David Lupton

Name (Individual/Organisation)

David Lupton

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.

a) The scope of the ARC should be legislated.

-The current provisions regarding medical research should be legislated, although a broader conversation regarding the NHMRC and its role in supporting research more removed from the clinic needs to also be had. The comparison of the ARC/NHMRC to the American NSF/NIH should be made. As a chemical scientist working in organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry the US system allows support through both the NSF and the NIH. The Australian situation is not comparable, and according to my collaborators in biomedical research the NHMRC is becoming increasingly clinic focused. While the distinct roles of ARC/NHMRC should be respected, there may be room to redefine roles.

-That the scope includes basic and applied research should be legislated.

b) The balance of Discovery and Linkage should be legislated. There is never a time when an emphasis should be placed on one or the other. A vibrant sustainable sector needs both to be supported.

c) The scope of the ARC should be legislated. Considering the current scope of roles taken from the consultation papers.

The scope of the ARC in my opinion is:
1) to support the research activities of Australian universities
2) to support the research infrastructure necessary for research activities at Australian universities.
3) to address weaknesses and gaps in research by supporting the research of new and emerging leaders.
4) to support collaborative and translational research.

The scope of the ARC in my opinion is:
5) NOT to attract and retain researcher.
The use of the DECRA/FT/Laureate programs as a way of attracting/hiring academics is an over reach of the ARC, and undermines the independent and orthogonal process of hiring that occurs within universities.
If we are worried about maintaining and attracting quality researchers the best thing we can do is have a healthy generous and sustainable funding agency that a researcher can see can support their entire career (when I discuss the Australian funding landscape with international candidates considering relocating, they are less interested in whether they can get a Laureate fellowship and more interested in the financial health of the entire school and what the standard grants look like)

6) NOT to identify gaps or weaknesses in Australia’s research capability and respond with dedicated programs and priorities to address these (especially but not exclusively historically through the Centres of Excellence Schemes).
With respect, these programs (CoEs) are ineffective and demonstrate overreach. In many/most cases CoEs are assemblies of successful researchers that, while in principle are united in a new substantive goal, are essentially continuing the same research programs with far greater support. These programs do not address research gaps and deliver limited value for money, they rely on "picking winners" which in basic research is a fools game. The money would be better spent supporting the research eco system more broadly. The best way to "address weaknesses or gaps in research" is to hire young people and support them to bring back to Australia what they have learnt while abroad. It is not to identify the strongest CVs and expect them to drive an entirely new research direction

7) NOT to perform the role of a delivery partner for other Government agencies that use its systems and processes to deliver peer-reviewed and other research grant programs.
The ARC should have clear roles and the use of its infrastructure by defense etc is confusing and a dilution of its core roles.

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.

(Re)Introduction of an independent board should be considered, with the model outlined in the consultation paper appearing to be suitable.

A strong and independent body between the operations of the ARC and the minister is required to ensure effective outcomes for the ARC.

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 college of experts is currently over 200, and captures expertise from a range of age groups, universities and disciplines. It is very diverse. It is not particularly outward looking, without significant international presence.
The selection panel process, considering the breadth of the panels, and lack of concentration of expertise (as opposed to a US study section) I believe has the potential to throw up less ideal results.
Without complete intimacy with how the ARC currently ensures "academic and research expertise" it is difficult to make detailed comments. However, my experience (direct and indirect) suggests there are many other ways to acheive this that we could consider from other countries.

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.

Ministerial intervention is highly undesirable. I believe that the researcher should have a right of reply if the minister wishes to intervene. Such that a revision or rebuttal process can be followed that allows the minister to have their concerns allayed, and the overall proposal can be improved.

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

It is important that researchers convey the importance of their research as broadly as possible for the reasons outlined in the consultation paper. The NIT is a heavy handed and clumsy mechanism.
I believe that for grant eligibility the applicant should be required to document their outreach, from earlier grants. Perhaps in addition to the more classical "outcomes from previous grants section." This would also drive behaviors and incentivize outreach and public communication. Such a mechanism would be more meaningful than a well sculpted paragraph on the national importance of a proposal.

