With Copenhagen looming and the parliamentary showdown over emissions trading underway, the public is being bombarded with claim and counterclaim about research on climate change. Now, I’m not a climate scientist, nor am I an economist. I don’t have the expertise myself to explain what is likely to happen to our climate in the future or how we should deal with it. Like most other people, I have to rely on those who do – academics and other researchers who develop theories, conduct research and offer recommendations. They provide the knowledge that informs our decisions about the best course of action. This is why I am disappointed when ideology and politics undermines public confidence in these research bodies.
I’ve spent a decent chunk of my life studying and working at universities. I know the importance that is placed on winning external funding – and particularly the prestige attached to grants from the Australian government’s major funding body, the Australian Research Council. And I know that the competition for those grants is fierce, and increasingly so – the success rate for ARC Discovery grants has been between 20-25% for the past five years. Only the best of the many worthwhile proposals are funded.
That’s why I was surprised when, after the recent announcement of the latest round of ARC funding, Andrew Bolt claimed to know a “surefire way to get a grant”. Bolt suggested that any researcher who wanted ARC funding should mention climate change as a way of getting into the good graces of Science Minister ‘Kim “Il” Carr’. He reported that ten percent of this year’s ARC budget went to applications that mentioned climate change, and rattled off a list of successful examples from different fields.
Anyone familiar with the ARC’s assessment process would know this claim is wrong on many grounds:
- The selection of grants is carried out by the ARC’s College of Experts and independent assessors, whose recommendations are then approved by Minister Carr, so that selection is not influenced by the government’s political agenda.
- The assessors rate the significance and national benefit of the proposal – an application might claim their research relates to climate change, but they will be judged on the strength of that argument and not just on the fact that they mentioned it.
- The vast majority of the rating formula is based on the quality of the applicants’ track records and the strength of their research approach – even if an application is considered relevant to a priority area such as climate change, that contributes only ten percent of the total rating.
- When you look at this year’s Discovery Projects results, the success rates for applications that addressed the strategic priority of an “Environmentally Sustainable Australia”, which climate change falls under, was 22.3 percent – no better than the rest of the applications.
But for those who don’t know how research funding operates, Bolt’s claims of political contamination in research funding may ring true. The irony is that a politician’s agenda did influence research funding once before. In 2004 and 2005, Brendan Nelson vetoed a number of ARC grants that had been recommended for funding based on the experts’ assessments. At the time, Andrew Bolt applauded Nelson because “he knocked back several of the sillier grants”. It seems that when you change the government, you change Andrew Bolt’s position on government influence over publicly-funded research. But both positions undermine – unreasonably – the public’s confidence that Australia’s universities are producing the best research they possibly can.
Aside from funding academic research, public funds contribute to our knowledge through statutory authorities such as the CSIRO. Recent news coverage has reported that a CSIRO environmental economist, Dr Clive Spash, may be prevented from publishing his work because it argues that a carbon tax is more effective than the government’s preferred option of emissions trading. The CSIRO is constrained by its charter, which says that its staff should not comment on the merits of government or opposition policy. But the charter also encourages openness and freedom of research, which is essential to extending our knowledge. Just as the public service provides frank and fearless advice, our publicly-funded researchers should ask frank and fearless questions – even if the answers to those questions might reflect badly on government policy. This should be reassuring – it means that the government can make its policy decisions based on the best available evidence.
Australians need to be assured that we are directing our research resources at important questions, using appropriate approaches and making the most of the available answers. Whether claims of political interference are real or imagined, they poison the well of research knowledge at a time when it is vital that we draw all we can from it.
(NB: Yesterday afternoon, The Age reported that Dr Spash’s paper will be published with some revisions. There was earlier commentary on this issue from Joshua Gans, Brian Bahnisch and Tim Lambert.)
UPDATE: On a related note, Andrew Bolt’s open thread for today has some comments about Professor David Karoly, who appeared on last night’s Four Corners program. Some commenters seem to regard Karoly’s government-funded research as a sign of bias. Interestingly, they don’t seem to have considered whether global warming sceptic Professor Bob Carter, who appeared on the same program, has received government-funded research grants:
Bob Carter’s research career has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, including especially the Australian Research Council. He receives no research funding from special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.
(NB: I also notice that at least one comment makes derogatory assertions about Karoly’s character – another regrettable lapse in Andrew Bolt’s commitment to keeping personal smears out of the debate.)
13 Comments
>success rate for ARC Discovery grants has been between 20-25% for the past five years.
Sounds like it’s equal to or better than normal tendering success rates in the private sector.
>The selection of grants is carried out by the ARC’s College of Experts and independent assessors, whose recommendations are then approved by Minister Carr, so that selection is not influenced by the government’s political agenda.
Lets have a quick squiz at the ARC website (www.arc.gov.au – note the the ‘.gov.au’ bit. Kind of a give away)
Policy-
“ARC funding schemes aim to support research and research training in the Australian Government’s four National Research Priority areas of: an environmentally sustainable Australia; promoting and maintaining good health; frontier technologies for building and transforming Australian industries; and safeguarding Australia. ”
AND
“College of Experts members are approved by the Minister for appointment of periods of between one and three years.”
So the Minister approves the members and sets the priorities to support the government’s agenda and the first prioirty listed is “environmental sustainability”… But in no way does it influence the decision making process.
Yeah, right!
Good post Toby.
