Following passage of the Data Availability and Transparency Act earlier this year, the National Data Commissioner has now released a draft Code of Conduct to provide further guidance on how to apply the data sharing principles, privacy protections, the public interest test and ethics requirements, as well as data sharing agreements.
The definition of ‘data project output’ continues to be problematic, with the terms ‘output’, ‘final output’ and ‘use of a data output’ all used ambiguously. It appears there are some circumstances in which the use of a data output is itself a data output and others where it is not, but the distinction is not clear. This is important because data outputs are regulated by the Act and the Code.
Research Australia’s submission addresses this issue and a number of others, including the public interest test and the circumstances in which designated persons need to be identified in a Data Sharing Agreement.
Announced in February this year, the ARC Industry Fellowships Scheme is intended to support all of the Government’s strategic target industries, including medical products.
Research Australia believes that the Scheme is at risk of failing to meet its objective of supporting the strategic area of Medical Products unless some form of exemption from, or relaxation of, the ARC’s Medical Research Policy is applied to the Industry Fellowships.
This issue has been raised by Research Australia in ARC consultations on the guidelines for the new Scheme and in a formal submission to the ARC. The submission is available here.
Research Australia has opposed the Government’s proposal to alter the formulae for calculating Research Block grants to universities as a means of incentivising greater engagement with business. Research Block grants consist of two programs provided by the Department of Education. The Research Support Program provides funding to universities relative to the research revenue they receive from different sources: government, business, not for profits etc. The Research Training Program funds the stipends and research costs of students undertaking Masters Degrees by research and PhDs.
The Government has proposed increasing the proportion of funding tied to business research revenue and reducing the proportion of funding tied to other research revenue.
Research Australia has opposed this measure because the most recent data shows that business funded research increased by 15.5% between 2018 and 2020, and basic research (usually funded by governments and universities themselves declined by 11.3% over the same period. Research Australia is concerned that simply changing the formulae rather than providing more block grant funding will further reduce basic research at a time when business research funding is already increasing.
Read Research Australia’s submission here.
The scope for the use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision Making is only limited by our imagination. In responding to the Government’s Issues Paper on the regulation of AI and ADM, Research Australia has expressed the view that AI and ADM in healthcare and health and medical research need to be subject to regulation which can cover potential future applications and adapt and develop as AI and ADM change without requiring constant revisitation of the framework.
Research Australia believes the existing regulators and responsible agencies are best placed to regulate the use of AI and ADM in healthcare and in health and medical research and innovation. While a robust national safety framework with common principles is required to guide regulators and promote consistency, existing regulatory bodies should be appropriately resourced to ensure they have the capacity to effectively regulate and support the implementation of AI and ADM now and into the future within their own areas of responsibility.
Read Research Australia’s submission
Following on from our submission last year to the Discussion Paper, Research Australia has welcomed the acknowledgment of the importance of research in the new draft National Medicines Policy (NMP). Research Australia has used our submission to highlight further areas under the policy’s pillars where research can play a critical role, and has called for a dedicated stream of funding for research to support the Policy’s implementation and objectives.
Research Australia believes the Governance and Implementation sections of the draft policy need more work and has joined with the medicines sector and consumer groups to call for further consultation before the NMP is finalised. The Government has now heeded this call, with the Minister for Health announcing on 23 March that there would be further consultation before the Policy is finalised.
Read Research Australia’s submission here.
The Senate Employment and Education Legislation Committee is undertaking an Inquiry into the Australian Research Council Amendment (Ensuring Research Independence) Bill 2018, which lapsed when the 2019 election was called and has recently been revived. The renewed interest has been prompted by the decision of the acting Minister for Education to reject some proposed ARC grants in December 2021.
As stated in the Bill’s explanatory memorandum, ‘The intent of the Bill is to remove Ministerial discretion from research grants administered by the Australian Research Council (ARC).’ While Research Australia accepts the right of the Government to set the criteria for research funding programs, including the eligible applicants and research areas, and the amounts of funding available, Research Australia does not believe the Minister should have the power to refuse to fund individual research proposals that are recommended by the CEO of the ARC under an approved funding program.
Research Australia’s submission is available here.
The Senate Committee’s report was released on 21 March. The majority report, by ALP and Coalition Committee members recommended against passage of the Bill. The report is available here. A dissenting report from the Australian Greens senators is available here.