Australia’s landmark research and development review has allayed concerns that it would gloss over gaps in funding for basic research, with its panel recommending ambitious reforms to key grant schemes.

But sector leaders said the big test lies ahead, when the federal government reveals its appetite for adopting the proposals from the Strategic Examination of Research and Development (Serd).

The Serd panel’s final report has stressed the importance of funding for foundational research. “Knowledge is a public good and…its creation depends on public investment,” the report says. “Funding for basic research provided through competitive grants has been in real decline for over a decade.”

It says that over the next four years, allocations through the Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) should be returned to their historic levels – reversing a 19 per cent decline over the past 12 years – and properly indexed to maintain their value in real terms.

̽����Ƶ

And despite its central recommendation for federal funding to be oriented around six focus areas, the panel says the ARC and NHMRC should support research “across a broad range of disciplines”.

A decline in funding for indirect research costs, which has failed to keep pace with research grants – partly because it was never adjusted to cater for the A$20 billion Medical Research Future Fund (MRRF) – should also be reversed, either through an increase to the Research Support Programme or by using “underspent” MRFF funds.

̽����Ƶ

As a first step, funding for indirect research costs should be raised from 18.4 cents to 20 cents of each dollar of competitive grant funding, the report says. A proposed National Innovation Council should also work with the Australian Tertiary Education Commission to develop a “comprehensive R&D costing framework” – possibly modelled on the UK’s Transparent Approach to Costing – to ascertain indirect research funding needs.

Science & Technology Australia president Jas Chambers endorsed the recommendations. “Just as households are feeling cost of living pressures, the research system is feeling the pinch of increasing research costs, from consumables to specialist equipment to wages. A new indexation rate must reflect the true cost of doing research.”

The report also warns the government to safeguard major research infrastructure from a looming “funding cliff”, with investments in the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme due to wane from 2029.

The National Innovation Council should take responsibility for the oversight, planning and coordination of major research infrastructure, including enhanced capabilities in “rapid prototyping” and high-performance computing and graphics.

̽����Ƶ

The report also says the government should reverse its 2021 decision to require universities to perform research at or above world standard in at least half of the broad fields in which they teach.

This requirement – recommended in a 2019 review of the higher education provider category standards – has limited universities’ ability to focus and “build scale” in the “areas of their competitive and comparative advantage”, the report found. The Australian Universities Accord also called for the research quality requirement to be relaxed, although some vice-chancellors supported its retention.

Lobbyists hope the government will commit to some of the Serd proposals in the federal budget, expected on 12 May. Science minister Tim Ayres may also reveal the government’s intentions when he addresses the National Press Club on 25 March, as part of annual activities.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com