Cathy Foley will report on Australia’s challenges, strengths and opportunities

Australian chief scientist Cathy Foley has been asked to lead a “national conversation” on science priorities.

Foley (pictured) was asked by industry and science minister Ed Husic to advise on refreshing Australia’s national science and research priorities and National Science Statement.

In a statement on 23 February, Husic said he wanted “to hear the views of a wide range of Australians on the issues they are facing that require a solution drawing on the breadth of our science and research communities”.

A discussion paper suggests that the new priorities should be “evidence-based” as well as “supporting and embedding First Nations knowledge and knowledge systems”. It asks for feedback on Australia’s challenges, strengths and “opportunities we should seize”.

The priorities will guide government strategy and investment, but the paper says they will not exclude other scientific research from taking place.

Foley will hold discussions with industry and researchers, and an online portal has been set up for public submissions.

Resilient future

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering chief executive Kylie Walker welcomed the review, saying that “there’s a need to refresh the priorities to define and develop Australian research strengths in crucial areas for our resilient future—such as low-emissions technologies and modern manufacturing”. 

Walker said that any priorities should also recognise the importance of international collaboration.

New priorities were last set in 2015. The first round of consultation will close on 31 March, with a final statement of priorities expected in September.

The post Chief scientist to lead discussions on national research priorities appeared first on Research Professional News.

Updated regulations will offer fresh opportunities to Australian institutions, Indian high commissioner says

Australian universities should make new campuses in India a “high priority”, the Indian high commissioner to Australia has said.

The call, made at Universities Australia’s annual conference on 22 February, was later backed by Australian education minister Jason Clare.

High commissioner Manpreet Vohra told the conference that as part of India’s ambitious education policy, new regulations around setting up Indian campuses would soon be released. He urged Australian universities to prioritise this opportunity.

Australia has been very successful in attracting an increasing number of Indian students, he said, but “even with the 100,000-odd students that you have in your campuses, that is just a minuscule part” of the Indian student body, he said.

The call came with a hint of access to Indian government research funding for joint projects. In response to an audience question about the possibility, Vohra said: “Yes, I imagine it would be…I’m sure they’ll be responsive to all of that.”

Comprehensive relationship

University of Queensland chancellor Peter Varghese said that Australia’s relationship with India was changing and “education is going to be the most important strand in the India-Australia relationship”.

“Australia is looking to create a comprehensive relationship with India” in a geopolitical climate where innovation is “the new currency of influence”, he said.

Varghese said that “research is an important part of what we can do, given the quality of our people and our institutions and the same qualities over there”.

Delegation

Clare is going to India with a delegation of 11 Australian vice-chancellors later this week. He will sign an agreement giving greater mutual recognition of higher education qualifications.

Clare told Sky News that setting up campuses in India to serve students who were unable to come to Australia was a way Australia could “help” India. He named the University of Wollongong as likely to be among the first to do so.

The post Look to India, universities told appeared first on Research Professional News.

Applications from court sentencing to conservation are being explored

New Zealand researchers are taking up artificial intelligence in increasingly innovative ways, an editorial in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand has said.

The editorial on 9 February, introducing a special edition of the journal dedicated to the technology, says researchers have used it in work ranging from medical imaging to earthquake prediction.

“With world-leading researchers and practitioners, Aotearoa New Zealand is playing an important role in the global AI community,” the guest editors wrote.

Agriculture applications are particularly significant given that “many traditional methods used by farmers are either too costly in human labour or not sufficiently productive”.

“AI provides great opportunities and potentials for boosting the efficiency and productivity of agriculture in a sustainable and safe way…AI technologies have also been used in addressing various environmental problems, where examples include AI for climate change, biodiversity, conservation, weather forecast and disaster resiliency.”

New Zealand is building environmental datasets that could be used in AI-driven conservation research.

Legal sentencing

The special edition also examines the potential for AI’s use in legal sentencing. It says that while AI might help sentences become more consistent across the system, risks include “the opacity and incomplete explainability of the algorithm, the risk of bias in the training dataset (because of the method of collection or, importantly in New Zealand, the entrenched pattern of historical bias) and the risk of ‘automation bias’, so the outcome in which judges would be willing to rely on the AI recommendation without analysing it further”.

The three editors are from Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Canterbury.

The post New Zealand researchers ‘playing important role in global AI’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: visa extensions, research animals and support for the Voice to Parliament

In depth: The government must “clarify exactly what the Australian Research Council is for and who it is there for”, the chair of a sweeping review of the ARC has said.

Full story: Trust in the ARC has been lost, review leader says

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

Chief scientist to lead discussions on national research priorities—Cathy Foley will report on Australia’s challenges, strengths and opportunities

Look to India, universities told—Updated regulations will offer fresh opportunities to Australian institutions, Indian high commissioner says

Researchers’ best friend—How detection dogs are improving Australian conservation research

Universities urged to support ‘yes’ vote in Australian referendum—Failure to support constitutional reform to give Indigenous Australians better representation would be “political”

Australian Universities Accord discussion paper launched—Paper’s 49 questions on fees, research and national challenges throw university reforms open

Government backs taskforce’s work on foreign interference—University Foreign Interference Taskforce praised by Australian government, but ARC performance is under review

Here is the rest of the Australia news this week…

Engineering academy supports Voice

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering has said that it “strongly supports” the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, a representative advisory body for First Nations people. “Establishing the Voice will provide a forum for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make representations to federal parliament and executive government on matters that affect them,” the academy said in a statement on 23 February. It says it will “encourage” academy fellows to support the ‘yes’ campaign in a referendum later this year.

Visa extensions granted

International students in areas of skills shortages have been granted a two-year extension to their Australian work rights. In an announcement on 21 February, education minister Jason Clare said that for qualifying students, this would mean a jump from two years to four years for bachelor’s graduates, from three to five for master’s degrees and from four to six years for PhDs. He later told Radio National that some other international education providers were “eating our lunch” and that the new visas would help attract students as well as filling skills gaps. A full list of eligible occupations will be published before the extension comes into force on 1 July. 

Archaeologist freed

A researcher from an Australian university has been freed after being taken hostage by a Papua New Guinean criminal gang. According to The Guardian, Bryce Barker of the University of Southern Queensland has been released alongside the other hostages and will soon be reunited with his family.

Assurances on research animals

The new operators of Western Australia’s Animal Resources Centre have promised to maintain any animal lines that will be needed in the future by researchers. At a briefing on 20 February, representatives from private company Ozgene answered researchers’ questions and said that specialist animal strains would be maintained “as long as they continue to be needed by the client base”. The centre is the major supplier of research animals to Australian laboratories, but the Western Australian government was unable to keep supporting it after financial difficulties in 2021. Ozgene is expected to fully take over the operation by the end of May this year.

Humanities and creative arts director for ARC

The Australian Research Council has appointed an executive director in the field of humanities and creative arts. Alison Ross is a professor of philosophy at Monash University, a former holder of an ARC Future Fellowship and a former deputy dean of research in the university’s arts faculty. An ARC statement said she “brings significant expert advice and guidance in research excellence to the ARC”.

The post Australia news roundup: 21-27 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Margaret Sheil says Australian Research Council must win trust back after “political interference”

The government must “clarify exactly what the Australian Research Council is for and who it is there for”, the chair of a sweeping review of the ARC has said.

Margaret Sheil (pictured) told the annual Universities Australia conference on 23 February that the research sector’s trust in the council would be a key focus of the review panel’s recommendations.

That trust has “largely been broken because of ministerial interference”, she said. This includes the vetoing of recommended grants since 2005, most recently in 2021 by Stuart Robert, acting education minister at the time.

Administrative issues are also prominent in the submission process, and Sheil said some of the feedback had already been passed on to the council.

Sheil revealed that some overseas experts had been reluctant to work with the ARC after several rounds of ministerial intervention in ARC decisions in recent years. “It was hard to get international reviewers to respond, particularly after periods of political interference, because they felt it [peer review] wasn’t being valued,” she said.

Reinstating a formal board for the ARC—after the previous one was abolished in 2006—would help address “a lack of continuity…and a lack of support for the ARC chief executive”, she said.

The review has identified several issues with the legislation underpinning the ARC, Sheil said. These include a lack of a clear brief that the ARC is there to support university and university partner research, despite that being how it operates in practice, and a lack of direction on the level of funding for basic research.

The ARC traditionally does not support medical research, but that is also missing from the legislation, she said.

Research quality

Sheil confirmed the likelihood that future research quality assessment would be more streamlined than the now-suspended Excellence in Research for Australia and Engagement and Impact processes.

She said that these once-useful processes had been affected by “the law of diminishing returns”, acknowledging concerns from some that the newly created Indigenous research classification was now not going to be assessed.

The ARC’s future role might be to provide advice on “specific capabilities” in government priority research areas, alongside more automated metrics systems, Sheil said. It could also help in assessing research quality across the sector more broadly.

Sheil’s report to education minister Jason Clare is due at the end of March. It covers the legislation underpinning the council and is not advising on the overall level of funding available for the council to distribute.

The post Trust in the ARC has been lost, review leader says appeared first on Research Professional News.

How detection dogs are improving Australian conservation research

After the devastating 2019 Australian bushfires, animal rescuers knew they had limited time to find and treat burned and injured koalas.

Koalas are notoriously difficult for humans to spot in the wild, meaning that rescuers feared many of the endangered animals would be lost in the aftermath of the blaze.

But where humans struggle to find koalas, for one species it is all in a day’s work. Rescuers decided to enlist the help of man’s best friend in their search, turning to the University of the Sunshine Coast and its Detection Dogs for Conservation programme.

