Australia’s science and research priorities: conversation starter

Executive summary
A key priority for science is to increase the return on investment by producing more reliable evidence that meets the needs of the public and industry. Funding for metascience could increase the return on investment and reduce waste.
Who we are
The Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science (AIMOS) is a professional society in the new field of metascience. This field uses innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to improve science. It includes scientists from many established fields, including law, medicine, psychology, economics, and statistics, with a vibrant community in Australia. This field has arisen because of well-documented problems in current scientific research processes, including research that is completed but never published, or is unreliable and cannot be reproduced. An estimated
85% of the investment in health and medical research is currently wasted due to avoidable problems [1], with a similar figure of 82 to 89% in ecology research [2].
1. What are Australia’s greatest: a. challenges that science could help to address?
The greatest current challenge for science is to improve itself. The scientific system in Australia is hyper-competitive, with many scientists focused on the quantity of their published papers rather than the quality of their work. Current systems of funding and promotion reward those who publish first, but rushed publications often contain errors, making them of no value for society or the economy. The number of scientific papers being retracted – often because the results or data are unreliable – is growing, including in some of the world’s most high-profile journals, such as
Nature and the Lancet.
There are also large bureaucratic costs in the current scientific system. For example, Australian scientists spend many months every year applying for funding schemes that have very low chances of success, creating huge opportunity costs. Researchers can also be required to expend huge amounts of time on lengthy data approval processes that do little to lower risks. For example, a national study of vaccine safety took five years of paperwork to get any data [3].
Every other industry but science spends a significant amount of time and money on quality improvement. For example, agriculture constantly tests processes and products, and tests innovations to improve quality. Science spends virtually nothing on quality improvement, and is still using processes of peer review and publishing designed a century ago. Traditional peer review is struggling to cope with the huge increase in journal submissions. Systems that supposedly measure quality, such as University League Tables and the “Excellence in Research for Australia” exercise, do not capture quality but instead reinforce the incentive for scientists to prioritise quantity over quality.
The current massive investment into science is being hamstrung by the systemic issues with science. Without spending on quality improvement, science will continue to under-perform, and many millions of dollars invested in science will continue to be wasted.
b. opportunities we should seize?
The research sector is worth more than $30 billion annually with around half of this provided by the Australian Government. This funds the R&D that drives technical innovation and builds sustainable communities in Australia. The growing field of metascience provides an opportunity to increase the return on this investment through careful studies of: a) scientific efficiency and mitigating the problems of waste, b) how scientists are assessed, and developing new systems of funding and hiring that reward quality over quantity, c) policy innovations, such as initiatives to increase transparency and data sharing, and d) processes which facilitate dynamic, diverse, and inclusive research teams.
Other countries have encouraged metascience by establishing independent ‘Science of Science’ centres and programmes. For example, the US National Science Foundation’s ‘Science of Science’ programme; the UK Research and Innovation Caucus on Innovation and Research Funding Policy; the Volkswagen Foundation’s ‘Researching Research’ programme; and the multi-national Research on Research Institute with headquarters in the UK. These centres are generating, testing, and translating practical solutions to improve science.
c. strengths we should maintain or build?
Australia has great capacity in metascience, as illustrated by:
1. The rapid growth of AIMOS (the Association for Interdisciplinary Metaresearch and Open
Science) - a grassroots interdisciplinary network launched in Australia, now with a global reach.
2. The formation of an interdisciplinary Commitee of senior academics in the Australian
Reproducibility Network (AusRN, modelled on the UK Reproducibility Network).
3. Existing key nodes of metascience excellence in Melbourne (MetaMelb & HPS at the University of Melbourne & SoDA at Swinburne), Canberra (CPAS-ANU), Perth (COKI-Curtin), Brisbane (Public
Health, QUT and Bond) and Sydney (Psychology, Heath, Ecology).
With so litlte current research into Australian science, we believe that any investment could return significant rewards. There are many ongoing problems that are ripe for innovation, including:

• Using automation to enhance peer review
• Engaging end users, the public, and scientists to create priority lists of the most important
research questions across all fields of science in Australia
• Detecting scientific frauds and poor practice
• Improving training in research integrity and best practices, including transparency
• Experimenting with alternative systems to hire and promote scientists, such as narrative
CVs
References
1. Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers: Is 85% of health research really “wasted”? BMJ. htps://nyurl.com/bdebty4s
2. Purgar, M., Klanjscek, T. & Culina, A. Quanfying research waste in ecology. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 1390–1397 (2022).
htps://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01820-0
3. Duszynski, K.M., Prat, N.L., Lynch, J.W., Braunack-Mayer, A., Taylor, L.K., Berry, J.G., Xafis, V., Butery, J., Gold, M.S.
and (2019), Process trumps potenal public good: beter vaccine safety through linked cross-jurisdiconal
immunisaon data in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 43: 496-503.
htps://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12929