Restructuring of medical research agency is up in the air.

Grants given by Australia's primary funding agency for basic research will go through one less step on their way to approval, a move scientists say will leave the process vulnerable to political whim. The nation's medical and health funding agency is also to be restructured, but biomedical researchers are in the dark as to the possible outcome.

The Australian Research Council administers about US$420 million in competitive grants each year. Following peer review of grant applications, recommendations are passed along to the board—made up of leading community, industry and academic representatives—before being sent to the agency's chief executive, and then to the federal science and education minister for final approval.

But on 15 July, the government announced plans to dissolve the board, effective early in 2006. The agency's chief executive, currently Peter Høj, will report solely to the minister.

There is a dangerous potential for loss of independence. Snow Barlow, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

The decision follows last year's government-commissioned report, which examined the way various agencies are run, and recommended that the agencies be governed either by a chief executive or a board—but not both.

The government says eliminating board review will expedite the grant-approval process. But John Mullarvey, chief of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, says it will compromise the integrity of the process. “There will be less transparency in the decision-making process,” he says.

Snow Barlow, president of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, based in Canberra, adds that the board functions as a critical buffer to political interference. “There is a dangerous potential for loss of independence,” Barlow says.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the nation's major funding agency for biomedical research, is also up for an overhaul. But the government is guarded about the details. “The minister is still considering,” says a ministry spokesperson.

In December 2004, a government-commissioned review of investment into medical research called for the creation of an NHMRC board to streamline the agency's administration, and recommended a substantial increase in the agency's budget.

Commissioned in October 2003, that report was not released until December 2005. Researchers were frustrated by the report's late release, amidst speculation that the government wanted to deflect attention from a recommendation to increase funding for biomedical research.

Researchers say the NHMRC should not be forced into one of the two models proposed by the government report, given the agency's diverse roles in funding, policy making and regulation of research areas, such as reproductive technology. “There is a sound argument given the range of roles of the NHMRC for having a tailored model that recognizes these specific functions,” says Christine Bennett, chief executive of Research Australia, an independent organization that promotes investment in medical research.