Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697639366068.pdf (Australia)
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT I have been conducting research in Australia for over 20 years and have been applicant and beneficiary of almost every scheme offered by the ARC.

I have also been successful as a funding applicant in research grant schemes in the USA and Europe, along with benefiting from other Australian funding schemes outside the ARC.

In total I have won more than $20M for research for my group.
I have also acted as a grant application reviewer, referee of research performance, or funding council member in numerous jurisdictions around the globe.

I am also head of a 220+ member research institute at the University of Adelaide that has twin goals: undertaking globally excellent research and translating this research into impact for a better world.
This has given me insight into some of the challenges of undertaking long-term complex research in Australia as well as the challenges of bringing our research to market.

I wish to make a personal submission that reflects my experience of Australian funding mechanisms from within the University sector and make some concrete suggestions that could lead to a more efficient system with, a larger number of positive academically and economically-valuable outcomes, as well as a fairer distribution of funding.
RESEARCH PROJECT FUNDING Any sustainable research project funding scheme needs to have opportunities at each of the various stages of the innovation pipeline, as well as a sensible method for appropriate projects to transition between each stage.

It is also important to recognize that research takes place in publicly funding research organizations (PFROs), other government entities, and in industry.
In Australia, direct total research project funding derived through ARC and NHMRC is in reasonable alignment with OECD norms.

On the other hand, research funding for PFROs derived through other government sources (e.g.

defence), and through industry ,is significantly smaller than that available in many similar countries.

Industry research activity in Australia is very significantly smaller than our competitors.
In building a healthy research support environment we should also consider the various stages of the innovation pipeline and the nature of the support necessary at each stage: long-term investments into blue-sky research with its potential for breakthrough technologies; a. b. shorter term targeted investments to bring promising research to the point where it becomes of interest to the private sector; c. co-funding research in academia between industry and government in circumstances where industry sees the technical or execution risk as too high for it to be undertaken from solely industry financial resources; d. Government-assistance for industry to undertake research where the financial risk would make the project otherwise unviable.
From the list above, one notes a move from longer-term, curiosity-driven activities to a more short-term targeted research where the metrics for success become ever more informed by the needs of the market.

If we do not properly support parts (a) and (b) then we will not have the breakthrough next-generation technologies that can feed into the multi-fold economic and social benefits that arise from parts (c) and (d).
Further, one must ensure that there is a well signposted pathway from (a) to (d) for those cases in which discovered IP has commercial potential.

There are many schemes that currently deliver funding at the various stage along the pipeline: ARC Discovery Grants and Centres of Excellence, NHMRC schemes, and the RDCs address (a); ARC Linkage Projects, CRC/CRC-Ps, state government schemes, RDCs for part (c); and e.g.

tax R&D incentives, Innovation Connections, state government schemes in part (d).
Below I list my comments on some suggestions for improvement in the Personal Submission from Professor Andre Luiten Inquiry into Funding Australia's ResearchSubmission 78 current funding for part (a) along with addressing the lack of opportunities for funding the critical steps that occur in part (b).

Of course, any breakdown in smooth handling of IP through this process will be to detrimental economic outcomes for Australia.
(A) BLUE- SKY RESEARCH The ARC has two prestigious schemes that aim to answer the needs for stream (a) – the Discovery Project (DP) scheme and Centres of Excellence (CoE).

The CoE scheme is very successful because it brings together groups of leading researchers from multiple Universities, links them with the best from around the globe (in and out of Universities) and gives them sufficient funding over the long term (up to 7 years) to achieve great things.
I would propose no change to that scheme as I think it very effectively sets out to achieve what we should be broadly doing in fundamental research.

Of course, there are always many more good ideas than funding and so some expansion in funding for this scheme would bring about many rewards.

The DP scheme funds projects for 3 years on average and with an award of around ~$150k p.a.
My experience would suggest that awarded amounts are typically around half of requested monies leading to the necessity to significantly reframe the project with lowered ambitions.

Success rates are typically well below 20%.