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

Oh golly, where to start:
The current system feels heavily bureaucratic and like it was designed by an IT guy and not a researcher.
The ARC could consider the use of EoI type process to decrease the administrative burden on researchers and reviewers.

Based on the consultation paper my comments are below

1) delays to, and uncertainty regarding, announcements;
The timeframes are ridiculously slow and uncertain. We should be able to do multiple rounds in a year, and all dates should be committed to ahead of time. The current system is discrespectful to our professional researchers.

2) unexpected changes to grant rules and deadlines;
Grant rules are very hard to track down and lately appear to be out of date even when current. Simplify and be consistent.

3) onerous requests for information, including duplication;
Most ARC grants are a waste of time for the writer and the reviewer. Streamline, ask for it once and move on.

4) the scope and currency of Australia’s Science and Research Priorities
These are arbitrary, and meaningless. They should be scraped.

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.

The ARC can support Excellence by simply taking the breaks away from the current version of the discovery program.
Why cant a brilliant researcher with multiple areas of activity and a strong record hold more than 2 grants and for >3 years? Currently they cant, and the only way they can receive greater research support is to secure (for example) a Laureate fellowship. But there is a gulf between these things.

The ARC should created mechanisms to support all Australian researchers from small, middle and large groups. The current approach to excellence is too prescriptive and doesn't really meet the needs of any researchers (a small group cant get a small amount of money (or any money most likely) to examine small ideas, a medium group can only hold 2 DPs and a bigger group has to go through the Laureate program, which only runs for a finite time anyway.

A well supported and flexible DP program can meet the needs of everyone.

Collaborations are challenging to support through the ARC DP program. This is because of three main factors
1) The amount of money is too small to support 3/4 CIs, as in you end up requesting (or at least receiving 100-200K per annum and this now needs to support to many people.
2) The cap on grants also impedes collaboration.
3) There is nothing in it for the international partner. This last point is often minor as within a meaningful collaboration this can normally be addressed in a more ad hoc way.

Q8. With respect to ERA and EI:

(a) Do you believe there is a need for a highly rigorous, retrospective excellence and impact assessment exercise, particularly in the absence of a link to funding?

(b) What other evaluation measures or approaches (e.g. data driven approaches) could be deployed to inform research standards and future academic capability that are relevant to all disciplines, without increasing the administrative burden?

(c) Should the ARC Act be amended to reference a research quality, engagement and impact assessment function, however conducted?

(d) If so, should that reference include the function of developing new methods in research assessment and keeping up with best practice and global insights?

a) No. And if yes is the answer you arrive at please simply model it on the UK version and only consider a small number of outputs.

My feeling is that we should not have the ARC perform "impact/quality" assessments. If we trust the humans involved in the awarding and spending of grants, researchers, then what is the point of this type of introspection?

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?

I think walking away from ERA and saying sorry to everyone involved is the best way forward. [redacted]

While the data from the ERA is clearly rich I doubt it has utility in the type of directions mentioned in the consultation paper. Industry collaborations are driven by relation ships, not the ARC saying that according to your big data you should engage with person/university X.

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?

I believe the ARC an be improved in a number of key ways which would have a drastic impact on the sector.

1) Create a flexible and robust agency that lets universities handle the hiring and the ARC the research support.

2) Big press release high profile research announcements arent what the sector needs. Instead the ARC should focus on enabling the entire community to pursue research that will be, at times, excellent, and at other times less so. "Every rain drop raises the sea." A healthy research sector that can deferentially support the big names and the small is the mark of a healthy sector.

3) The Discovery spend is such an incredibly small fraction of the governments entire research spend. Doubling this would lift the sector of its knees in an instant, and would have little impact on the overall budget. Conversely leaving things as they are creates significant national security risks. Researchers are resilient and if there are no opportunities then they will either leave, or perhaps receive compromised financial support from other countries.

4) Stop wasting our time. All the processes, writing and reviewing, can be simplified, before we even consider greater use of EoI.

5) Don't reinvent the wheel. Other countries do it better than us, i am sure we can model some practices going forward on tried and true methods from Europe or North America.

Submission received

24 November 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.