The programme, launched in 2015, uses rescue dogs to support ecological research, making the most of their superior sniffing powers to track and rescue rare plants and animals, including koalas. After the bushfires, the dogs used the skills they had picked up during their work on previous research projects to help locate more than 100 animals in need of medical attention.

Success stories

This is just one of the ways in which dogs are becoming invaluable in Australian conservation work and research, according to Emma Bennett, a researcher at Monash University and inaugural president of the Australasian Conservation Dog Network.

The network includes researchers from the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney, as well as leading dog trainers and handlers. It aims to share best practice on how to use dogs to support the natural world.

Bennett says there has been “massive growth” in the use of dogs for conservation in recent years. A paper published in 2021 by three researchers in Germany found that “dogs have been increasingly used to detect rare and elusive species or traces of them” over the last century, “but it is only recently that they have garnered serious attention by ecologists from all over the world”.

A separate paper published in 2020 by three researchers at the Detection Dogs for Conservation programme argued that budgetary pressures in conservation work have seen researchers increasingly turn to dogs for help.

In the paper, Romane Cristescu, Céline Frère and Russell Miller wrote that “consistent and extensive underfunding has necessitated creative thinking to address conservation issues on a low budget”, and that dogs used in conservation work “have proven to repeatedly outperform alternative survey methods in terms of accuracy, efficiency or cost”.

Bennett herself got into the field of conservation through studies on how wind farms affect animals; dogs were the perfect tool for finding bats and birds felled by the turbines. She now runs a conservation consultancy in western Victoria.

Dogs bring a whole new dimension to conservation surveys, Bennett says. Where traditional surveys use primarily visual clues, and sometimes audio such as frog and bird calls, dogs’ superior noses can pick up the smallest trace of animal droppings.

“What dogs do is add a third, really different tool,” she says.

Rewarding work

The known range of three endangered animals—koalas, quolls and the tiny marsupials phascogales—has been extended by dog-assisted surveys that found them in places where they were believed to be absent.

One dog has detected the alligator weed plant, which can choke a waterway, in places where it was still underground and not visible at all.

Bennett is currently using dogs to detect hawkweed, which is “a tiny little plant”. Finding plants using dogs requires a little more work, Bennett says, because dogs are less interested in plants than in small animals—but she has a trick up her sleeve, also known as a tennis ball (used as a reward for a find).

Dogs’ adaptability has seen their use, and the publication of papers on how best to use them, become almost mainstream in conservation research in recent years.

Bennett says that New Zealand researchers in particular are “world leaders” at using dogs in conservation work, with their use going back to the late 1800s. Unlike Australia, New Zealand allows registered dogs to work for researchers or the government in national parks (although in Australia, some state departments of conservation now have their own detector dogs).

Conservation dogs are different from many other working dogs, Bennett says, because they need to work in a range of environments, which is one reason the Australasian Conservation Dog Network was set up in 2017 to share knowledge.

“They’re working from the top of the mountains to out on the ocean and from the rainforest to the desert,” she says. Dogs have been used to detect owls, to find rare plants in need of protection and to tell when Tasmanian devils are fertile. In some cases, they have even let their handlers know not only which species is present but which individuals.

Training troubles

Using conservation dogs is not without its drawbacks, Bennett says. One major issue can be getting access to sites. Dogs are normally banned from national parks, and many farmers can be unhappy at the thought of unknown dogs near their livestock.

Animal ethics committees need to give permission for research using dogs as well, and some guidelines aren’t yet adjusted to using dogs in this way.

And they are high maintenance, needing “daily” training, Bennett says. However, they are not always expensive to acquire; many working breeds end up in shelters because they are not suitable as pets.

These are exactly the kind of dogs that researchers need—Bennett says almost any dog can be trained to find things, but it’s the “work ethic” that makes a good detector, often found in traditional working breeds such as border collies and Australian kelpies.

And a dog can’t be packed away in a cupboard after use. One of the issues the network is dealing with is coming up with welfare guidelines, particularly as dogs start to be more widely used.

“It’s just making sure that if we’re going to start going down a route where [research] organisations own dogs, we have a whole-of-life plan for them once they’ve finished their service,” Bennett says.

Despite the effort involved in training and caring for detection dogs, their superior senses in sniffing out endangered animals and plants means that the rise of these four-legged research assistants is unlikely to slow down any time soon.

The post Researchers’ best friend appeared first on Research Professional News.

How the NIH uses the US government’s billions to shape the world of biomedical research

The National Institutes of Health is in many ways in a league of its own as a public research funding agency. With a budget of $45.1 billion in 2022, it is the largest non-military government research spender in the United States and claims to be the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world.

Its history begins in 1887 and the establishment of the US Marine Hospital Service, which was originally tasked with checking passengers arriving at ports for disease. Since then, it has grown into a behemoth that has supported over 150 Nobel prizewinners, along the way becoming first the National Institute of Health in 1930 and then expanding to multiple institutes in 1948.

While the NIH conducts its own in-house research, more than 80 per cent of its funding is awarded externally, largely through competitive grants. These are channelled through 27 separate institutes and centres, covering all areas of medical research and public health.

Rising tide

Except for a moderate decline between 2012 and 2013, the NIH’s budget has steadily risen since the turn of the millennium and has increased more rapidly since around 2015. While external grants are awarded across a variety of categories—including career development fellowships, training awards and business R&D contracts—research project grants consistently account for between 50 and 60 per cent of the NIH budget.

However, the picture of inexorable rise looks somewhat different from the perspective of individual researchers who win grants. When inflation is taken into account, there has been little difference in the average size of research grants since 1998.

Big spenders

The NIH does not spread its spending evenly across its various centres. The five top-spending centres together account for over 50 per cent of spending in recent years. Those centres cover cancer; allergies and infectious diseases; heart, lung and blood; general medical sciences; and ageing.

At the other end of the scale, the institutes with the smallest research budgets are the National Library of Medicine, the National Institute of Nursing Research and the John E Fogarty International Center, which focuses on global health.

The majority of centres spend more than 95 per cent of their budgets on research project grants, but there are some exceptions. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences, for instance, spent nearly 7 per cent of its budget on research training grants in 2020, while the Office of the Director reserves around half of its budget for special awards.

Higher education focus

The NIH is a hugely important funder for the expansive US academic community, with medical schools around the country relying on it hugely. In line with this, higher education institutions win the largest share of NIH grants compared with independent research institutes, hospitals, non-profits and companies.

Higher education institutions won nearly three-quarters of research project grants in 2019, the last year for which data are available. They claimed an even higher proportion of career development fellowships and training grants.

Institutions attracting the most NIH funding are located in the research heartlands of the east and west coasts of the US. The north-east cities of Boston and New York—home to world-leading research institutes including Harvard and Columbia—came out top in geographical concentration of funding in 2020. But when it comes to individual institutions, Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University top the leaderboard.

Most NIH awards go to US institutions, with those overseas winning less than 1 per cent of the total grant funding in 2020. Even so, non-US grant funding amounted to more than $290 million and over 600 grants were parcelled out to 66 countries. Top among these were South Africa, Canada, Australia, Germany and the UK.

Win or lose

Since 2016, success rates for research project grants at the NIH have been fairly static, at about 20 per cent, having fallen from nearer 30 per cent around 2000. When the NIH budget dropped between 2012 and 2013, success rates hit their lowest level—about 17 per cent—but they have since improved moderately.

The gap between men and women, in terms of the proportion of grants won, has shrunk considerably since the turn of the millennium. In 2000, men won around 75 per cent of research project grants and women took around 25 per cent, but in the past three years, men have won around 65 per cent of grants, with women taking around 35 per cent. Success rates, too, have improved, and have mostly been fairly even since around 2003, although it is notable that the success rate for women dropped further than that of men when the NIH budget was restricted in 2013.

In other areas, funding is much more even between genders. For instance, women were awarded at least 50 per cent of career development fellowships from 2016 through to 2020.

Diversity gap

When it comes to race and ethnicity, the NIH has made it clear it wants to see the proportion of non-white award-winners rise, but there has been only a small amount of movement in this area in recent years.

In 2016, the proportion of non-white  winners was 23 per cent, rising to 25 per cent in 2020.

Outside non-white winners, by far the largest proportion of grants are won by people of Asian origin: consistently around 20 per cent since 2016. In contrast, only around 2 per cent of research project grant winners have been Black or African American. Hispanic researchers have consistently made up 5 per cent of research project grant winners in recent years.

Looking forward

The NIH occupies a critical position at the centre of US research—and therefore, to a large extent, at the centre of world research. Even small shifts in how much it has to spend and what it chooses to spend it on can have huge consequences for entire disciplines, let alone individual researchers.

As well as a change in leadership, with former director Francis Collins stepping down in late 2021 after 22 years at the helm, another major change on the horizon is that the NIH will be housing the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, a new funder geared to deliver medical breakthroughs.

While lawmakers have set aside an extra $1bn for the agency, known as Arpa-H, in 2022, it remains to be seen whether its creation could put pressure on core NIH funding in the long term.

Originally published as part of Research Professional News’ Special Report: Research Funding’s Big Players in April 2022

The post Focus on NIH: The big beast appeared first on Research Professional News.

Velux Stiftung offers project grants in an eclectic range of subjects linked to daylight

Velux Stiftung is a grant-giving foundation that is perhaps less well known than it should be, especially by researchers in fields linked to light, vision and healthy ageing whose interdisciplinary ideas may not easily find favour with national funders. Ophthalmology researchers with ideas for projects in low- and middle-income countries should also be aware of this funder.