It is my view that this duration and level of funding is not sufficient to achieve the outcomes that Australia deserves – it is not in line with the need for sustained funding to achieve revolutionary impact.
This is especially exacerbated by laboratory-based science projects where the awarded funds are insufficient to achieve the best outcomes.

As an example, after employment of a single post-doctoral staff member on the project it leaves only $30-50k pa to do the project, which is rarely enough in most fields to be internationally competitive.
The intense competition for funding, when combined with the likely necessity to redraw the grant’s aims after the award of funds, can also lead to an over-promising of outcomes in the initial proposal.

We need to move to a model in which research applications are fully funded when successful.
One way to do this, while leaving some options for the funding body, would be to offer several different possible projects within one application that respond to the various levels of funding that might be available to the project (i.e.

the minimum viable project, the mid-scale project, and the full-scale project).

In return, in these circumstances, the science community should be able to provide quantifiable milestones against which an applicant can be measured during the progress of the project.
Without additional funding into the scheme the success rate for applicants is likely to fall if we move to the full- funding model.

In order to avoid inefficiencies in the application processes associated with this I propose a 50% cull of applications in a low-doc “white-paper” application phase (see below).

Alternatively, one hopes that the additional efficiencies and outcomes that arise from a properly funded scheme would lead to pressure to increase funding into research over the longer term.
My recommendations for an improved research project funding model that addresses the challenges highlighted above are: 1.

That all successful grant applications are fully funded for eligible expenditure.

The proposer should be required to provide funding options that connect with various outcomes and milestones.

That these milestones must be measurable and need to be reported against.

2.

That the averaged granted amount per project is above $200k p.a.

3.
3.

That the average duration of ARC Discovery projects tends towards 5 years.

2 Inquiry into Funding Australia's ResearchSubmission 78 (B) TARGETED INVESTMENT FOR ADVANCING RESEARCH FOR INVESTMENT Currently, I am not aware of any scheme in the ARC that addresses this part of the innovation pipeline.

Most federal or state schemes aimed at advancing promising initial research require co-investment from industry to demonstrate their commitment.
There is some funding from the RDCs into this stage of innovation, but this is restricted to their areas of respective interest.

I think this leads to a valley-of-death for much research in Universities because it has rarely reached the stage where it is ready for external investment after a small number of years of fundamental research under the DP scheme.
At the moment this is a large leaky hole in the innovation pipeline spectrum where one must search for angel investment funding, or using relatively small in-house University funding schemes (although recent initiatives such as Biocurate are on a much bigger scale and aimed to exactly address this space in the pharma area).

In the USA, this part of the pipeline is frequently funded by defence- related entities (DARPA, AFOSR, ONR etc).
In Australia, this avenue is only just starting to open through Next Generation Technology Fund but will still be on a relatively limited scale.

I propose that there needs to be a new scheme, targeted to address needs that fall between the ARC’s Discovery Project and Linkage Project scheme, in which we fund proposals that aim to take research from the lab to a demonstrator so that it is fit for the next stage of development.
In order to make a difference it would need to ensure that projects could attract up to $3M over 3 years.

As part of an application, one would need to provide a market opportunity report that has been prepared by an appropriate external expert.

The judgement panel should be dominated by individuals that have had success in industry (either start-up or conventional).
The scheme could leverage funds from the PFROs to demonstrate their commitment, with potentially some beneficial interest in the IP, flowing back to the PRFO to maintain a financially sustainable scheme.

1.

That a new scheme is created that aims to translate laboratory research up the innovation pipeline to the point where it is ready for industry investment.

2.
2.

That this scheme offers funding of up to $3M over 3 years, which should be leveraged off a co-investment from the University or other research agency.

RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS SCHEME In parallel with the needs for research project funding, one must identify, support and retain the best of our people to lead or carry out this research.

As with project funding, any scheme that one develops needs to have opportunities stretching from early career, to mid-career through to the peak of the career.
The ARC sets out to do this with its fellowships schemes: DECRA, Future and Laureate Fellowships.

