Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS)

Name (Individual/Organisation)

Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS)

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 ACDS is of the strong view that the ARC Act should require the ARC to consider the importance and interrelationships across the entire research value chain, from scientific discovery and knowledge generation, through to translation, application and impact, and everything in between.

The primary purpose of the ARC however should be to support fundamental research and its role within that value chain. It should support the advancement of knowledge without regard to its purpose, but it should also include programs that strongly support and encourage the interplay of that knowledge with other parts of the value chain.

Currently, programs such as the Linkage Program and Industrial Transformation Research Program play this latter role. The primary goal of these programs should be to foster interplay between academic researchers and other participants in the research value chain; to encourage an exchange of ideas, mutual understanding of goals and culture, and greater flexibility to transition between university and non-university roles.

In general, such programs should not be for commercialisation or other applications for their own sake. These activities are generally the focus of other players in the research value chain and should be evaluated accordingly. The primary role of these ARC programs should be to encourage academic participation in translational research and commercialisation in order to promote and sustain a culture of productive connection into the value chain.

It is important not to concede the bigger picture of the research value chain by focusing narrowly on a split between fundamental and translational research. Rather than casting these aspects into opposition within a zero-sum game, they should be seen in a wider context of the synergies between them. It should be clear that the purpose of the ARC is to support fundamental research, both in its discovery and its translation.

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 ACDS supports the reinstatement of a Governing Board as articulated in the ARC Consultation paper, including the proposed terms of reference. Board members need to be recognised for a deep understanding of and commitment to fundamental research and its role in the research value chain. The Board needs to be accountable for ensuring that the ARC addresses the broader purposes of the agency.

The ACDS accepts that it is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the Board and CEO are acting in accordance with the ARC Act, delivering on the broad outcomes agreed upon, and acting in the national interest generally. Ministerial interventions should be with the Board and CEO. The ACDS does not agree that the Minister should have the power to reject individual grants which have been exhaustively reviewed by specialists in relevant discipline areas.

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?

Academic and research expertise is critical for the ongoing rigour of the ARC peer review process.

The ACDS is aware of the reference to the Haldane Principle (that funding priorities should be determined by experts and not by politicians) in the submission to this Review by Science and Technology Australia.

The ACDS strongly supports the inclusion of the Haldane Principle in the ARC Act as a means of enshrining appropriately the role of peer review, and this process must inform the views and any input from Ministers.

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.

Funding decisions must be based on the views of experts and who are independent of the the ARC and government.

Such experts are best able to determine the immediate and potential long-term benefits of the research and the capability of researchers to undertake and complete the proposed research.

It is the view of the ACDS that Ministerial intervention should be limited to issues of process or integrity, and not on the basis of perceived research priorities and national benefit.

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

Federal funding must support activities that will ultimately benefit Australians, however it is critical that this is considered in the broadest sense. This may include immediate or medium-term impacts on the development of products or technologies, or important changes to policies or procedures, but must also include long-term benefits arising from new knowledge, that may not yet be able to be articulated. The reputational benefits of internationally recognised research excellence and impact must also be valued when considering the national benefit of research.

In terms of who considers any such statements, the ACDS is of the firm view that this should also align with the Haldane Principle, this is that this be limited to per reviewers and the College of Experts, and not influenced by political points of view which may not always be in the long term interests of research outcomes.

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?

The ACDS believes that the ERA no longer serves a useful purpose. It diverts resources, both in money and human effort, from more important research initiatives. It is also subject to unhelpful gaming that serves no benefit to the research community, institutions or the ARC. We understand that this view is widely shared.

The ACDS is supportive of quality assurance in respect of Australia’s research effort and the deployment of limited funds to support that effort. How this is best done is a matter to be explored separately.

The ACDS is also supportive of some form of Engagement and Impact exercise, in line with assuring the quality of the engagement of fundamental research in the wider research value chain.

Submission received

14 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.