The 2023 round of the foundation’s Research Grants schemes is open now, with up to CHF100,000 (€101,000) for applicants to the daylight and healthy ageing stream, and up to CHF400,000 available in the ophthalmology stream. Projects in both can last for up to four years. The deadline for daylight and healthy ageing applicants is 30 April and for ophthalmology 7 May.

In April 2021, the foundation’s senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp shone a light on these grant programmes.

Top tips

• Connecting different fields is strongly encouraged in bids, especially when this isn’t supported by other funders
• Velux Stiftung likes to see the transfer of results from previous research
• Grants applications in ophthalmology should focus on low- and middle-income countries

For researchers with ideas for projects a little different from the norm, Velux Stiftung might provide a welcome ray of light. The Swiss funder, founded by the inventor of Velux windows, awards grants on an annual basis for projects lasting up to four years. It specifically asks applicants to explain why their project is not eligible for funding by other sources.

Velux Stiftung awards grants in three specific areas: ophthalmology, daylight research and healthy ageing.

The funder recently held a strategic review that led to some important changes in its grants programme. Senior scientific officer Kirstin Kopp tells us more.

How long has Velux Stiftung had a research grants programme?

Velux Stiftung was founded in 1980 and it’s been giving out grants ever since. From the early 2000s it really took off. The Danish engineer Villum Kann Rasmussen had the idea that people needed to have more light and air within built environments. With his Velux roof windows, he made a fortune and founded several foundations.

Tell me a bit more about the three funding areas.

First, there is daylight research, as we call it, which brings together many different disciplines, including chronobiology, psychiatry and architecture—considering the built environments where we spend 90 per cent of our time—but also topics in daylight and nature as well as daylight technology. Second, there is healthy ageing, where we also try to focus on this interdisciplinary approach. The third area is ophthalmology.

Are you open to applications from any country?

We give out international grants but I should point out that as a charitable Swiss foundation, we are tax exempt and that requires us to spend 50 per cent of our money in Switzerland. So 50 per cent of our funding is open to international research grants. Broadly, we receive more applications from within Europe, but we have also been getting applications from overseas.

How many grants do you award each year and what are your success rates?

In the past five years, it’s been around 20, with an average success rate of 23 per cent. It does vary. In 2019, we had over 100 applications, so the funding rate was below 20 per cent, but usually it’s around 20 to 25 per cent.

Is there a total budget?

In the past couple of years we gave out around CHF7 million in total, but it depends on the financial markets.

Do you tend to fund more projects in any one of the three main areas?

No, it’s actually quite variable. When you look at our funding history, in some years there is more money going to healthy ageing and in other years there is more into daylight research. There is no fixed quota, and it’s not split into equal parts for the three different funding areas—it really depends where the best ideas come in.

Are all three areas distinct or do you like to see some crossover?

We are genuinely quite fond of interdisciplinary approaches. This might be within one of these areas but reaching out to another discipline which is not in our funding portfolio, but it also might be an interdisciplinary project at the intersection of the three areas we fund, and these projects are of particular interest.

You ask for applications not to be eligible for funding by other sources. How should applicants show this?

Not all national funding agencies have programmes for proof-of-concept studies, for example. So that’s something where you could demonstrate that you’re not eligible for funding. Another example would be interdisciplinary projects that fall between categories. And some funding agencies continuously fund a certain research stream but once you start to reach out and want to try something new or apply your work to a different field, it becomes more difficult to find funding.

Can people apply with proposals that have been turned down by their national funders?

Well, you need to be within our funding areas and your research question should be relevant but also neglected in that nobody else wants to fund it. And then scientific quality is important, of course. It’s not like if you have fallen through your national funding agency’s selection procedure then we will cover you—that’s not the case.

Could you give an example of a project that would be the right fit for Velux Stiftung?

It could be that you have a great idea and a great research partner, but this partner is in a country that is not supported by other funding sources. We’re also interested in how much applicants are invested in transferring research results. Obviously, if you’re doing basic research, the next level might not be developing a product, but you might want to go on and see who else is interested and who you could collaborate with. I think that this kind of transfer step is very important.

Velux Stiftung has recently had a strategic review—has this changed your funding priorities in any way?

When we did a bit of background research on where funding for ophthalmology went in general, we saw that there was a lot of funding for diseases that were common in high-income countries but that the majority of visual impairment was actually in low-income and middle-income countries and was due to diseases for which solutions existed. Often these solutions work well in high-income countries but are not adapted to the local situation in low-income and middle-income countries. As we are a rather small foundation, we wanted to know where we could make a difference, so the focus is now set on ophthalmology research in the context of low-income and middle-income countries where there is less funding available.

And are there any other changes to your funding programmes on the horizon?

As a sneak peek I can tell you that the foundation is actually looking at starting a funding programme in forestry and climate change. But we’re still at the very beginning and at the moment we are considering what we should focus on. We’re trying to set it up this year so by next year there should be some more details.

The post From the archive: Cross-cutting projects shine for Swiss funder appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: an Endeavour extension, Horizon Europe access and struggling museums

In depth: New Zealand’s conservation efforts are “unbalanced”, a study has found.

Full story: Conservation strategy in New Zealand ‘unbalanced’, study says

Also this week from Research Professional News

Help us, universities tell incoming education minister Tinetti—Formal briefing outlines cost pressures on New Zealand’s higher education sector

Horizon Europe opens to researchers in New Zealand—Researchers can now apply to lead consortia under R&D programme’s second pillar

Here is the rest of the New Zealand news this week…

Endeavour extended

Applications to New Zealand’s Endeavour Fund have been extended to 8 March because of the effects of Cyclone Gabrielle. The fund announced the move on 21 February, saying that consideration of applications would be delayed as a result. It encouraged applicants who are able to submit earlier to do so.

Horizon opens

New Zealand researchers are now able to apply to the EU’s Horizon Europe research fund. Access to the second pillar of the fund opened on 17 February for proposals due in March or April. A statement from New Zealand science minister Ayesha Verrall said that this pillar “focuses on science that addresses major global challenges, such as climate change, energy and health and addressing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals”. Verrall said it was a transitional arrangement until final documents between New Zealand and the EU could be signed. Horizon is currently running in-person workshops for researchers interested in applying.

Museums struggling

New Zealand’s large collecting institutions are “vulnerable” because of poor funding, a report for the national umbrella body Museums Aotearoa has said. The report, by the consultancy Business and Economic Research Limited, was released in late 2022. It said that museums and galleries contributed around NZ$272 million to the nation’s GDP annually and hold around NZ$3.6 billion worth of assets. Museums Aotearoa chief executive Adele Fitzpatrick said that funding of institutions should move away from the current “headcount at the door” model.

The post New Zealand news roundup: 16-22 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Failure to support constitutional reform to give Indigenous Australians better representation would be “political”

Australian universities should take a position on the proposed Voice to Parliament, a co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue group at the University of New South Wales has told a national gathering.

The Voice to Parliament is a proposed advisory group containing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which would be enshrined in the Australian constitution. Prime minister Anthony Albanese has announced that a referendum will be held on the matter.

Megan Davis (pictured), a constitutional lawyer who is pro vice-chancellor for Indigenous issues at the university, told Universities Australia’s annual conference on 22 February that silence over the referendum would be a “political” decision.

Her university has committed to supporting the ‘yes’ vote in the referendum, and many universities have come out in support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a petition for the constitutional change, but have not yet made a statement on the Voice to Parliament.

“The decision not to support is political…Silence is political,” she said. “Universities work on dispossessed land.”

The stance taken by the University of New South Wales has made it a leader “for not hiding behind what all universities know is false: objectivity”, Davis said.

Gathering support

Davis told Research Professional News that she expected to keep talking to universities over the coming months about getting explicit support.

In her keynote speech, she said that a detailed proposal on the form of the Voice to Parliament would be released within a month, once a referendum date is set.

Public support is key to the process, she said. “It’s Australians we are asking to say ‘yes’ to this because if you take it to the politicians we will never get there.”

Davis concluded her speech with a full reading of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was met with a standing ovation by the conference audience.

The post Universities urged to support ‘yes’ vote in Australian referendum appeared first on Research Professional News.

Paper’s 49 questions on fees, research and national challenges throw university reforms open

Rebalanced student fees, a new mix of higher education institutions and ways to increase research “responsiveness” to national challenges are all on the table under the proposed Australian Universities Accord.

Launching a discussion paper at Universities Australia’s annual conference on 22 February, accord review chair Mary O’Kane said her panel had identified three main areas in need of change: capability and skills; equity issues; and research.

The discussion paper contains 49 questions for the sector, with the aim of coming up with solutions for the next “10, 20, 30 years”, she said.

Dealing with expected massive growth in demand for Australian university places is one of the paper’s key questions, but the answers are still open, O’Kane said. “You tell us—that’s the point, that’s what this [process] is about.”

On the former government’s Job-Ready Graduates fees package, the discussion paper notes the Australian Productivity Commission’s recent finding that there was “little evidence” that differential fees were helping solve skills shortages. The paper also says the sector has asked for change.

“Some stakeholders have proposed a single [student] contribution rate, while others promote options to rebalance the amount students pay so there is less variation between fields of education,” the discussion paper says.

It suggests that overall levels of spending on basic research need to be improved, with industry investment in this area very low.

The accord is intended to interact with the current review of the Australian Research Council, and the paper says it wants to establish “whether the current [research funding] arrangements provide sufficient focus on quality, opportunity to focus on clear missions of national importance, and support for the specialisation of different institutions across Australian higher education”.

