Download How the ARC funds good research

How the ARC funds
good research
8 July 2015
Professor Aidan Byrne
CEO, Australian Research Council
Challenges!
•
•
•
•
•
Freedom, Flexibility and Risk taking
Diverse Portfolio
Review and Evaluation
Partnership with stakeholders
International collaboration
Source: www.globalresearchcouncil.org
Outline (1)
•
•
•
•
•
International Landscape
Current Funding Landscape
Assessment
Outcomes
Evaluation
The Race to Innovate 1996–2012
• R&D
expenditure %
GDP vs.
researchers per
million
• Bubble size =
GDP
The Race to Innovate 1996–2012 (2)
• R&D
expenditure %
GDP vs.
researchers per
million
• Bubble size =
GDP
The Race to Innovate
• R&D expenditure
% GDP vs. GDP
per Cap.
• Bubble size =
Researchers per
million
The Race to Innovate
• R&D
expenditure %
GDP vs. GDP
per Cap.
• Bubble size =
Researchers
per million
Outline (2)
•
•
•
•
•
International Landscape
Current Funding Landscape
Assessment
Outcomes
Evaluation
2014-15 Federal
2014–15 Federal Budget
(Approx. AU$415 billion)
(Treasury omitted)
Australian Government support for
science, research and innovation
shown in red
2014–15 Federal Budget
(Approx. AU$415 billion)
(Treasury omitted)
Commonwealth Investment in R&D 2014–15 ($m)
$0
Industry R&D Tax Measures
Block Funding (incl. RIBG, JRE, SRO, APA + RTS)
NHMRC
ARC
CSIRO
DSTO
Business Innovation
Rural
ANSTO
CRCs
Energy and the Environment
Geoscience Australia
Other Health
Other R&D
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Focusing Government Investment
Research Priorities
• The Australian Government has developed a set
of Science and Research Priorities, they are:
-
soil and water
transport
cybersecurity
energy
resources
advanced manufacturing
environmental change
Health
• More information at www.science.gov.au
National Competitive Grants Program
Discovery Programs
Linkage Programs
(incl. NICTA)
DECRA
Laureate
Fellowships
Centres of
Excellence
Future
Fellowships
SRIs
Other
Fellowships
Other
Linkage
Discovery Projects
ITRP
Linkage
Projects
Area of box represents $$ awarded over the period 2009–2014.
N.B. - Centres of Excellence, SRIs, not awarded in every year.
- ITRP & DECRA only funding since 2012
LIEF
ARC NCGP funding by scheme 2006–2014
100%
LASP
Thinking Systems
90%
Research Networks
Linkage International
80%
LP
LIEF
70%
Future Fellows
Linkage Postdoctoral (CSIRO)
60%
Super Science Fellows
Laureates
50%
Federation Fellows
DECRA
40%
DP
Discovery Indigenous
30%
DIRD
NICTA
20%
ITRP Hubs
ITRP Centres
10%
SRIs / other Centres
CoE
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
ARC NCGP funding* by Fields of Research 2002–2014
100%
Mathematical Sciences
Physical Sciences
Chemical Sciences
90%
Earth Sciences
Environmental Sciences
80%
Biological Sciences
Information and Computing Sciences
70%
Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Engineering
60%
Technology
Medical and Health Sciences
50%
Built Environment and Design
Education
40%
Economics
Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services
30%
Studies in Human Society
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
20%
Law and Legal Studies
Studies in Creative Arts and Writing
10%
Language, Communication and Culture
0%
2002
History and Archaeology
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Philosophy and Religious Studies
*All grants, excluding NICTA and some co-funded centres and SRIs where Field of Research was not nominated
FOR Network
mapping…
STEM disciplines highlighted
01 MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
02 PHYSICAL SCIENCES
03 CHEMICAL SCIENCES
04 EARTH SCIENCES
05 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
06 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
07 AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
08 INFORMATION AND COMPUTING SCIENCES
09 ENGINEERING
10 TECHNOLOGY
11 MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES
12 BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN
13 EDUCATION
14 ECONOMICS
15 COMMERCE, MANAGEMENT, TOURISM AND SERVICES
16 STUDIES IN HUMAN SOCIETY
17 PSYCHOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES
18 LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES
19 STUDIES IN CREATIVE ARTS AND WRITING
20 LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE
21 HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
22 PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES
Source data: ARC Grants
Search
Outline (3)
•
•
•
•
•
International Landscape
Current Funding Landscape
Assessment Process
Outcomes
Evaluation
Dispelling
the
myths!
