PM seeks details on academic funding 'corruption' [+audio]

Helen Clark

Prime Minister Helen Clark today said she would be seeking more information on claims academics awarded themselves funds while sitting on a judging panel.

The $38 million Marsden Fund annual round came under fire in the Sunday Star-Times yesterday after nine of the panellists judging the awards were given $6m funding themselves.

Panellists were awarded almost 20 per cent of the total set aside for senior researchers in the hotly contested government-funded awards. Less than one application in 10 is successful.

Helen Clark said today: "Normally these funds are surrounded by the strictest of rules and evaluations and one would certainly be concerned if there was less than the normal high standard.".

However, she told Newstalk ZB it was difficult to have expert review panels without having leading researchers on them.

"All the debate around this is going to hang on 'are the procedures robust?'," she said.

"From the Government's point of view, money is always scarce. You want the best use of it and I'll certainly be asking today for a report around the robust procedures and whether they are as robust as they should be."

The type of research being funded has also been criticised, with one panellist -- award-winning lesbian novelist Annamarie Jagose -- receiving $465,000 to research the cultural history of sex and the orgasm.

The head of one of the funds has dismissed the claims. Dr Garth Carnaby said today there was no conflict of interest.

He said claims that two people received grants while sitting on the judging panel were false.

"The panels fluctuate over the day... so when the decision of the panel to recommend research was made, these people were not involved," he said on National Radio.

When their bids were considered, they were not even in the room, he said.

Distinguished

The panels did not make any decisions, but made recommendations to the panel chairperson who then made recommendations to the full Marsden council -- 10 distinguished academics chosen from throughout New Zealand, he said.

"There were three international referees -- best people in the world -- assessing this research," he said.

Dr Carnaby said for the 11 years the fund had been running, it had had to manage numerous conflicts while still getting the best people to provide advice on the research.

Minor conflicts arose where panellists might be in the same department as those bidding for funds, and this could be managed.

"But if it was your spouse or you yourself ... it's absurd to think we would not recognise that and avoid it.

"So I reject totally this accusation against two very fine academics."

National's research, science and technology spokesman, Dr Paul Hutchison, questioned whether the subject matter selected for funding was the best use of taxpayer money.

He said New Zealand's investment in science was less than half of the average OECD country.

"We've got to make sure every science dollar is spent well."

Dr Carnaby said he was very sympathetic to the people who failed to get funding.

"One of the key parts of my job is dealing with the aftermath of turning down some brilliant people with brilliant ideas."

One applicant who missed out was three-times Montana book award winner Vincent O'Sullivan who sought funding to write an authorised biography of one of New Zealand's most important artists, Ralph Hotere.

- NZPA