Innovation and access

On research commercialisation, O’Kane told the conference that the quality of Australian research was very good but the resulting production of “widgets and services” was not in line with comparable countries. She said there was a role for end users in driving the process. “We need industry and government to get better at asking us how to solve things,” she said.

“In terms of international innovation rankings such as the Global Innovation Index, Australia has for many years scored poorly compared to OECD peers, with Australia ranking 37th in knowledge and technology outputs,” the discussion paper says. “While universities are good at collaborating with other research organisations, an ongoing, multi-decadal question in Australia is why the links and collaboration between industry and universities are not stronger and more productive.”

Equity of higher education access is also a focus, and O’Kane said she would like to see university access reach “parity point with underrepresented groups”, meaning that such groups were in university in proportion to their actual numbers.

Universities Australia welcomed the discussion paper’s focus on equity, as well as saying that the accord was “our chance to get the policy and funding settings right”.

Public responses to the discussion paper are open until 11 April, with an interim report from the review panel expected by 30 June and a final report to education minister Jason Clare due at the end of the year.

The post Australian Universities Accord discussion paper launched appeared first on Research Professional News.

University Foreign Interference Taskforce praised by Australian government, but ARC performance is under review

The Australian government says it welcomes a recent report’s recognition of the University Foreign Interference Taskforce’s “substantial work”.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s report was issued in 2022 to the former government. In a response issued on 14 February, Anthony Albanese’s government said it “will continue to support and collaborate with universities in policy development, capability building, guidelines implementation, information sharing and an overall positive partnership to deepen universities’ resilience against foreign interference”.

The government response backed a “transparent” process, with regular taskforce reports to the government. It also said it would help universities train staff and students on how to deal with security issues, via the taskforce’s training working group. Under the taskforce’s guidelines, universities must have dedicated staff managing their security response.

The taskforce is a collaboration between universities and the government.

The government will also move to further limit “talent recruitment” programmes. The Defence Industry Security Program will not be available “to institutions with exposure to talent recruitment programmes that is assessed to be a security issue”. Membership in the programme is a prerequisite for winning some Department of Defence contracts.

National security

Some recommendations, such as having the national security agency include higher education and research in its annual report to parliament, were not supported by the government. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation already uses multiple channels to report threats, it said.

The government also simply “noted” a recommendation that any foreign-backed “harassment, intimidation and censorship” on campus should be reported publicly. The government response said the National Security Hotline was already available for reports.

No new action will be taken on the controversial Chinese-backed Confucius Institutes and other links with Chinese government entities. The response said the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had been formally notified of 56 such arrangements and they had all been assessed, with the department “actively engaging” with the universities. Monash University’s joint research with a large Chinese aviation company, which was a special target of the committee’s report, is due to end this year, the response said.

It also said that the Department of Education was moving to discuss foreign interference issues with the Australian Research Council. It will review active ARC grants to assess whether they still meet security guidelines. It will also report to education minister Jason Clare on the ARC’s performance in assessing foreign interference risks.

Universities Australia welcomed the government response, saying the University Foreign Interference Taskforce was “world-leading and increasingly guiding other nations as they respond to the very real national security challenges facing universities”.

The post Government backs taskforce’s work on foreign interference appeared first on Research Professional News.

Politics and interest groups are trumping science in biodiversity battle, researchers find

New Zealand’s conservation efforts are “unbalanced”, a study has found.

The paper, published in the New Zealand Journal of Ecology on 17 February, found that a strong focus on predator animals came at the expense of other threats, such as hoofed animals. It said that government agencies did not always rely on science when making decisions.

“Changes are required to provide adequate, stable funding, improve clarity around goals, leadership, responsibilities and accountabilities, strengthen planning and prioritisation of management actions, and coordinate management among various conservation actors,” the paper said.

While reviewing New Zealand’s conservation system, “we became increasingly concerned at the degree to which ecological research has often been a passive responder, focusing on the impacts of narrow groupings of invasive mammals in response to sociopolitical drivers, rather than offering long-term, whole-system viewpoints”, the researchers wrote.

Research tended to be “single discipline”. “Inter- and transdisciplinary, cross-cutting ecosystem ecology and mātauranga Māori [Māori knowledge] have been chronically underfunded for decades.”

Longstanding shortcomings

Co-author John Leathwick, a conservation science consultant, said that a project aimed at assessing the effects of wild deer had transitioned into an examination of national priorities, including in research.

He said they had identified challenges including “coordinating management effort among growing numbers of groups and individuals involved in conservation; the sometimes undue influence exerted by particular interest groups; the growing dislocation between key aspects of conservation policy and management and a large body of Aotearoa New Zealand and international science; and our failure to adequately measure what biodiversity gains our pest management activities are actually delivering”.

His co-author was Andrea Byrom, a former director of New Zealand’s Biological Heritage National Science Challenge.  

Commenting on the paper, University of Auckland conservation biologist James Russell said it highlighted “longstanding shortcomings in the governance of biodiversity in New Zealand, and in particular the urgent need to reform wildlife law”.

“Ultimately, more systematic planning of conservation incorporating ecological science could only benefit biodiversity and societal aspirations in New Zealand,” Russell said.

University of Canterbury emeritus professor Dave Kelly said the study was a reminder that New Zealand’s Predator Free 2050 strategy omitted “politically more delicate” feral animals such as pigs and cats.

The post Conservation strategy in New Zealand ‘unbalanced’, study says appeared first on Research Professional News.

Researchers can now apply to lead consortia under R&D programme’s second pillar

Researchers in New Zealand can now apply to the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme in line with the association deal struck last year.

The development means researchers in the country are eligible to apply for funding directly from the programme and to lead proposals for collaborative projects.

“I am glad to share the news that New Zealand researchers and organisations are now able to apply as prospective beneficiaries in pillar 2 Horizon Europe calls,” tweeted Signe Ratso, a senior European Commission official, on 17 February.

Pillar 2 of the programme focuses on industrial competitiveness and on societal challenges such as climate change.

Pending formal completion of New Zealand’s association deal, applications will be considered under a transitional agreement. Association gives non-EU countries access to Horizon Europe on near-equal terms with the bloc’s member states.

New Zealand is the first country outside the European near neighbourhood to agree association to the programme.

The post Horizon Europe opens to researchers in New Zealand appeared first on Research Professional News.

State’s first medical research strategy focuses on infrastructure and staffing

Western Australia is to target six priority areas in its bid to become a world leader in medical research.

The state launched a 10-year health and medical research strategy on 9 February, targeting Aboriginal health, consumer engagement, “precision” health, regional and remote health, digital healthcare and prevention.

“Precision” health research involves the production of therapeutics. The strategy says the state’s universities and research institutes are already strong in this area.

It commits to tracking the progress of medical research translation and adjusting policy to “actively facilitate the timely translation of research findings into practice”.

Among its strategic goals are attracting and retaining research talent in key areas, better integration of research in the state’s healthcare system and improved industry and consumer collaboration with researchers.

Existing infrastructure will be reviewed to identify opportunities, followed by a “refinement” period of improving infrastructure.

The plan does not come with specific spending promises but says it will guide funding to strategic areas, seek co-investment and ensure the state can “secure an equitable share in Commonwealth health and medical research funding”.

Red tape

It also commits to reducing red tape by aligning the funding processes of Western Australia’s various health research funding programmes. These include the Future Health Research and Innovation Fund, which runs numerous programmes and currently has three A$2.5 million research fellowships open for applications, with extra money expected to come from the fellows’ institutions. It has also issued a A$5m “challenge” to researchers to find solutions to healthcare issues in the remote Pilbara region (pictured).

Western Australian health and medical researchers and user communities have been urged to “own” the strategy, with state support.

Stephen Dawson, the state’s minister for medical research, said the strategy would “create an environment where our researchers have the tools they need to transform brilliant ideas into real change”.

The post Western Australia aims for health leadership with 10-year strategy appeared first on Research Professional News.

Chief scientist says quantum research is a national strength that must be further developed

Australia has the potential to lead the world in quantum research, the nation’s chief scientist Cathy Foley has told a national forum, but it needs to make some strategic decisions.

Her comments came as the sector awaits the release of a quantum strategy by the federal government, with hints that quantum research may benefit from the A$15 billion National Reconstruction Fund.

Foley told a seminar on 7 February, run by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, that Australia had a good quantum base. “Researchers across Australia recognised [quantum’s potential] and really focused on it for the last 20+ years…and that has set us up beautifully,” she said.

“We’ve graduated two and a half thousand PhDs in quantum over the last 20 years, which is extraordinary,” she said. Australia ranks sixth in the world for quantum research and very few other countries have an explicit strategy to develop the technology, she added.

National strategy

Foley is the chair of a national committee on quantum research advising industry minister Ed Husic. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources is developing a national strategy, with a final document expected soon.

Husic told ABC radio on 14 February that quantum technology was an “ambition for the nation, and we want to see it fulfilled through the National Reconstruction Fund”.

Foley cited the recently announced Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Quantum Biotechnology as an example of Australia’s leadership. The centre, at the University of Queensland, will receive A$35 million to develop quantum technology for use in biological sciences, such as miniature sensors.

Foley said that while states and the federal government had “got behind” the technology, it was now at the stage where industry needed to get involved to develop uses.

She said quantum computers could potentially revolutionise the design of chemicals because of their superior processing power.

However, Foley said, Australia’s size meant it needed to “be a collaborator” with groups such as the Quad nations (Australia, India, Japan and the US) and the Aukus (Australia, the UK and the US) partnership.

