How Australia's National Science and Research Priorities affect the ARC's competive grants is under review, with a discussion paper currently open for public comment.
The Priorities and the associated Practical Research Challenges are a legacy of former chief scientist Professor Ian Chubb, and were implemented by the Australian Government in 2015. Their underlying proposition is simple: any nation, especially a population-wise smaller one like Australia, has only limited resources, and these should be targeted towards areas of national strengths and needs.
In 2017, the government embedded the Priorities within a broader framework, the National Science Statement.
In reality, though, targeting resources or even picking winners is not easy business, and consequently the scope of the Priorities remained broad, and are also not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive.
The government's support for science and technology exceeds $9.6 billion and spreads across socioeconomic objectives that range from specific areas such as health, agriculture and environment to the general advancement of knowledge.
Their delivery is done through a number of agencies and programs that includes the ARC. However, it's National Competitive Grant Program is quite unique in that is supports university research in almost all disciplines, including basic and applied research, and across both the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and the HASS fields (humanities, arts and social sciences.
The ARC does this with a budget of less than $800 million, which is around 8% of the government's total annual investment in research and development, and less than the NHMRC's, which exclusively funds health and medical sciences.
Even though, the ARC's hasn't gone down the path of narrowing its funding scope. Even after implementing the National Science and Research Priorities in its grant guidelines, the agency does not specifically direct funding to them.
However, where apppropriate, the ARC includes a reference to Priority areas with the grant scheme objectives, and assessors are asked consider, among other selection criteria, whether an application potential contributes to the Priorities.
Over the period since they were introduced, approximately 70% of total NCGP funding have been found linked to the Priorities, as indicated by the applicants themselves.
But is this approach adequate, and is the share of grants directed to Priorities enough to lift Australia's capacity for research in these areas, the ARC asks?
Over to you...closing date is 16 May.