I agree entirely with Peter on the need for support for "non-project" funding of research- of all kinds. Understandably, a large proportion of research funds needs to be allocated to "projects"- ie research that is directed towards extending or intensifying established paradigms.

However, "left-field" research needs to be supported as well, otherwise unquestioned support for the paradigm leads to decadence before it is replaced. But how to do it? Block funding only shifts the responsibility from the major funding bodies (ARC, NHMRC etc)to the universities and other eligible research institutions. Block grants are usually tied to the success in project grants.

Perhaps a way out is for a certain proportion (10% is always a good number) of funding should be allocated to all individual researchers for outside-the-paradigm- research.

Because many researchers are not interested in such research, perhaps there could be a secondary market, where they trade their allocation at a going rate.

Importantly, politicians would be obliged to not use the titles of publications in this category to score cheap points.

There useta be a fair amount of 'clubbiness' in grant awarding at the interview stage and when on such a committee the 'fix' did occasionally be clearly seen to be 'in'. I think that the only way out is to use international referees for high scoring proposals and such to be selected by someone not in the particular field. Yes, I know the objection but don't believe in it. BTW another different kind of rejection was of Mac Burnet's paper in, I think, 1935 demonstrating that the polio virus was not a single antigenic entity. This observation was one of Australia's greatest contributions to the saving of lives but it was rejected by the American journal it was sent to, out of hand, until confirmed by an American research paper the following year !!