Broad-ranging agenda

The Australian Quantum Alliance of industry and researchers, launched last year, has sparked global interest and attracted potential commercial investors, according to alliance member Vikram Sharma, who also sits on the advisory committee.

“It provides a bit of a front door,” he said. “We’re now setting out a particularly exciting and broad-ranging agenda for quantum in Australia.”

Jim Rabeau, who heads the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Quantum Technologies Future Science Platform, told the forum that Australia had “to decide in some sense what we are going to be famous for”.

The key to future staff being able to drive the sector is in university training and even in vocational colleges, to ensure the right skills are available when new uses emerge, he said.

The post Australia ‘ahead of the game’ on quantum appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: grants criticism, a defence programme and a resurgence in international student numbers

In depth: Western Australia is to target six priority areas in its bid to become a world leader in medical research.

Full story: Western Australia aims for health leadership with 10-year strategy

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

Australia ‘ahead of the game’ on quantum—Chief scientist says quantum research is a national strength that must be further developed

Bring Australia’s R&D spending up to speed, government told—Falling levels of research spending criticised by sector in pre-budget submissions

Universities make case for share of A$15bn reconstruction fund—Basic research is needed to feed innovation pipeline, Australian inquiry told

Here is the rest of the Australia news this week…

Grants administration criticised

A parliamentary inquiry has been told that red tape and “arcane” requirements such as formatting continue to waste researchers’ time. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit’s inquiry into federal grants administration heard on 10 February that although the GrantConnect system made government grants more visible, there were multiple hubs for applying for them. Labor Party MP Michelle Ananda-Rajah, a medical doctor and member of the committee, said her personal experience with applying for medical research grants had been a “nightmare”. She said researchers lacked a “line of sight” beyond their university’s systems into granting bodies such as the Medical Research Future Fund and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Hunt joins Melbourne

Former health minister Greg Hunt has been named an honorary professor at the University of Melbourne. Hunt, who was minister during the Covid-19 pandemic, retired from parliament at the last election. He will chair the advisory board for innovation and enterprise in the faculty of medicine, dentistry and health sciences and contribute to entrepreneurial and research translation programmes, the university said in a statement. 

Defence Trailblazer beds down

The University of Adelaide’s defence research Trailblazer programme is taking shape with the appointment of a board and senior staff. The programme, one of six Trailblazer university programmes nationwide, has attracted a total of A$250 million in government and partner funding, a university statement said. The federal government is contributing A$50m and the University of New South Wales is a partner in the project. Adelaide says the programme will create a A$1.5 billion benefit to the economy over 10 years.

International students coming back

Universities Australia says that the international student market is continuing to recover. At nearly 60,000, twice as many international students arrived in Australia in January 2023 as in the same period in 2022. Catriona Jackson, chief executive of the vice-chancellors’ group, said there was “still a way to go” in making a full recovery but that her organisation was “pleased” by the trend. She said the numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics would not include the post-January rush of Chinese students booking flights after the Chinese government mandated on-campus attendance for its international students.

The post Australia news roundup: 14-20 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Formal briefing outlines cost pressures on New Zealand’s higher education sector

Universities New Zealand has asked incoming education minister Jan Tinetti to urgently address financial issues in the sector.

In a formal briefing paper, the vice-chancellors’ group said it wanted a chance to talk to Tinetti as she prepared policies for the upcoming national election.

The paper on 10 February emphasised universities’ contribution to research in New Zealand, especially basic research. A quarter of all research takes place in universities and around three-quarters of the national research workforce is university trained, it said.

“University research returns around NZ$5.10 for every dollar invested,” it said, but rising costs are hitting the sector hard. “Over the past 15 years, university operating costs have risen around 68 per cent during a time when the Consumer Price Index rose just 36 per cent.”

Challenges for the sector include decreases in per-student funding in real terms, the continued impact of the costs of the pandemic, and the long tail of missing students who did not arrive in 2021 and 2022. However, applications from first-year international students are “in line with pre-Covid numbers”, the group told Tinetti.

Most universities are also dealing with problems in meeting the pay expectations of staff, it said. “We are not seeking government involvement in salary negotiations, but we do need financial support in budget 2023 to ensure our universities can continue to retain the people that underpin our ability to deliver world-class teaching and research.”

Priorities

The briefing said that universities supported the government’s stated priorities on Te Tiriti issues, student safety and retention and greater inclusivity, but that these had come without additional funding. “The sector needs real and substantial investment if real and substantial additional value is to be delivered,” it said. Te Tiriti, or the Treaty of Waitangi, contains principles for the protection of Māori culture.

The briefing also asked for better support for postgraduate students and for formal industry placement programmes, including an industry PhD programme, and a new national fellowship scheme for early career researchers.

New Zealand’s 2023 budget is due in May, with the exact date yet to be announced, while the election is set for 14 October.

The post Help us, universities tell incoming education minister Tinetti appeared first on Research Professional News.

This year the Zeit-Stiftung Foundation’s Beyond Borders scheme is for PhD students interrogating conflict

Top tips

• These scholarships serve to supplement the work of doctoral researchers by means of joint activities and conferences
• This is a scheme which requires tailored proposals—do not copy and paste
• Having the right language competencies to enable the project to be carried out is important
• Mention what you will gain from the scholarship beyond financial resources

The Zeit-Stiftung Foundation is a private charity based in Hamburg, Germany. The foundation runs several fellowship programmes, conferences and exchanges throughout the year, mostly aimed at PhD students.

One of those programmes is Beyond Borders, a scheme for PhD students that supports research on borders and boundaries within the social sciences and humanities. This year, in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the foundation is looking for projects that cover borders, contestation and conflict.

A total of €500,000 is available through the scheme, and projects will last for up to three years. The foundation expects to award 15 to 20 scholarships. The deadline for applications is 1 March and applications are accepted from any country.

Anna Hofmann, academic director of the programme, tells us more.

What is Beyond Borders?

It is an international PhD scholarship programme that has been running for three years. Every year we focus on a particular aspect of border and boundary studies. We started with a programme on borders, democracy, and security for the first generation of scholars. They were dealing mostly with national borders, and the whole question of negotiating democracy or statehood at the border.

Last year we focused on borders, migration and knowledge, looking at the production of knowledge about boundaries and border-making, and how different perceptions influence the way we learn about borders. This year the focus is much more on conflict and physical borders. We hope to get more projects on history and inter-ethnic relations. What happens in everyday life and everyday border management, and in the everyday experience of borders for different people?

Why was it set up?

The decision to focus more on borders and boundaries came out of our previous research funding programmes, where we noticed more and more emphasis on transnational aspects of research. At the same time, the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in Europe highlighted a rising awareness of borders. We turned away from the process of reducing barriers and having borders dismantled in the process of European integration; for example, with free movement. But with Covid, those borders came back very quickly.

For this call, what type of support is available?

Three types of scholarships are available: Dissertation Completion scholarships for advanced PhD students; PhD scholarships for PhD students at any stage of their studies; and Start Up scholarships for advanced master’s students or PhD students who are at an early stage of their studies.

Are there restrictions on who can apply?

They must be doctoral students, or, for the Start Up fellowships, master’s students. Applicants also must work in social sciences and humanities in a broad sense, and their work has to involve the study of borders or boundaries. In the past we have accepted some people from a law background because their research goes beyond classical law.

Do applicants need to move to Germany for the scholarships?

No. They stay at their home institution and we will bring them together at least twice a year for a conference with everybody on the programme. They will present their project and discuss it with the advisory board and their peers from the programme. During the pandemic we moved communication online, and now that we are back doing physical conferences students still want to keep more regular online communication.

We also try to have one additional workshop or field trip, or another meeting during the year, and this is smaller and the offer is more diversified. For example, we might offer our Start Up scholars a workshop on proposal writing and research design development. For those who are much more advanced, we might propose a workshop on science communication, so going beyond the research work and thinking about how they may have more impact with their research. These are tailor-made to the needs of the individual group and people can register for them and apply if they want to participate.

Do participants work alone on their projects?

Yes and no. Participants work on their own projects, but they will also work with other members of their cohort for group discussions and so on. We try to create diverse groups with an interdisciplinary focus, but to have some kind of framework for productive work in the group discussions, we focus one overall topic or theme so that people can get into discussions with each other.

How many people do you expect to fund?

For this call we estimate we will select between 15 and 20 people. Our overall budget is around €500,000 for all participants, and that includes conferences, travel, workshops and so on. The funding covers the projects for up to three years.

What makes a good application?

The first thing we look at is the research question. Then we look at the candidate and their skills, their preparation for this research. For example, we look at language competencies, which are always a big factor in international projects. Can you access the literature in the archives? Are you prepared in terms of academic qualification? We consider whether this person can deliver on the topic they are proposing.

What advice would you give to applicants?

I would also say that applicants should make their proposals as specific as possible to this programme. In my experience, people often apply with a standardised research proposal that is more suitable to a graduate school. But usually for us it is much too long; we deal with a huge number of applications, so we are looking for a maximum of seven pages. The application for the Start Up fellowships is even smaller at five pages.

It is also very important to explain why you want to join the research programme and how it will be beneficial to you beyond the financial support.

Is Zeit-Stiftung the organisation that runs this scheme?

Financially speaking, we are a classical endowment charity. The founders, Ebelin and Gerd Bucerius, donated their wealth to the foundation after they died in the 1990s. As an institution, we are linked to the Die Zeit newspaper, which Gerd Bucerius founded in 1946.

Do you run any other calls throughout the year?

