Risk and impact: centres of excellence

Any new centre of excellence will benefit from the combined wisdom of its predecessors after the Australian Research Council released a consultation paper last week. The paper canvases a range of issues which will become guidelines for new centres of excellence funded from 2011. These include whether the maximum annual funding should be increased from $3 million to $4 million and the term of funding from five to seven years. Twenty four centres currently exist, with previous funding rounds in 2003 and 2005. The centres are designed to drive innovative national and international interdisciplinary research in areas of national priority. Research of this nature is inherently risky. The paper proposes that research programs with a “higher than normal” risk not be excluded from the program, with the proviso that funding be modified or terminated following a rigorous review process after four years. “The real advantage of centres of excellence is that they support research programs as opposed to individual projects," said Bradley Smith, executive director of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. "Discovery grants are projects. The advantage of programs is you can spread the risk which means you can have very high-risk projects or sub-programs within your broad program.” Smith said risk took many forms: the risk of failure; of not getting the right people, resources or infrastructure; of the nature of collaboration and of getting trumped. “There’s also the risk in big transformational research that the market mightn’t want it because it has the potential to upset existing markets. “Research programs are a form of research portfolio management and that is the most efficient way to handle risk. If risk is always worn at the individual project level there are good reasons why researchers will shy away from that.” Professor Keith Nugent, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coherent X-ray Science, said he had no doubt that the centres for excellence program had enabled him to be involved in higher impact research. “The resources and diversity and security means that you can do higher risk, higher impact work,” Nugent, a Federation Fellow, said. “Certainly my centre has a track record now of making that happen.” Smith also applauded the suggestion that the duration of the centres be increased from five to seven years. “A lot of research needs longevity. It’s reasonable to call a review in the fourth year, which is what the paper suggests, and if there are major governance or administrative issues then you might want to think about closing prematurely. “But the risk is if you have a four-year cut off on the research then that will militate against high risk research. We need to be careful about what is being evaluated and make sure it’s not going to be an impediment to longer term views.” Nugent, who expects to see his centre of excellence have an eight-year life span if it gets extended after, said he couldn’t see the point in fundamentally reducing the time frame. “If you give seven years funding up front, then the tendency may be for the review system to be a little less strenuous. Currently, we are funded for five years and then we have to put in a vigorously defended bid for a three and a half year extension. That that really focuses the mind. But saying seven years upfront will reduce the pressure on centres to perform.”