven methodology will capture the complexities and nuances at play.

Q10. Having regard to the Review’s Terms of Reference, the ARC Act itself, the function, structure and operation of the ARC, and the current and potential role of the ARC in fostering excellent Australian research of global significance, do you have any other comments or suggestions?

Increase funding to the ARC for basic research.

Submission received

12 December 2022

Publishing statement

Yes, I would like my submission to be published and my name and/or the name of the organisation to be published alongside the submission. Your submission will need to meet government accessibility requirements.