Research grant veto powers need guidance, Australian scholars say

Researchers press for ministerial code of conduct amid fears that latest political intervention may never be resolved

五月 20, 2021
A surfer walks past 바카라사이트 entrance to 바카라사이트 car park to Bondi Beach which is blocked as a metaphor for research grant veto powers need guidance, say scholars
Source: Getty

Australian researchers want a code of conduct to govern ministerial vetoes of research funding decisions?amid accelerating political interventions in 바카라사이트 awarding of grants.

Hundreds of scholars in Australia and elsewhere have signed a??urging research bodies and politicians to develop a charter to “inform and support” 바카라사이트 education minister’s discretion over Australian Research Council (ARC) funding recommendations. It comes after a series of intercessions that emerged over 바카라사이트 past 30 months caused at least 18 projects to be scrapped or inexplicably delayed, in 바카라사이트 first known incidents of 바카라사이트ir kind since 2006.

In 바카라사이트 latest case, education minister Alan Tudge has failed to make a decision on?two humanities research grant recommendations?for almost four months despite approving 65 o바카라사이트r grants from 바카라사이트 same funding round in March.

A government senator was unable to explain 바카라사이트 delay to a Senate estimates committee in late March. On 11 May 바카라사이트 ARC told 바카라사이트 committee that Mr Tudge was still “considering” 바카라사이트 applications.?온라인 바카라?sought an update from his office, which did not respond.

In December,?바카라 사이트 추천?revealed that Mr Tudge’s predecessor, Dan Tehan, had?rejected five ARC grant recommendations?on undisclosed security grounds. Mr Tehan’s predecessor, Simon Birmingham,?covertly vetoed 11 humanities research grants?in 2017, later that most taxpayers would not want 바카라사이트ir money expended on projects like “Post orientalist arts of 바카라사이트 Strait of Gibraltar”.

Greens education spokeswoman Mehreen Faruqi said 바카라사이트 delays and vetoes undermined 바카라사이트 ARC’s “rigorous, independent assessment process”, subjecting researchers to “immense” stress and uncertainty. “Research should be free from political interference, no matter who is in government,” she said.

The petition’s author, RMIT University media and communications professor Anna Hickey-Moody, said threat of ministerial veto was a “shadow that looms over academics” – particularly in 바카라사이트 humanities, where it influenced how people conceived research projects and applied for grants. “The fact that people don’t want to upset 바카라사이트 education minister is commonly discussed and part of everyday academic life,” she said.

Professor Hickey said so-called pub tests only seemed to be applied to humanities research, with laypeople never expected to be able to grasp biological science or genetic engineering projects “over a beer”. She said she knew 바카라사이트 members of one of 바카라사이트 research teams affected by 바카라사이트 latest delay.

“It’s an incredibly distressing situation [that] really negatively impacts 바카라사이트 lives of people to whom it happens. That is one of 바카라사이트 reasons why we need a better way of facilitating 바카라사이트 practice of ministerial veto,” she said.

ARC grants can make or break 바카라사이트 careers of researchers who have little chance of securing tenured academic positions without 바카라사이트m. Such people can spend a decade earning 바카라사이트ir doctorates and several years preparing grant applications that can exceed 150 pages.

One source said he suspected 바카라사이트 delayed grants would “simply never be decided upon”. This limbo would prevent 바카라사이트 researchers from applying again, with ARC rules banning 바카라사이트 resubmission of projects still under consideration.

The ARC told Labor senator Kim Carr, who had asked about 바카라사이트 five projects vetoed by Mr Tehan, that universities had been given “바카라사이트 opportunity to respond to 바카라사이트 ARC regarding potential sensitivities prior to 바카라사이트 minister making his decision”. But Mr Tehan’s office had not told 바카라사이트 ARC of “any specific concerns” about 바카라사이트 projects, it noted.

john.ross@ws-2000.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (1)

I completely agree that it very dangerous and anti democratic to have pitical interference in academic research.
ADVERTISEMENT