Source: www.smbc-comics.com
Zach Weinersmith
ARC Assessment Process
Application
External
Assessment
Selection
Meeting
Panel
Outcomes
Proposal assessment—overview
• The peer review process is designed to be fair, thorough
and transparent
• All proposals are assessed against the selection criteria,
and in accordance with the weightings for that scheme
• Proposals are generally assigned to two types of
assessors:
– two College of Experts members (General assessors),
and
– at least two Detailed assessors
• ARC staff assess eligibility etc., but do not decide which
proposals should be funded
Cross assignment between panels
DP 2015
Assessing
Interdisciplinary
research
BSB
EMI
HCA
PCE
SBE
Detailed Assessment numbers—
some examples
The ARC is grateful to a large number of extremely hard-working
assessors who conduct the peer review process:
Scheme
DECRA 2015
Discovery Projects
2015
Linkage Projects 2015
Detailed
assessments
Proposals
Average
assessments
per proposal
4578
1394
3.3
12,173
3689
3.3
2294
710
3.2
Safeguards
•
•
•
•
•
Detailed Assessment
Rejoinders
ROPE
Conflict of interest
Ministerial sign-off
ARC Meeting Process
Initial
Ranking
Highly
ranked
Uncertainty
band
Lowly
ranked
Funded application
Funded application
Funded application
Uncertain application 1
Funded application
Funded application
Funded application
Funded application
Funded application
Uncertain application 2
Uncertain application 3
Uncertain application 4
Uncertain application 5
Uncertain application 6
Unfunded application
Unfunded application
Unfunded application
Unfunded application
Uncertain application 7
Unfunded application
Shortlisting
Voting
Funding
Voting
Final
recommendation
Uncertain application 1
Fund
Nominal
Uncertain application 4
Fund
funding
Uncertain application 3
Fund
line --------->
Uncertain application 2
Fund
Uncertain application 7
Reserve
Uncertain application 5
Not fund
Uncertain application 6
Not fund
Alternative Processes!
Source: BMJ Open, http://bmjopen.bmj.com
Outline (4)
•
•
•
•
•
International Landscape
Current Funding Landscape
Assessment Process
Outcomes
Evaluation
Histogram of Rank
Discovery Projects grants outcomes DP15
• Success rates
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Institution
100%
Grants funding by institute (%) 1971–2014
LaTr
90%
Flin
80%
Ade
60%
UWA
50%
USyd
40%
UNSW
30%
Mon
ARC becomes a statutory agency
70%
NICTA
ANU
20%
10%
Mel
UQ
0%
1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Other organisations and individuals
Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education
Museums
University of Southern Queensland
AINSE/ ANSTO
Federation University Australia
Learned Academies
Bond University
Central Queensland University
AAO (formerly AAO)
Edith Cowan University
University of the Sunshine Coast
AIMS
Australian Catholic University
Victoria University
Charles Darwin University
University of Canberra
Southern Cross University
Charles Sturt University
Murdoch University
The University of New England
Other Research Centres & Botanic Gardens & zoos
CSIRO
La Trobe University
University of South Australia
Swinburne University of Technology
University of Western Sydney
RMIT University
The Flinders University of South Australia
Deakin University
University of Technology, Sydney
Curtin University of Technology
Medical Institutes / Centres
Griffith University
The University of Newcastle
Queensland University of Technology
The University of Tasmania
University of Wollongong
National ICT Australia
Macquarie University
James Cook University
The University of Adelaide
The University of Western Australia
The University of Sydney
The University of New South Wales
Monash University
The Australian National University
The University of Melbourne
The University of Queensland
Average age of lead CIs in DP grants
(+DECRA 2012–2014)
50
40
DECRA average age ~35
30
20
10
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Average age of lead CIs in DP grants
(+DECRA 2012–2014 & Futures 2009–2013)
y = 0.0675x - 89.271
R² = 0.1905
50
40
Futures
30
DP + DECRA
20
Linear (DP + DECRA)
10
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
First-time awardees by scheme 2008–14
600
40%
35%
500
30%
400
300
25%
# DECRA first-timers
20%
# DP first-timers
15%
200
10%
100
5%
0
0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
% first-timers
Participation and success of CIs in DP13
and DP14 by gender and career age
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Male %
Female %
Male Success %
Female Success %
5%
0%
Participation and success of Chief Investigators
(CIs) in DP15 by gender and career age
25%
20%
15%
Male % proportion of all CIs
Female % proportion of all CIs
10%
Male success % within band
5%
Female success % within band
0%
Outline (5)
•
•
•
•
•
International Landscape
Current Funding Landscape
Assessment Process
Outcomes
Evaluation
Excellence in research for Australia
Australia has one of the highest percentage
outputs of international collaboration
YS Chi
Aggregate National Performance—Citations
Michael West, Benchmarking Australian Science Performance,
Office of the Chief Scientist Occasional Paper, Feb 2013.
Challenges! (2)
•
•
•
•
•
Freedom, Flexibility and Risk taking
Diverse Portfolio
Review and Evaluation
Partnership with stakeholders
International collaboration
Source: www.globalresearchcouncil.org
Discussion/questions