These schemes are highly successful in bringing to Australia some outstanding people around which much great research is done.
In recent times there has been much inflation of the expectations for a successful fellowship applicant such that there is effectively no longer an early-career fellowship (a now defunct ARC scheme, APD, used to directly target this level) – the minimum realistic expectation for a successful DECRA application means that the candidate is likely to be ~5 years from completion of a PhD.
Again, it is my observation that it is very rare for someone to move immediately from a DECRA through to a Future Fellowship, or from a Future Fellowship to a Laureate Fellowship.

Thus, even for our best and brightest, the fellowship scheme has gaps in which we lose great people.

In other nations where there is a vibrant industry research eco-system then this may not be such a problem because their expertise and experience will be retained for the economic welfare of the nation.
In Australia, where this is not the case, there is a significant loss of talent from our research sector.

The ARC has sought to address the potential loss of completing Future Fellows by creating an expectation that their home academic institution will give them an on-going position.
Mostly this is working; although I note that tight institutional financial constraints have 3 Inquiry into Funding Australia's ResearchSubmission 78 unfortunately created some distortions in the processes used to select potential applicants.

On the other hand, there is little support for completing DECRA fellows and this seems a major shortfall of the Australian research system – we are losing some of our best here.
There is also no scheme that is targeted at retaining the very best of our graduating PhD students.

Another large constraint in the Australian system is the short-term funding and the low levels of research project funding that comes as part of the fellowships.

Since an early-career researcher is not sufficiently competitive to win research project funding in their own right, it results in a serious limitation in the resources that are available for someone to kick-start their career.
I propose the following recommendations: 1.

There should be a fourth fellowship scheme in the ARC aimed at early-career researchers who are 0-3 years out of their PhD.

Funding should be limited to salary and travel money with a significant part of the selection criteria being based on the quality of the mentor with whom they will work.

Potentially there should be some funding to encourage good career development and/or to support the mentor.
I would propose that this is up to a 4 year fellowship with an expectation that 2 of these years will be spent at an overseas institution (either paid by that institution or co-funded with that institution).

This would give these early career researchers great mentoring, the drive to spend time overseas learning new skills and broadening their experience but would importantly maintain contact with the Australian research sector.

2.
2.

DECRA fellowships should have a significantly enhanced research support package.

Further, the duration of the fellowship should be extended to 5 years, which is essential to build research capacity and experience.

Other jurisdictions (Europe, Singapore, USA among others) have a very high-level scheme at this career stage to launch outstanding individuals – these packages bring up to $1M research support funding to build a group.
I would propose that we select the top 10% of DECRA applicants and give them package on this scale.

This would guarantee that we launch 20 new major research groups each year in the Australian sector.

This would also likely attract substantial institutional support for such lucrative candidates.

Current DECRA research support of $40k p.a.

is insufficient in many fields to launch a career.


For all successful candidates, I would suggest that the scheme should include additional optional co- funding that leverages industry or host institutional support (at somewhere between 2:1 and 4:1) up to an additional $200k p.a.

3.

No tenured academic staff should be eligible to apply for fellowships from the ARC as current staff are already on a secure career pathway.

This would maximize the opportunities for outstanding people to enter the sector.
Nonetheless, it is important that there should be some prestigious scheme to apply for relief from teaching and administration to allow an existing staff member the time to focus on research.

This would be much cheaper for the ARC than giving a fellowship to an existing academic staff member.

OTHER MATTERS Australian research grant applications are sent to both domestic and international referees for judgement.
I understand that the return rate from international referees is below 10% meaning that for every returned referee report we have shared our best new ideas with 9 other individuals.

Overseas research grant agencies pay their referees a nominal sum (USD$50-$250 per report) to read their proposals and return a report with the consequence of a much higher return rate with, anecdotally, a much more professional level of scrutiny.
The cost of implementing this approach is exceedingly low when compared with the dollar value of the grant and the potential cost of losing our IP.

4 Inquiry into Funding Australia's ResearchSubmission 78 The ARC LIEF program funds the critical research infrastructure that is necessary for Australian research to access the large infrastructure that is essential to doing research.

LIEF funds large equipment that could not otherwise be funding under research project funding.
The LIEF program requires co-investment from Universities to demonstrate their commitment to the project.

