Professor Massimo Hilliard

Yes, that's true.

So together with my colleague Mark Dawson, we decided to take this action and write a piece to highlight the problem that we're encountering with the peer review system.

in place at the NHMRC.

So the NHMRC for generations has done a very good job in holding the pillar of the peer review process really high.

This was until 2020.

Just to give a bit of a background, every grant that was submitted at that time was seen by a panel of 12 scientists.

80% of them were

very experienced group leaders, lab heads.

Yeah.

And then 20% were junior lab heads.

In some occasion, there were some senior postdoctoral fellows.

This particular, for every grant, was then read and was discussed and debated for about 20 minutes.

The budget discussed before then a vote was cast on the quality and the value of that particular proposal.

So there were still issues of the amount of funds that are available through the NHMRC, but the process was very solid and really rigorous.

And this has now been replaced in 2020 because of the COVID, the panel were dismantled because we couldn't meet face to face.

And so this has been replaced by a process whereby a grant is assigned to four or five anonymous assessors.

When I say anonymous, not only they are anonymous to the applicants, but they're also anonymous between themselves.

Just to give an example, if me, you and Priya were examining a grant, I don't know who you are.

You don't know who I am.

Not only before, we were sitting at a table and so everybody was accountable of every statement made.