It’s essential that we keep up the war on the anti-science conspiracy crackpots who seek to undermine the scientific literature so their faith-based beliefs about climate change for eg appear more credible.
And chistery you are seriously reaching. Have you ever served as a grant reviewer for a major research funding institute? No? Then you have no idea what you are talking about.
The Conservative modus operandi: Regulation, interference, intervention, correction of bias should be shunned at all times – except when we’re the Regulators, Interferers and Correctors.
Chistery, your post seems to be nothing more than a list of dopey nudge-nudge wink-wink suggestions.
“http://www.arc.gov.au – note the the ‘.gov.au’ bit. Kind of a give away..” oh yeah! I hadn’t figured! All dot-gov-dot-au sites must be involved in pro-government propaganda! Look here! The bastards even have a link to an activist’s homepage!!! Gorblimey!
monkeywrench: I also loved this bit:
10 years ago the NHMRC had a debate about the merits of priority vs investigator-driven research as part of a review of its funding processes. Generally speaking taxpayers get better value for money through priority-driven research where funding institutions (including governments) set the priorities for the nation. Investigator-driven research is mostly whatever the researcher wants to do, regardless of any benefit or significance of the research to our country, or value for money to taxpayers. Those claiming the OMG CONSPIRACY THEORY angle need to ask themselves which system they would prefer, and argue the merits of either approach.
Secondly, it is appropriate that the processes have ministerial approval because we are talking about taxpayers funding. If the government were to outsource approval for dispensing taxpayers funds to an external source you can bet people like chistery and bolt would be screaming blue murder about accountability. But in the processes I’ve been a part of, the grant review panel recommends successful research applicants, and the minister approves the list.
I will add that a colleague of mine was awarded a discovery grant a few years ago when Julie Bishop was minister. The budget had been slashed to under half what was requested, seriously limiting the team’s ability to meet the stated objectives. I think this too is another way in which politicians can influence the research process.
The minister employs the members of the College of Experts and sets the framework on what research should receive funding and then approves the funding.
The government has an input to the process. The CoE may then act without further involvement from the government in deciding which grants to select for approval, but to say the process “not influenced by the government’s political agenda” is to live in ‘left-wing defender of the the faith’ la-la-land.
We know what happens to CSIRO research fellows when they try to publish a paper that does not comply with the governments agenda… or are we looking at unicorns over there.
UPDATE: On a related note, Andrew Bolt’s open thread for today has some comments about Professor David Karoly, who appeared on last night’s Four Corners program. Some commenters seem to regard Karoly’s government-funded research as a sign of bias. Interestingly, they don’t seem to have considered whether global warming sceptic Professor Bob Carter, who appeared on the same program, has received government-funded research grants:
(NB: I also notice that at least one comment makes derogatory assertions about Karoly’s character – another regrettable lapse in Andrew Bolt’s commitment to keeping personal smears out of the debate.)
Toby: the other meme the anti-science brigade have latched onto is that of science being conducted in ‘ivory tower’ institutions rather than the *real world*. This is patently false: most research is done in partnership with either industry, government, local government, subject-relevant sector and/or non-government sector. It’s just another way in which the conspiracy theorists mis-use information to advance their cause.
Chistery: the CSIRO conducts research whereas the ARC funds it. It’s chalk and cheese really.
Chistery…like…big deal, so what?
its a democracy..the government is elected, its taxpayers money, the nation has priorities…these change as the government changes…
…so what?
Chistery
The ARC was the same under the previous Govt (not noted for it’s acceptance of climate change) and yet there was just as much research into climate change. So are you saying that this government has tried to influence research? Won’t wash I am afraid.
OMG I can’t believe I didn’t process this:
Chistery:
Incorrect. According to the ARC website, all experts are employed elsewhere, usually academic institutions but also industry, and all are considered to have academic reputations of international standing. To claim a conspiracy wrt their employment is to supp at the well of fringe extremism as far as i’m concerned.
What usually occurs with grant review panels is members are paid sitting fees as reimbursement for their time contributed to meetings on grant review. In my experience this fails big time to reimburse you for actual time spent reviewing grants, but I’m happy that at least my meeting and teleconference time away from work can be reimbursed. To that end, if you are self-employed this money is paid directly to you, however if you work for an academic institution and have already been paid for your time by your employer, the sitting fees go to your employer.
Isn’t it time we now dispensed with this crackpot conspiracy theory that scientific experts are supping at some government trough simply because their research interests align with climate change? People acquire expertise through their publication record, their record of winning (as lead CI) competitive grants, and their record of research translation. This has been the case for countless decades, and to date nothing that either Bolt or Chistery have said has been able to undermine this practice or expose any flaws in the process or methodology. In fact I challenge bolt and his sheep like Chistery to put their reputations on the line and actually submit an ARC discovery, or NHMRC project grant according to the criteria they insist applies. I’d genuinely love to see the results of their efforts.
It looks to me like just another way in which the Right is boxing itself more and more into fringe territory. To have to deal with these nutters means we derail ourselves from the fights that are meaningful and important. And that’s not good for either democracy or sound policy outcomes.
Confessions @ 11….What!?! You mean…..get Bolt and similarly-minded loudmouths to find scientists to ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE and submit it for review in the appropriate fields?!? Why….that means….they’d have to back up their blabbering with EVIDENCE!?!
A 10-metre rise in sea levels will happen sooner, methinx….