However, it is my experience that much of this equipment is of equal interest to non-University users – including both Industry and other government entities.

In circumstances where this use could be accommodated without impacting on research-related outcomes it would seem entirely sensible that access could be granted.
In turn, these non-University partners are interested in making co-investment into the project but at this time their funding is not leveraged in the same way as University monies.

I propose that all interested parties can be treated equally in this process so that we get the best research tools for both government and industry researchers.
International quality researchers need to be well networked with their global peers – unfortunately, outside the CoE program there is very limited opportunity to support research collaboration and engagement globally.

Previously there were specific schemes to support this critical exchange of personnel.

It is crucial that some source of funding is identified to allow Australian researchers to have impact on the global stage and to allow foreign researchers the opportunity for short stays in Australia.
Most overseas jurisdictions use an Expression of Interest or White Paper process before requesting full grant submission.

This EoI need only be 2 pages for the project and 2 pages for the personnel.

An alternative model calls for this initial stage of refereeing to be done “blind” in which the applicant’s identity is suppressed to prevent unconscious bias from affecting the outcome.
I would suggest that this be implemented with a deadline in October with an outcome in December so that the summer months (which in the northern hemisphere is the time in which much research is done) are available for conducting research rather than writing grants with a low statistical chance of success.

Many jurisdictions make use of expert program managers to run fields of science within their grants agencies.
The program managers manage a defined budget in which they can choose to support a number of projects.

Their purview extends to continuous project monitoring and KPI compliance, selection of projects for support and for termination.

Their relative success as a program manager should lead to an expansion of their fraction of the budget.
The typical term of a program manager is around 5 years and is conducted at mid-career so that they have had sufficient experience while also having an interest in returning to research afterwards.

It would probably be best conducted 0.5FTE so that their own research work can be continued.
I estimate that a program manager could chaperone ~20 projects under funding, while they could select to fund any new projects that have been down- selected by peer review processes (which would need to be at the expense of continuing some existing projects).

The program manager would visit each project several times per year and their cohort would present at the end of each year at a focused workshop.
It is my view that this approach would lead to very much better selection of projects with a much-improved focus on outcomes and project management by recipients.

On return into the research world, following completion of the term as a program manager, there would need to be some transition funding to rebuild the research group.

In order to influence good selection and effective management I would suggest that the quantum of this transitional funding should be connected to success as a program manager.
In order to implement this program we would need ~60 program managers across ARC at the cost of approximately $20M – this seems a relatively small component of the budget given the uplift in outcomes and efficiencies that would ensue.

I propose the following recommendations to address the above matters: 1.

Grant applications should be peer reviewed through a “white paper” process of just 2-3 pages that have the identity of the applicant suppressed.
Alternatively, the applicant’s identity/career is only revealed for review 5 Inquiry into Funding Australia's ResearchSubmission 78 after the assessment of the scientific proposal has been completed.

This EoI process should be completed by December.

2.

Research infrastructure projects (LIEF scheme) can receive co-investment from a wider range of organisations who are interested in using the apparatus.

All co-investors are treated equally by the process.

3.
3.

A new scheme needs to be funded to encourage exchange of personnel between Australia and the best overseas laboratories.

4.

All non-grant recipients who are asked to review grant applicants are paid a nominal sum for their services.

These reviews should only be asked to review the science and qualities of the applicant, which fall in their area of expertise.
At the moment the reviewers are provided with a very heavy application to review with requests to comment on matters outside their area of expertise.

5.

That the ARC appoints a suitable number of program managers to manage a cohort of projects in a defined discipline area from a budget that evolves according to defined research outcome metrics from that cohort.

That they are responsible for selecting projects for funding from a pool selected through a peer review process.
That they are responsible for reviewing project progress by visiting projects and by written and verbal presentation.

That they are responsible for recommending the termination of funding for poorly performing projects.

CONCLUSION I thank you for your time in considering this submission.

If you wish to contact to discuss further then please do not hesitate to do so – 6 Inquiry into Funding Australia's ResearchSubmission 78