![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Rejected-Graphic.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Imagine you\u2019re running a small business. But imagine you only have one customer, and there\u2019s only a one-in-five chance of getting a contract with them each year.<\/p>\n
Obviously, you plough huge, disproportionate effort into getting that contract. But you\u2019ve missed out for a couple of years. Will you have to lay off staff? Can you stay in business? Amidst this pressure, imagine the customer delays: \u201cmaybe I\u2019ll let you know sometime in summer\u201d.<\/p>\n
Summer comes and goes. Nothing. The uncertainty is too much for key staff, and they leave. You can\u2019t hire anyone to replace them, and the weeks drag on. You\u2019re desperate.<\/p>\n
All Governments recognise how such massive uncertainty kills businesses. Yet the Australian Government subjects its top researchers to this every year.<\/p>\n
Uncertainty is fundamental to research. Without it, research wouldn\u2019t exist. But just like in business, uncertainty in funding is poison. Research is done by people, and this uncertainty poisons their planning, competitiveness, collaborations, motivation for research, personal lives and mental health.<\/p>\n
This poison runs through Australia\u2019s research grants process from start to finish. But the finish is venomously uncertain, and for no good reason. My Twitter account tries to construct a tiny bit of certainty in these often desperate, delirious months of uninformed chaos.<\/p>\n
But the real antidote is so simple and easy to administer.<\/span><\/p>\n The Australian Government funds basic research at universities through a grants process run by the Australian Research Council (ARC). There\u2019s fellowship programs for early, mid and senior career stages to fund the fellow\u2019s salary and project costs, and there\u2019s project-only grants for hiring postdocs (as well as fieldwork expenses and other items) to do the research. But funding for these schemes has been dropping (in real terms) for many years. Success rates are now barely above 15%.<\/p>\n So, most excellent proposals aren\u2019t funded. This makes for an uncertain and desperate enough system to start with. Even if you \u201cwin the lottery\u201d, you often get barely enough to hire a postodc for two years. As awful and irresponsible as they are, these problems are not peculiar to Australia.<\/p>\n But now for the extra venom, right at the pointy end of the process.\u00a0Get this: applicants aren\u2019t even told when they\u2019ll know the outcomes of their grant proposals!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n These days the ARC loosely suggests a notional\u00a03 month range<\/em>\u00a0when outcomes might be announced. Oh, by the way, that is \u201capproximate and subject to change\u201d. Quite often, announcements are delayed well beyond even these flimsy parameters.<\/p>\n Consider the time-line for the recent \u201cFuture Fellowships\u201d grants illustrated below. These are prestigious mid-to-senior career grants which, as the name suggests, can be essential for anyone wanting A Permanent Job in a university. The success rate was a daunting 17%.<\/p>\n The process began stressfully, but not unusually: applicants punched out a 65-page proposal in two weeks to meet internal university reviews before the ARC\u2019s submission deadline; the ARC solicited peer reviews, to which applicants had a short opportunity to respond; the ARC\u2019s expert panels ranked the proposals and the top 15-to-20% were scooped off.<\/p>\n About 9 months into the process \u2013 and without telling anyone \u2013 the ARC sent these results to the relevant Government Minister for approval.<\/p>\n And with the Minister they stayed. For Three. Whole. Months!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n We don\u2019t know what the Minister did in those three months. Apparently though, nothing at all: the ARC\u2019s recommendations were accepted without change.<\/p>\n The problem is that, by Act of Parliament, the Minister approves all grants entirely at their discretion. And when the outcomes are announced? \u201cMinisterial discretion\u201d.<\/p>\n This problem isn\u2019t new. For example, back in 1998, the \u201cdiscretion\u201d period was particularly long, forcing universities to lay off staff. One Vice Chancellor commented that \u201cthe whole system whereby recommendations sit on minister\u2019s desks for months on end is absurd.\u201d<\/p>\n @ARC_Tracker<\/a> @SenKimCarr<\/a> @DanTehanWannon<\/a> \u2014 Daniel Creedon (@DanielCreedon) November 26, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe system<\/h3>\n
The sting in the tail<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/ft19_timeline.png\")
<\/p>\nThe name of our pain is \u201cMinisterial discretion\u201d<\/h3>\n
\n
\nStill no end in sight to #arcdelay<\/a>. Here’s another article from the microfilm archives – 20 years and sentiment is still exactly the same! (“Kemp sees strategic ARC role”, The Australian, 02\/12\/98) pic.twitter.com\/p3FV6O8xiN<\/a><\/p>\n