sydney

A plan for the radical transformation of the funding of basic research in Australia has raised a storm of protest after extracts from a confidential government document were leaked to the press.

Complaints focus on the proposed ending of the Australian Research Council's competitive, peer-reviewed funding system. Instead, research in science and the humanities would be supported by block grants to institutions.

After a formula for dividing up funds between institutions has been settled — by performance criteria which many fear will favour the larger, older universities — the ARC (current budget A$445 million; US$280 million) would see its influential role contract to a purely advisory one.

Researchers are angry that draft details have not been circulated publicly for comment, claiming that the education department has been feeding stories to the media to gauge the strength of feeling.

The government has given no indication of the reasoning behind these changes. Its apparent unwillingness to discuss the proposals openly is mirrored by the silence of Vicki Sara, chair of the ARC, who had been expected to release recommendations of an external review and a strategic plan for the ARC in the near future (see Nature 389, 220; 1997)

Sara had argued that the council's status should change from a that of a branch within the education department to a statutory authority, but such enhanced independence is opposed by the conservative government that was re-elected in October.

According to leaked reports, the Australian National University — currently treated separately from other universities — may be absorbed into a single national scheme. If so, its Institute of Advanced Studies would lose its unique ability to mount long-term programmes with block funding — IAS staff are ineligible for ARC grants (see Nature 382, 484; 1996)

Science and university leaders are lobbying the education minister, David Kemp. The sharpest reaction has come from the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, whose president, Peter Cullen, wrote to Kemp last week expressing “deep concern”.

Cullen urged Kemp to maintain government support for basic research by keeping the current scheme. He says that the federation, which represents over 40 specialist societies, “doubts that an internal university reviewing process can meet the [international] standard developed by the ARC” and believes funds “should be focussed only on the most excellent of proposals”. He urges Kemp to “put an end to these damaging and ill-considered ideas”.