Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Projects face greater scrutiny all around as competition for dollars increases. By Louis White
The much publicised drama over Queensland University of Technology scientists who received more than $1 million to produce a now-discredited research paper is one of 52 disputes over research conduct that the National Health and Medical Research Council has had to investigate throughout the past six years.
QUT scientists received a $275,000 federal grant. They got a further $225,000 from then-premier Peter Beattie’s state government for related work. Their total funding package was worth more than $1 million, to which the university also contributed, along with Brisbane company Tissue Therapies.
The paper, submitted in 2010, focused on stem cell research for growing tissues. US scientific journal Stem Cells and Development retracted it after a whistleblower pointed out errors.
The scientists have since abandoned the work and there is the possibility that QUT could be forced to pay back money depending on the NHMRC investigation.
The school has informed the Crime and Misconduct Commission and the NHMRC and it must be stated that the scientists involved were cleared of any misconduct. But one wonders whether the QUT scientists felt pressured to get their research published before it was ready, having received such a large grant and with the media watching – not to mention the politics involved.
The NHMRC is one of many bodies that receive grants from the Australian Research Council. In 2012-13, the ARC administered a budget of $879.1 million under the National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP). That total includes funding awarded to Australian universities and other eligible administering organisations.
In 2012, Monash University was awarded the largest total amount, followed by The University of Queensland and The Australian National University.
But the reality is that despite this vast pool of money, research funding is decreasing and universities are regularly looking to sources other than federal and state governments to fund vital projects.
“Research funding pots are shrinking and the landscape is changing as funding bodies are keen to tackle major societal challenges of our time and encourage the finding of solutions through international collaborations,” says Dr Karen Shaw, director of research and development at Murdoch University.
“Consequently, there are more competitive pressures on academic staff to justify how they will spend research monies, particularly those coming from the public purse. Research outputs in the form of high-quality publications are one way of demonstrating a return on research investment. So yes, academic staff probably do feel some pressure to regularly publish their work.”
They are certainly under scrutiny. Of the 52 investigations NHMRC alone has launched over the past six years, 46 have been concluded and 20 allegations were found to have a base. Institutions, researchers or third parties raised 35 of the allegations, whilst the remaining 17 were highlighted through the research council’s peer review processes. The most common basis for claims of misconduct was the alleged misuse of data.
In addition to this, the ARC itself has extensive reporting requirements attached to research funding that it awards. The specifics for each project are listed in the relevant contract. The lists can be long: progress reports, final reports, end-of-year reports, audited financial statements, annual reports and reports on contributions from partner organisations.
Reports on output and outcome play an increasingly significant role in government research funding and policy. The ARC compiles the statistics and reserves the right to withhold further payments for any project until the appropriate reports have been received and assessed as satisfactory.
World leaders
In order to meet these requirements, all Australian universities have thorough research processes and checks. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research was developed as a guide to responsible practices and to promote integrity. It helps institutions develop their own employee codes of conduct and procedures for the investigation of allegations of wrongdoing.
“A research paper usually represents the culmination of outcomes of a discrete piece of work within an overall research program,” Shaw says. “The qualities required to write and submit research papers will vary between academic disciplines and research journals will specify the format in which they require the manuscript.”
Australian universities rank high in research worldwide. For example, in the last national quality assessment, Murdoch University had the following disciplines assessed as above or well above world standard: physical chemistry, crop and pasture production, resource engineering and extractive metallurgy, agricultural biotechnology, clinical science, immunology, medical microbiology, zoology, animal production, genetics, veterinary science and environmental science.
Universities around Australia do not apply research quotas on their academics. They want staff to be free to discover what they can through disciplined methods.
“We have no quota on how many research papers are to be submitted each year,” Shaw says. “We encourage all of our academic staff to submit to the highest quality publications possible in their field, which are subject to a peer-review process.”
Professor Keith Nugent, deputy vice-chancellor research, La Trobe University, says, “It is important to the university that its researchers test and share their findings by publishing in widely read journals, but a quota system is not in place.
“In some areas, additional resources may be available to staff who have demonstrated they have an active research program that is esteemed by their peers through their publication history.”
The competitive nature of research is intensifying. “More high quality research is being done around the globe than ever,” Nugent says. “For researchers and their universities to stand out and develop, they need to be publishing research that others are reading and acting on.
“They will need to do original research that contributes to knowledge that is of interest to others working in the field, and write up their findings according to the publications’ submission guidelines.”
La Trobe has established five research focus areas around its strengths: securing food, water and the environment; understanding disease; sport, exercise and rehabilitation; building healthy communities and transforming human societies.
“In addition to these, the Australian Research Council’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) process ranked La Trobe as the top institution in the nation for research in microbiology and equal top with just one other university in biochemistry and cell biology, and veterinary sciences,” professor Nugent says.
“Historical studies and archaeology were also assessed at the top ranking, highlighting the university’s renowned strength in humanities. La Trobe ranked third in Victoria for the number of fields of research evaluated at world standard or above.”
Monash University is another big tertiary institution that prides itself on its research rankings. Monash has been assessed as well above world standard in all disciplines and it scored 5 in the 2012 ERA rankings. There were 22 disciplines to achieve that score but even they acknowledge times have changed.
“Generally, there is more emphasis in the university sector on research performance than there was a decade ago,” professor Pauline Nestor, pro vice-chancellor research at Monash, says. “Again, at Monash, academic staff are encouraged to publish research that is of high quality and that is likely to have impact, rather than simply focusing on the quantity of research published.
“The university has targets – not quotas – for research performance. They are faculty and discipline specific.”
Professor John Ozolins is chair of the human research ethics committee and deputy chair of the academic board at Australian Catholic University.
“Australian Catholic University follows very closely the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research in particular and other legislative requirements, as necessary,” Ozolins says.
ARC funding
Publicly funded research agencies other than universities are eligible for ARC funding under the NCGP for selected schemes. These agencies include:
• Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
• Australian Antarctic Division
• Australian Institute of Marine Science
• Anglo-Australian Observatory
• Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
• Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
• Defence Science and Technology Organisation
• Geoscience Australia
• Commonwealth-funded research centres, which are a separate corporate entity from other eligible organisations.
Some National Health and Medical Research Council-accredited institutes, including independents, are eligible for funding only under the Future Fellowships scheme.
The ARC also funds a number of research initiatives in cooperation with other Australian Government agencies and has been working closely with:
• The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (for National Information and Communication Technology Australia)
• Grains Research and Development Corporation (for the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics)
• The National Water Commission (for the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training).