Yes, several. This is the only fellowship programme for PhD students, but we regularly advertise workshops or summer schools for interdisciplinary exchanges. Currently, the call for our Hamburg Summer School in Social Research is open. We also run a fellowship programme for international postdocs at the HafenCity University Hamburg in Germany which covers urban research.

The post Opportunity profile: Crossing borders, breaking boundaries appeared first on Research Professional News.

Falling levels of research spending criticised by sector in pre-budget submissions

Australia’s level of investment in R&D has been singled out by the sector in pre-budget submissions to the federal government.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering called for “an independent review of Australia’s research sector, with a view to raising sector-wide funding to an internationally competitive level”. This call was also made by the Australian Academy of Science.

The vice-chancellors’ group Universities Australia told the government that “at 1.79 per cent of GDP, Australia lags behind its competitors” in total research spending.

Although some reduction in spending has come from industry, government spending is also falling, Universities Australia said in its submission, and universities are having to contribute more.

The government should recognise “the importance to Australia of basic research, including the need to attract, develop and maintain the talented researchers that will sustain this basic research effort”.

The vice-chancellors also used their submission to criticise the “generous” amount going to the R&D Tax Incentive, saying some of that money should go to direct funding programmes supporting university-industry collaboration.

It asked for a greater “long-term investment” in university research.

Science Future Fund

Science and Technology Australia called for a Science Future Fund to be established, saying this would help boost the national rate of investment in R&D.

The fund would be similar to the A$20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, with Science and Technology Australia calculating that it would generate an economic return of up to A$2.3bn a year. The fund could “deliver breakthroughs that will turbocharge labour productivity [and] generate new higher-wage jobs in new industries”.

In less ambitious proposals, the group, which represents scientists and technologists, asked for more money to flow via the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, a stronger commitment to spending on research infrastructure and a better focus on climate science and “clean tech”.

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering also called for greater support for developing the science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce through a range of measures, from fully funding courses to supporting an Indigenous Stem network.

The budget is due to be released on 9 May.

The post Bring Australia’s R&D spending up to speed, government told appeared first on Research Professional News.

Basic research is needed to feed innovation pipeline, Australian inquiry told

Universities have made their pitch to have access to the A$15 billion National Reconstruction Fund for their R&D work.

Submissions to a Senate inquiry into the yet-to-be-established NRF show that researchers are concerned about too much spending on development and not enough on basic research.

The fund will provide financial options, but not grants, to support a range of priority funding areas, from renewable energy to defence capability.

Both the vice-chancellors’ group Universities Australia and the Australian Technology Network of Universities called for the board of the fund to include a representative from the university sector.

“The NRF can form a vital part of the research ecosystem and stimulate investment in all stages of R&D by providing tangible and achievable pathways for research, the relevant workforce, startups and scale-ups,” the ATN submission says.

Universities Australia’s submission says the fund should “invest in projects that involve substantial amounts of R&D and are driven by university-industry collaboration”.

“The creation of the NRF will help retain and develop Australia’s world-class research workforce by providing the opportunities and career pathways that will keep our best and brightest in the country and attract researchers from around the world,” it says.

The vice-chancellors’ submission gives several “case studies” of university-industry collaboration on new technologies. It urges the government to make better knowledge transfer between researchers and industry one of the fund’s priorities.

University partners

A submission from the Innovative Research Universities group said that Australia differed from other advanced economies in that a greater proportion of its R&D took place in universities. “Through both their research and teaching, Australian universities provide key inputs into industry innovation,” it said.

The IRU said the NRF should prioritise schemes that allow “universities and university researchers to be partners in industry-led projects”.

“NRF investments can also build upon successful models of university-industry collaboration…established with support from other Australian government programmes.”

Some of the expected profits from the fund should be channelled back into research to help “drive future innovation”, the IRU said.

The Australian Academy of Science has told the inquiry that the fund needs a dedicated science advisory body, beyond the fund’s board, to offer advice on cutting-edge scientific projects.

The Senate committee is due to report to parliament by 10 March.

The post Universities make case for share of A$15bn reconstruction fund appeared first on Research Professional News.

State of emergency sends staff and students home from universities

Several New Zealand universities have closed their campuses because of the impact of Cyclone Gabrielle, with the government declaring a national state of emergency.

On 14 February, the University of Auckland announced a week-long closure, but by 15 February it said conditions would allow it to reopen on 16 February. Most staff have been working from home, and some teaching and examinations have been moved online. The university is offering students counselling if they have been distressed by the disaster.

Strong winds and flooding caused by the cyclone have disrupted the beginning of New Zealand’s academic year, with classes due to start on 20 or 27 February.

Massey University said that its crisis management team had decided to close its Manawatū campus, which was without power for an unknown period. Some of Massey’s summer semester students were due for examinations this week.

Massey’s Auckland campus was closed on 13 and 14 February but suffered “no significant damage”, a university statement said. However, widespread power and transport disruptions meant staff were “strongly encouraged” to work from home for the week if possible.

Several of Massey’s ancillary services and the library are operating on limited hours. The cyclone follows serious flooding issues at Massey in late January. High winds and other impacts are expected to continue for several more days.

Auckland University of Technology also closed on 13 and 14 February, with on-campus activities due to resume on 16 February.

In recognition of the impact the cyclone has had on researchers, the Marsden Fund has extended the deadline for its 2023 expressions of interest to 20 February.

The post Campuses close as Cyclone Gabrielle hits New Zealand appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: Tertiary Education Union priorities, RNA advances and synthetic biology

In depth: Several New Zealand universities have closed their campuses because of the impact of Cyclone Gabrielle, with the government declaring a national state of emergency.

Full story: Campuses close as Cyclone Gabrielle hits New Zealand

Also this week from Research Professional News

Give us three examples of excellence, PBRF proposal says—Consultation paper on New Zealand’s Performance-Based Research Fund outlines changes to evidence portfolios

Here is the rest of the New Zealand news this week…

TEU sets out agenda

The Tertiary Education Union has said it will be “stepping up” its campaign for pay equity in the university sector this year. The union also offered “warm congratulations” to new prime minister Chris Hipkins, saying it had had a “largely constructive” relationship with him during his time as education minister over the past five years. “We hope that as prime minister, he will not only keep tertiary education at the forefront of his mind as the key to so many of our country’s challenges and opportunities but also ensure that he finishes what he started.”

Malaghan forges ahead on RNA

New Zealand is moving towards greater capacity to work with RNA technologies after the Covid-19 pandemic boosted interest, the Malaghan Institute has said. “Significant donor funding” and support from the Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand have enabled the medical research institute to upgrade its RNA technologies so it can “now carry out all the steps to develop an RNA-based therapy—from designing a template for a unique target, synthesising the RNA molecules and packing them for safe delivery to the body”. RNA research will also benefit from a national RNA platform announced in the 2022 budget, Malaghan says.

Biotechnology push

“Old regulations” may be hampering New Zealand’s ability to research new biotechnologies, the executive director of BioTech New Zealand has said. Zahra Champion said “synthetic biology” would be a key topic at BioTechNZ’s March conference and that “we need to finally accept genetic modification products in a world of climate change and desperate global food needs”. Champion also said that Emily Parker, associate dean of science research at Victoria University of Wellington, will address the conference on her work in creating “bioactive” substances using synthetic processes that mimic natural biology.

The post New Zealand news roundup: 9-15 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Consultation paper on New Zealand’s Performance-Based Research Fund outlines changes to evidence portfolios

The Tertiary Education Commission has agreed in principle that researchers’ evidence portfolios for the Performance-Based Research Fund should only contain three “examples of research excellence”.

The commission, which is carrying out a review of the fund, has published a consultation paper saying it agrees with the idea of streamlined evidence portfolios and a new “narrative” component to explain the arc of a researcher’s output over time.

The fund, which distributes NZ$315 million a year, is one of the key sources of university research funding, and university research rankings affect the level of funding each university gets. Other factors include research degrees awarded and external research funding won.

The latest consultation paper is part of a process going back to late 2021, with all aspects of the assessment open for review.

The review has already chosen a new definition of ‘research’; incorporated a statement on “the value of Māori research and Pacific research”, giving greater weighting to such research; and adopted in principle new definitions of ‘excellence’, including contributions to the wider research environment.

Defined circumstances

Part-time researchers, “new and emerging” researchers and those affected by certain defined circumstances will be permitted to submit fewer examples of “excellent” research. The defined circumstances include interruptions to employment and “force majeure” events such as the pandemic or the Canterbury earthquake.

Evaluation panels will continue to be able to take into account the “platform of research”, which gives information about features such as interdisciplinary research. However, part-time employment will now be covered by a separate “achievement relative to opportunity” provision.

Comment is open until 24 February. The next round of assessment is expected to be in 2026.

The post Give us three examples of excellence, PBRF proposal says appeared first on Research Professional News.

Australian medical institutes say early difficulty in winning funding is causing an “exodus” of talent

An “exodus” of talent from Australian medical research can only be avoided by changes to the way grants are issued, the country’s body for medical research institutes has said.

In its pre-budget submission to the federal government, the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes says that not enough National Health and Medical Research Council grants are going to early and mid-career researchers.

The AAMRI asks for 241 more NHMRC Ideas Grants to be funded in the federal budget on 9 May, earmarked for researchers who completed their PhD within the past 10 years.

The association says that researchers are leaving the field when they can’t find funding. “Every time one of these highly skilled medical researchers is unable to secure funding to continue their research, about 20 years of past training expertise is lost.”

The submission’s other main request is for backup funding to cover work supported by the Medical Research Future Fund. MRFF grants do not come with the kind of infrastructure support that other medical research grants do, the association says.

