In April the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, the London Mathematical Society and the Royal Statistical Society wrote to the UK Royal Institution to express their view on the draft UKRI Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy.  Those who signed that letter had an expecial concern for steps to be taken

"to ensure that when reviewers are asked to comment on the quality of the proposal, and to assign a numerical rating to it, they are thinking first about research quality, and not about the researcher’s background or experience"

They go on:

"We believe there are further steps that could be taken by UKRI to fully understand the current experiences of researchers in the UK. For-instance, UKRI could share the data that they have collected in a way that would allow the research community to examine the current funding system and interrogate hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the observed inequalities. Our organisations, especially the RSS, have significant expertise in this area and we would be very happy to work with UKRI to take this recommendation forward."

bit.ly/EDIletterUKRI

See further ten recommended actions:

https://rss.org.uk/RSS/media/File-library/Policy/2022/Recommended_Actions_For_UKRI_Equality_Diversity_-_Inclusion_Action_Plan.pdf?ext=.pdf

The letter, and the ten recommended actions, would seem very pertinent to the present discussion.  Has NHMRC's attention been drawn to what strike me as very sensible and broad-ranging proposals?

Hi John,

I’m talking too much, but I have to respond to comments that I think are aimed at me, e.g. your comments about legal issues. 

With respect, the first part of your message is a straw man argument.  Has anyone argued against the reality that women have faced historical discrimination?  Or for the status quo?  Not me, I’m a liberal feminist.  Again, it’s the extreme nature of NHMRC’s solution that’s causing so much controversy, not the fact that they’re attempting a solution.  I would be in favor of NHMRC addressing the real problem, which is too few applications from women (since success rates are equal).  NHMRC should first find out why this is occurring, then take steps to address any barriers.  That approach would be proportionate, targeted and legal. 

NHMRC have already committed to regularly reviewing their changes, in essentially the way you suggest. 

I think it’s clearly important to know if NHMRC’s changes are lawful or not.  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking the AHRC to make a ruling about that.  Perhaps your comments were more about suing NHMRC.  I only mentioned that in passing, but I think it’s a likely consequence if NHMRC’s changes are deemed by AHRC to be unlawful, given the loss of income involved. 

OK, I'll try to be quiet now. 

Best regards,

James.

Here's some more public commentary on this issue:  

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/australia-should-be-funding-female-scientists-on-merit-not-gender-quotas/video/8afd4bc939cf190f46deec0caf9eb82a

I generally disagree with the host, but I know her guest -- Georgia is an extremely well-respected medical researcher.  

Given the overarching goal of this initiative is to make the funding scheme  more equitable, do we really think the appropriate response is to consider how we might sue the NHMRC to prevent it from going forward? What message does that send? Rather than not doing anything because we can't design the perfect solution to the problem (hint: there is no perfect solution, given everyone has their own opinions), is it not better to start doing something, review how it is working, and adjust?

I think Teresa's original comment in this discussion provides a nicely nuanced perspective on this.

Here are a few reasons why I am incensed, all to do with the way I was brought up.

• Discrimination is bad. Your sex, skin colour or age should not affect your treatment. Decades ago in an outback bar where aborigines were barred, I got myself into a bit of trouble over this belief and was lucky to escape in one piece.
• Truth is important. Women already have much higher success rates at NHMRC (see HERE) a fact that everyone is happy to ignore. Performative assertions about implicit bias and white male privilege are not supported by any evidence. On a professional website, this is unacceptable.
• Abuse of power. NHMRC did not brook any dissent. The whole process was pre-determined. They distorted the evidence – see link above. There is no discrimination against women at all and they know it. They have an agenda and the power to enforce it. They still have not responded to several critical articles …. because they don’t need to. It will just blow over and there enough partisan supporters who do not care about principle of facts.

I guess I should just get a life and stop caring about discrimination, truth and abuse of power.