Unless practice has changed dramatically sinced I managed ARC programs, peer review is the basis of the assessment of applications for research. If A/Prof Melleuish has some alternative methodology, I would be pleased to learn of it.

Published program guidelines must be carefully read and followed, particularly those relating to budget. Failure to do so may of itself seal the fate of what might otherwise be a meritorious research proposal.

In my experience, complaints about the ARC process were initiated by unsuccessful applicants for grants. An objective assessment of the process was rarely to be found within the ranks of those with a vested interest.

There used to be a program of Commonwealth sponsored Discipline Reviews which were an attempt at objectively reviewing the adequacy and appropriateness of research funding in designated disciplines. I have seen no evidence of a continuation of the practice or the adoption of an alternative review mechanism since the nineteen eighties.

There is evidence of an anti-intellectual view of research which is manifested by derision based on the title of a project or a summary of its focus. Self appointed critics are invariably ignorant of the discipline concerned and accordingly have no understanding as to the manner in which particular knowledge is developed and on occasions, applied to the benefit of humanity. Such an environment is fertile ground for politicians (and some elements of the media) eager to appeal to what Albert Einstein termed the "odious herd mind".

I have had a similar experience as the article writer with the ARC. I found the process particularily untransparent (and therefore potentially corrupt), and the "peer reviews", which are often conflicting, often consist of a short paragraph. This is quite different from many other places in the world, and quite frustrating also.

The reasons behind this may well be due to the reduction of funding, as I believe the ARC had its budget cut some years back, so it is difficult to know what the solution is.