“The ability to meet the systemic costs of research is critical to a medical research institute’s capacity to undertake high-quality research and make groundbreaking discoveries that can deliver better health outcomes for the community,” the submission says.

Indirect costs

Earlier in February, the AAMRI released its annual snapshot of the sector, in which it “found a A$381 million gap between the costs of carrying out vital medical research and the funding independent Australian medical research institutes received”.

It found that for every dollar spent on research, another 63 cents was spent on “indirect costs”. Grants that paid only for direct research costs failed to take into account factors such as facilities, imaging equipment and professional support. “These are all part of the pipeline that is needed to turn a research idea into a treatment or diagnostic tool for the Australian public,” the association said.

AAMRI president Kathryn North said a lot of institutes were starting to “really struggle” with increasing indirect costs.

The report also said that despite small gains in the number of women in senior research positions, these roles were still “dominated by men”.

The post Change grants system to retain researchers, government urged appeared first on Research Professional News.

State government of New South Wales rejects recommendations of parliamentary animal welfare inquiry

The New South Wales government has decided not to ban the forced swim test and forced inhalation of smoke by animals in the course of research.

The decision by the NSW government has been slammed as “lacklustre” and “disappointing” by animal welfare groups, which said the practices were cruel.

The decision was part of the government’s response to a 2022 NSW parliamentary inquiry into animal use in research. In the response, the inquiry’s recommendations were mainly marked “noted” or “supported in principle”.

A recommendation that regular audits of all animal research facilities be reinstated was not taken up, with the NSW government saying it would continue to take “a risk-based approach to compliance audit and inspection”.

A full review of the state’s Animal Research Act was not promised, with the government saying it would “consider options to address the matters raised in this inquiry”. Nor did it commit to a call for NSW to lead a push for national reporting requirements.

The only fully supported recommendation was annual reporting on funding of animal-based research and development of alternatives.

Humane Research Australia said the response failed to back measures that had been supported “by those supportive of and opposed to animal research alike”.

The original report, written in 2022 by a state parliamentary committee, covered a range of issues on the use and welfare of research animals. Consultant veterinarian Malcolm France said the committee’s work had been “the first major review of the ethical issues around animal research that has taken place in Australia for a very long time”.

Openness agreement

The government response came as the Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching released its final draft of an “openness agreement” for Australian researchers.

This agreement would commit research institutions to providing public information about their use of animals, including issuing annual reports.

The council plans to launch the agreement at its annual conference in August. Several institutions are considering signing up, with a New Zealand agreement already in place.

France, who is the convenor of the council’s working group on the agreement, said there was “significant interest” from institutions in the agreement, although some were awaiting the finalised version before committing.

The NSW government’s response on animal welfare did not commit it to supporting the agreement process, but France said the council was pleased the government had agreed to consider it.

Animal Resources Centre

Meanwhile, progress on the transfer of Western Australia’s Animal Resources Centre, one of the largest suppliers of research animals, continues.

In its latest update, sent to stakeholders on 3 February, the Western Australian science department said that work to transfer the operation to the private animal supplier Ozgene was continuing. It said that prices would remain stable throughout 2023.

Ozgene plans to build a new facility for the operation, but the latest update says it is not currently making employment offers to existing workers at the centre.

The post Forced swim test to continue in NSW animal research appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: university-industry grants, AI cheating and A$310 million from the Medical Research Future Fund

In depth: An “exodus” of talent from Australian medical research can only be avoided by changes to the way grants are issued, the country’s body for medical research institutes has said.

Full story: Change grants system to retain researchers, government urged

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

Forced swim test to continue in NSW animal research—State government of New South Wales rejects recommendations of parliamentary animal welfare inquiry

PhDs under pressure—Study outlines impact of Covid-19 on PhD students’ mental health

More research needed on climate adaptation, university event hears—Australia is “grossly underinvesting in adaptation research” as it focuses on reducing carbon

Time to rethink research, Australian government told—Science academy’s pre-budget submission slams “inefficient system” and low investment in R&D

Here is the rest of the Australia news this week…

Linkage funding announced

The latest round of Australian Research Council Linkage Project grants has awarded A$40 million to 81 projects. The grants, announced on 7 February, support collaborative research between universities and industry. This round includes A$552,000 for an Australian National University-based project on improving biosecurity surveillance, A$347,000 for the University of Canberra to work with a rural publisher on issues around local news provision, and A$389,000 for the University of New South Wales to improve ocean current measurement. ARC chief executive Judi Zielke said the money would attract A$58.9m in additional cash and in-kind support from 26 universities and 210 partner organisations. The round had a success rate of 42 per cent.

MRFF outlines A$310m agenda

The Medical Research Future Fund has outlined its 2023 grants programme, with A$310 million available. The money is offered through a range of contestable funding schemes aimed at issues including chronic respiratory conditions, maternal health and applied research in healthcare. The funding includes a A$100m scheme to fund research infrastructure.

Teqsa warns universities about AI cheating

Australian universities have been warned to be alert to the use of artificial intelligence in cheating by students. Peter Coaldrake, chief commissioner of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, has written to universities asking them to consider all aspects of how the technology is used, including “the potential use of AI by researchers to write grant applications, analyse data or write scientific papers”. Teqsa is developing an online “masterclass” to help universities deal with the issue. Coaldrake said that in 2022, Teqsa helped block 150 commercial cheating websites.

Female scientists’ stories told

An article charting the history of women working in chemistry in Australia has been released. The article, published on the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, appeared in the Australian Journal of Chemistry and honours chemists such as Isabel Joy Bear, Enid Plante and Annabelle Duncan. Co-author Nicole McNamara said that “the experiences of these women are not unique to any sector, and many of these sexist attitudes remain pervasive today…But there’s no question about the very real strides made by Joy Bear and other powerful women of her calibre to effect change.”

Accelerator grants open

Research grants under the federal Economic Accelerator programme are now available for applications. The A$10 million worth of Seed Grants are available for work in renewable and low-emission technology, medical science, resources and agriculture, and forestry and fisheries. Each grant will be worth up to A$500,000. Projects need to be “pursuing a commercial outcome”. Future rounds will include later phases in research commercialisation.

Trailblazer hub launched

Curtin university has launched its first research hub under the federal Trailblazer Universities programme. The Resources Technology and Critical Minerals Trailblazer Hub will be led by Ross Waring, who has an academic background and 25 years’ experience in industry. The University of Queensland and James Cook University, along with more than 30 commercial partners, are part of the hub.

Tudge resigns

Shadow education minister Alan Tudge has resigned from parliament. Tudge was minister for education from the end of 2020 until the May 2022 election, although another minister was acting for him for much of that time. Senator Sarah Henderson has been named as the new shadow minister.

The post Australia news roundup: 7-13 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Study outlines impact of Covid-19 on PhD students’ mental health

The Covid-19 pandemic caused wellbeing to plummet across the general population as the rules and restrictions took their toll, but student mental health seemed to suffer more than most.

Some worry that PhD students had a particularly tough time as they continued their research during the long periods of lockdown.

One PhD student tells Research Professional News that she felt a lack of support both academically and pastorally. And she believes she is far from alone.

“I have heard some awful stories at various universities, which could and should have been addressed compassionately, holistically and with more emotional intelligence and care,” she says.

A recent study on the mental health of higher degree by research (HDR) students—those whose postgraduate degrees are for the most part research—during Covid has revealed the negative impact of the pandemic, with researchers calling for the higher education sector to be better prepared as a result.

Published in December, the study—Risks to Mental Health of HDR Students During a Global Pandemic—involved researchers at the University of Southern Queensland investigating mental health indicators among such students at a regional university in Queensland.

They found that while doctoral researchers reported that some conditions of the pandemic—such as having to work from home—increased their productivity and improved their work-life balance, the majority of findings revealed negative impacts for research students as a result of Covid-19.

These impacts included increased anxiety and stress, poorer general health and academic functioning, and disruptions to overall wellness, mental health and mood.

A total of 231 HDR students, both male and female, completed the Brunel Mood Scale, assessing depression and fatigue among other indicators of mental ill health. Results showed that the reported mood among students was generally more negative than in the general population, although it was more positive than at earlier stages of the pandemic.

A total of 52 participants reported mood profiles that indicated a higher risk of mental ill health. Mood profiles varied significantly by gender, age, study mode, location and whether students were international or domestic. Three focus groups were used in the research, which revealed mental health and wellbeing as key themes of concern to HDR students themselves.

The study’s five authors concluded that “support mechanisms to safeguard the mental health and wellbeing of HDR students should be a priority for universities”.

Future support

Speaking to Research Professional News, the paper’s lead author, Charlotte Brownlow, and her colleagues said that student support services were of critical importance throughout the pandemic period, and that a takeaway message from their study was that “when the dark clouds of a pandemic roll in, a business-as-usual approach towards HDR students should not be seen as an adequate response”.

“During the pandemic, many international HDR students lost their part-time jobs, were ineligible for Australian government support, unable to travel home, fearful for their families, and with their research often suspended. Some were desperate,” the authors said.

“We would like to see a clearly defined package of financial, emotional and educational support for international students rolled out quickly across the sector, with government backing, in the event of a future pandemic.”

They also point out that the students who were at highest risk of mental ill health during the pandemic “tended to be younger, female, full-time and international students”.

And while most HDR students “coped well” during the pandemic, “for almost a quarter of our sample, the risk of mental ill health represented a significant threat to the successful completion of their studies”.

