The Australian Research Council will lift its risk appetite for innovative but unproven ideas that could lead to future research breakthroughs under a proposed overhaul of non-medical research grants.
The Australian Research Council also plans to cut the number grants categories from 15 to six, removing an “unnecessary burden” while introducing “clear requirements, standardised processes and user centered approaches”.
The proposed reforms are contained in a discussion paper released on Tuesday to reshape and simplify the National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP) in support of the research and innovation ecosystem.
ARC board chair Peter Shergold, who launched the paper at the Universities Australia conference in Canberra, said the “timely and necessary” reset would involve the ARC taking “greater risk” over the next 20 years.
“The goal, quite simply, is to enhance the way the ARC encourages and supports the very best, most creative research,” Professor Shergold said in the discussion paper’s foreword.
Representing 7 per cent of all publicly funded research in Australia, the NCGP provides grants to researchers through two main programs: the Discovery Program for blue-sky research, and the Linkages Program.
But consultations last year revealed the current structure of the NCGP is “unnecessarily complicated”, with researchers and their partners struggling to fully understand eligibility criteria and application processes.
To address this, the redesigned NCCP will be “significantly simplified”, with the number of schemes to be reduce to “ensure a more straightforward experience for researchers”.
It has proposed six schemes ranging from ‘initiate’, a two-year program offering up to 900 projects $400,000 for “higher-risk/higher-reward research”, to ‘prioritise’, a seven-year program worth up to $6 million.
The ARC will also move to realign the scheme so that it supports “bold thinking and the best early-stage research, regardless of whether it is theoretical, methodological or aimed at addressing recognised problems”.
“The design of the new schemes challenge the so-called “linear model of innovation” which asserts a causal chain from basic and applied research to technological innovation,” the paper states.
“Instead of attempting to balance between basic and applied research, the ARC should foster a stronger appreciation of the public benefits of funding high quality early-stage research, whatever its nature.”
This means the ARC will need to take more risks and “support potentially breakthrough ideas early and before it is clear whether they will transform the way in which we look at issues”.
“Just as early Australian research on quantum physics has coalesced into a world-leading industry for Australia (in part through ARC funding), today’s early-stage research could lead to future discoveries that cannot be foreseen,” the paper said.
“However, excelling at early-stage research requires boldness and willingness to take risks. Not all research will pay off immediately, although it all adds to stores of knowledge for the future.”
The report also calls for greater focus on the “public benefits” of research, including the social, economic and cultural benefits that make Australia more competitive, and to ensure that intellectual property is retained.
“In our complex and increasingly uncertain environment, Australia needs to build its sovereign capability to conduct high-quality research in all disciplines,” the paper states.
“Australian-based researchers work on a plethora of global challenges, but in translating that research for public good, they can also help find solutions to specifically Australian challenges and opportunities, both at the local and national level.
Science and Technology Australia chief executive Ryan Winn welcomed the proposed reforms, describing them as key to reimagining a “system that is at times labyrinthine and confusing to researchers”.
“This paper is a bold reimaging of the ARC’s role and one which has the potential to more clearly cement its essential place as the foundation of Australian research and innovation,” Mr Winn said.
STA president Sharath Sriram added that a “fearless discussion about what we want our research and innovation system to look like” with the root-and-branch R&D review was now underway.
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.