From:	Mike Innes [minnes@socs.murdoch.edu.au]
Sent:	Monday, 30 October 2000 1:53 PM
To:	eet.sen@aph.gov.au
Cc:	a.garton@psychsociety.com.au
Subject:	Submission on Australian Research Council Bills 2000
ARC Bills 2000

We wish to make two comments on the Bill before the Senate
Employment,Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation
Committee on behalf of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd.

The first relates to subsection 53(2) paragraph (b). 
We note and support the proposal that where there is a variation of a
funding split determination the Minister must, after a recommendation has
been made, disregard the variation with respect to a project's funding and
have regard to the funding split determination as in force when the
recommendation was made. 
This appears to ensure stability of funding awarded to a project over the
term of the project and enable continuity of employment of personnel and
resources over that term.

The second comment relates to Subsection 52 (Recommendations by ARC in
relation to approval of proposals).  In particular, Paragraph (4), where
the minister may (<but is not required to>) rely solely on recommendations
made by the ARC (emphasis added).
The APS objects to this proposal as it appears to allow the intrusion into
the granting process criteria other than peer review.

We support in the strongest terms the awarding of grants on the basis of
peer review, where the application of sound scientific criteria has been
ensured. Other criteria, such as response to community concern or religious
or political grounds, allows for the possibility that excellent proposals
may be denied funding and less worthy research may be awarded funding. 
Cases in other countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom
has shown that serious distortions can occur in the execution of research
and in the application of results, when criteria other than scientific
merit are applied.  One case can be cited where the funding for a project
of agreed scientific merit into surveying the health and sexual practices
of adolescents was rescinded in 1991 by the secretary of the Health and
Human Services of the United States Government.  This resulted in agreement
by scientists in the area of health promotion that serious deficiencies
occurred in an understanding of the factors associated with the spread of
sexual transmitted disease, including AIDS.  The ramifications of this are
continuing in the USA.

We assume, of course, that the peer review has taken into account legal and
ethical issues in arriving at a judgement of the quality and viability of
the research and that the institutional ethics committees which oversee the
bodies applying for the funding have given permission for the proper
conduct of the research.  There are sufficient controls over the scientific
conduct within the community that peer review can be allowed to be the
premium and sole criterion for the decision to award funding.  There
appears to be no place for Ministerial involvement at this level of
decision making.

We thank you for considering these two comments on the Bill before you
Committee.

Professor J M Innes
Director of Science
Australian Psychological Society Ltd

Contact Details

School of Psychology
Murdoch University
Perth, WA 6150

E mail: minnes@socs.murdoch.edu.au
Tel: (08) 9360 6670
Fax: (08) 9360 6492

Professor J. Michael Innes PhD, FASSA
Dean of School of Psychology
Murdoch University
Perth, Western Australia 6150.
Chair of Psychology Programme
Tel 61 (08) 9360 6670
Fax 61 (08) 9360 6492
 
Psyche

By Samuel Taylor Coleridge

The butterfly the ancient Grecians made
The soul's fair emblem, and its only name-
But of the soul, escaped the slavish trade			 
Of mortal life!-For in this earthly frame
Ours is the reptile's lot, much toil, much blame,
Manifold motions making little speed,
And to deform and kill the things whereon we feed.

	 >  				1808