Peter Chesworth, acting chief executive at the vice-chancellors’ group Universities Australia, says that universities understood the wide-ranging pressures faced by students and researchers during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the consequent disruptions to study and learning.

“Extra resources were allocated to mental health and wellbeing support, and a range of other initiatives were set up to bring researchers together where it was safe to do,” he says.

“Many of the mechanisms that universities already had in place to support HDR students were also adapted for an online environment, to reduce the risk that the pandemic would deprive them of opportunities they would otherwise have experienced in the natural course of their studies.”

Ongoing issue

However, worries over HDR students’ mental health and wellbeing did not start during the pandemic—in Australia, it has been a consistent cause for concern in recent years.

In 2019, a submission made to the Mental Health Productivity Commission Inquiry from the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations highlighted a study of more than 6,500 students at two universities, which found that over 19 per cent of students currently had a mental health disorder, while more than 67 per cent of students were experiencing sub-clinical distress.

The issue is by no means confined to Australian higher education: there are many studies across the globe attempting to shed light on the problem. A recent UK study found that a culture of trial by fire existed in some areas of the academic research space, with many PhD candidates believing they ‘had to suffer’ for the sake of their studies. More than a third said they had considered giving up altogether due to mental health concerns.

A separate study exploring the prevalence of mental health problems in PhD students in Belgium revealed in 2017 that students undertaking postgraduate research were at a particularly high risk of developing depression and mental health problems, with distress significantly more prevalent among graduate research students than among undergraduates.

Universities are well aware of the problem. A spokesperson for the University of Sydney, Australia’s oldest university and a member of the Group of Eight universities, said it had implemented a range of support measures for its HDR students. These included financial assistance, academic support, mental wellbeing support and peer support programmes.

“We also know PhD students can face a particular range of challenges and pressures, and that for many, these have become more pronounced during the pandemic,” the spokesperson said, adding that the university was “in the process of developing a bespoke wellbeing programme for our higher degree by research students, to provide targeted and appropriate support for our HDR candidates from the beginning of their studies”.

But some students feel that more needs to be done to improve help for HDRs. University of Western Australia PhD candidate Michelle Bordoni says that she did feel supported by her supervisors, who “openly discussed mental health issues that might arise” during her work.

“They have taken the time to explain to me the ways in which I can find support within this university, should I feel like I need it at any time during my studies,” she says.

However, Bordoni worries that students at other other institutions may not receive the same support. “I feel like there might still be some disparity among universities in terms on the assistance they provide,” she adds.

In the wake of Covid-19, PhD students will likely be looking for universities to step up their support.

The post PhDs under pressure appeared first on Research Professional News.

Leo Foundation offers skin disease grants with enviable success rates and is increasing its funding

Top tips

• Read and check eligibility requirements and requests for supporting documentation—this often catches people out.
• Familiarise yourself with the Leo Foundation’s philanthropic scope and show how your bid is in tune with that.
• Feasibility is an important criterion; partner with other groups if you do not have the necessary experience in-house.
• Skin cancer is out of scope for applications, but skin cancer models can be used in methodology.

For dermatology researchers, the Denmark-based Leo Foundation is a particularly valuable funder. The philanthropic organisation manages financial assets of around €2.3 billion and is accelerating its annual funding upwards of €20 million.

The Leo Foundation owns the pharmaceutical company Leo Pharma, which focuses on dermatology.

As part of its funding portfolio, the foundation offers Research Grants of around €270,000 to €540,000, lasting one to three years. The grants are available to researchers in any country and there are three funding rounds per year. The next deadline is on 28 February, followed by 23 June and 31 August.

Projects in basic, translational or clinical dermatology are welcomed but the Leo Foundation does not fund projects on skin cancer.

Chief scientific officer Anne-Marie Engel says the Leo Foundation is upping its funding and planning new options for clinical and translational researchers. Engel explains more about the Research Grants scheme and its encouraging success rates.

How much funding is the Leo Foundation expecting to award this year?

For this year, we expect to give altogether around €27m, and our aspiration and ambition is that by 2025, it will be €33.5m. We are also increasing the number of different grant-making instruments.

What is the aim of the Research Grant scheme for the foundation?

The idea behind a scheme like this is to give an opportunity to as many researchers as possible. The grants are not very large, but they are there to help and support researchers with excellent ideas and innovative ideas within dermatology research, in a very broad sense, going from basic to clinical.

How many grants are you expecting to award this year?

Somewhere between 25 and 30 grants. That, of course, depends on how many excellent applications we get.

Is there a fixed amount of funding or does it depend on the quality of applications?

We have an agreement with our board about how we expect to distribute funding across the different grant-making instruments we have. But it also depends on the applications we get, so for this particular instrument we can agree with the board of directors that if there’s more quality than expected, we can add a bit to the budget. And if there’s not enough quality, we won’t award as many grants. We usually get around 30 applications per round.

With three rounds a year and an estimated 25 to 30 grants, that’s a pretty good success rate.

Yes, although the success rate was quite high in 2022, but it may vary. The average success rate over the past five years is 19 per cent. But our scope in the foundation is very clear: it’s dermatology research, from basic to clinical, so it’s important for us to see that we are still getting a fairly high number of highly qualified applications within this field.

Is it possible to apply more than once, potentially in the same year?

If you do not get funding for your application, you can reapply once, and you’ll have to add a page or two explaining how you have worked on the project since you first applied. If it still doesn’t get funded, you can apply to the foundation again but with a different project.

Do you give feedback on applications that aren’t successful?

Regrettably not. We do give an indication to people of whether they were in the top, middle or bottom third of the applications when it came to ranking by our international expert committee.

Why are projects about skin cancer not eligible for funding?

As it’s easier to get funding from other agencies for cancer research than for other kinds of skin disease-related research, it’s been decided here to focus on the other skin diseases to give them a chance of getting funding for good projects. However, we do permit applications where skin cancer is used as a model to look into other mechanistic hypotheses and ideas for other skin diseases. So you can use skin cancer models in your skin research applications, but if it’s fully focused on skin cancer, you will have to apply elsewhere.

Grants are open to researchers worldwide, but do you get more applications from any particular country or region?

We do get most of our applications from Europe and from North America, but we’re seeing increasing numbers of applications from the Asia-Pacific, specifically Australia, which we’re thrilled about.

What proportion of grants awarded are for basic research against clinical research?

It’s not level, let me put it like that. We get more applications for basic research and thus we’ve also given out more grants for basic research, but we very much invite applications from people who do translational research and clinical research as well. In the future, as we increase our grant amounts, we will also have some thematic grants that invite, in a more focused way, researchers within translational and clinical research.

What level of ambition are you expecting to see in applications?

We’re really looking for excellence, and whether a project is something that can potentially jump to a whole new stage of knowledge within an area. Our board asks us about the potential for leaps forward every time we meet with them. At the same time, it’s also important to make sure that really good research groups and research environments can continue on course towards new knowledge and, hopefully, new treatments.

Are there any common mistakes that applicants should avoid?

A common mistake is that people fail to read the small print in the instructions to applicants. They sometimes forget to attach some of the mandatory documents so that when we screen the applications for eligibility, we have to reject them for administrative reasons, which is really a pity because there can still be a great idea in there. Also, we have a very clear scope for our philanthropic activities, so if people are very far away from that scope in what they’re applying for, the likelihood that they’re getting funding is close to zero.

Is there a minimum level of experience required to apply?

People must have PhDs or equivalent experience, and what we see is that we mostly award grants to people who are assistant professors and above that. Your experience as a research leader is, of course, something that is part of the evaluation.

Are there any elements that would make an application stand out?

What’s important for us is that when people apply they have some kind of feasibility analysis of the project that they are suggesting. So if they don’t have all the expertise and infrastructure in-house, within their group, it’s important for us to see in an application who they are teaming up with, to make sure that they cover all the expertise needed.

What would your top advice be to applicants?

The main advice would be: read the application guidelines carefully, then ask us if there’s something you think is unclear. It’s a pity if people think they are a fit for the Leo Foundation and it turns out that they are not, and that kind of question can very easily be clarified by an email or a phone call.

The post Opportunity profile: Danish funder delivers for dermatology appeared first on Research Professional News.

New Zealand government to provide NZ$10 million a year to develop Māori engagement with science

Māori research is to get up to NZ$10 million a year in additional funding with the announcement of two new contestable funds.

The funds, called He Tipu Ka Hua and He Aka Ka Toro, will offer funding to “build Māori research capacity, capability and aspirations over the next five years”. Administered through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, they will open to Māori organisations in April and July this year.

They will be partly bankrolled by unspent funds from a 2020 budget initiative called Expanding the Impact of Vision Mātauranga. That initiative had an allocation of NZ$33m.

The He Tipu Ka Hua fund will support “up to three Māori-led research programmes or platforms”, according to a statement on 7 February from science minister Ayesha Verrall. It will be worth up to NZ$6m a year. He Aka Ka Toro is earmarked for Māori organisations to develop their policies on engagement with the research system.

Verrall said the government would also develop a set of fellowships for early-to-mid-career Māori and Pacific researchers, called Ngā Puanga Pūtaiao, with priority for science, technology, engineering and mathematics researchers. That programme will be run through the Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Future Pathways

Verrall said the funds were part of the Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways funding reforms. The reforms are still open for public comment after the release of a white paper in December.

The New Zealand Association of Scientists tweeted that the funds would support “researchers and organisations destabilised by both precarity and double-duty, and prioritised within Te Ara Paerangi [Future Pathways] as a result”.

The post Two funds launched to build Māori research capacity appeared first on Research Professional News.