Right now, the Government is starving medical research of full funding, even as it claims that science and research are national priorities. If our leaders truly value science as much as they say, then they must back their words with action—and fund it properly.
Join the campaign!
Dear Sir Paul, Re: Royal Society Code of Conduct I am sure that many scientists have written to you about the specific question of Elon Musk’s Fellowship and whether, under the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct, his retaining that Fellowship is appropriate. I will not rehash these issues. Instead, as a female scientist with extensive experience of activities aiming to increase equality, diversity and inclusion in the engineering and physical sciences sector, I am writing to you (in a personal capacity) to ask you to reconsider the statements you have recently made in this context to the UK press about the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct and how it is applied. A 2018 report from the joint National Academies of the United States of America, concluded that “sexual harassment is common in academic science, engineering, and medicine” and that “greater than 50 percent of women faculty and staff and 20–50 percent of women students encounter or experience sexually harassing conduct in academia”. This report described codes of conduct that make clear that sexual harassment is unethical and will not be tolerated as a “powerful incentive for change”. The authors also noted that sexual harassment can have significant and damaging effects on the integrity of research. In my own praxis, I have found that clear and consistently-implemented codes of conduct that address these issues make female scientists and engineers safer, and allow them to focus more effectively on their research. For codes of conduct to have such a positive effect, it is vital that sanctions for actions which transgress the code are meaningful and substantial.
I was hence aghast to realise that in an interview with the Financial Times published on 9/1/26, you appear to have suggested that the Royal Society “should only expel fellows if their science proved “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective””. Moreover, in a further interview with the Guardian on 11/1/26 you suggested that the code “may need to be looked at again”, with the implication that your aim would be to remove the option of sanctions on Fellows for reasons not strictly related to faults or defects in their research. I suggest that changing the Royal Society’s code of conduct so that the likelihood of serious sanctions for sexual harassment is reduced, would directly endanger women who interact with the Royal Society at events or otherwise, and would provide a licence to harass to the already powerful people on whom the Society bestows fellowship. The implications of your words - that under your leadership the only infringements of the code which are likely to receive the sanction of the Fellowship being removed are those related to research misconduct - already risk empowering harassers. You stated, in the Financial Times interview, that “there’s many bad people around, but they have made scientific advances”. Given this awareness of the possibility of bad actors in our scientific community, it is wholly irresponsible to suggest that the Royal Society would not act to sanction these people if they harass more vulnerable scientists. I am hence writing to request that you retract any suggestion that the Society’s Code of Conduct should be changed so that the only reason a Fellow might be sanctioned by the removal of their Fellowship is “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective” research. This action is necessary to safeguard female scientists, a requirement placed on the Society by safeguarding legislation and UK statutory guidance. Yours sincerely, Professor Rachel A. Oliver.
Following coverage over the weekend of Sir Paul Nurse's comments that suggested that the only reason that a Fellow should be expelled from @royalsociety.org is scientific misconduct, I have written to him to explain the risks such an attitude poses of increasing sexual harassment in STEM.
Black text on white background. Screenshot of ARC’s Network Message regarding delays to grant announcements because of new security arrangements.
⁉️The ARC has delayed outcomes of ALL grants 1–4 months & increased scheduled outcome windows from 2 weeks to 3 months!
This reverses 4 years of progress in providing greater certainty & ability to plan for researchers, their families & unis.
Their excuse? Security checks under new ARC legislation👇
Maybe you might need this adorable picture of my doggo Max taken by his groomers today. It’s 40 degrees 🔥 outside but they took a photo with a scarf on him and fake snow 🤣🤷♀️🐶❤️
What a week for backfiring celebrations of women in science: I’ve been finding that people have been using Jocelyn Bell’s photo in celebrations of Margaret Rossiter’s life (OMG get the right woman!) and now this… AI women in STEM slop.
Yes as an MCR I have been asked to assess Laureate fellowships
To add context, part of why there were so many more applicants is because they moved DECRA back six months, effectively skipping funding the scheme for a year. They had to extend eligibility as a result, so this was essentially two years in one. But with no adjustment to number of grants awarded.
If anyone wondering about academic funding in Aus, this is the stark reality at present. I have written countless letters to politicians like @mehreenfaruqi.bsky.social, @davidpocock.bsky.social who like to say they are leading this conversation in Aus but it is really like shouting into the void.
The ARC will soon be overhauling its entire grants system. They've never undertaken such a huge set of changes. Doing it while sacking existing staff and restructuring … I just … 🤯😡
Am I right in thinking this is also a low approval rate compared to previous years?
Wow. Just wow. A decision in direct conflict with all the ideals of the Reith Lectures.
DECRA success rate is the lowest in 14 years, since 2012 (1st year the scheme ran).
What a pathetic system we have for supporting new ideas, new people…
DE26: 13.1%
25: 17.9
24: 19.6
23: 15.0
22: 19.7
21: 17.1
20: 16.0
19: 17.2
18: 16.3
17: 16.7
16: 16.4
15: 14.3
14: 13.6
13: 15.6
12: 12.8
In case you’re interested, some stats here. australiainstitute.org.au/post/in-2023...
This is a shocking statistic.
Thankyou - I’d been wondering about the silence on LIEFs last week…
Screenshot from Guardian Australia live news showing white background with black text with quotes from the former Science Minister, Ed Husic.
When you think of particle accelerators, you probably think of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
But did you know our School of Physics has had its fair share of particle accelerators over the years?
Dr Adam Steinberg shares some remarkable #UniMelb particle accelerators → unimelb.me/47s1psa
One of the things that kills me about all this is that it’s just, like, maybe ten guys.
We must fund medical research properly. With the Trump administration slashing healthcare spending in the United States, Australia has a unique opportunity to become a global leader in medical innovation and biotech.
With the stroke of a pen, the government could make it happen today.
Today, leading medical researchers from across the nation are stepping into Parliament, joining my call for the government to release the funds being withheld from the Medical Research Future Fund.
www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...
Australia’s MRFF is sitting on billions of taxpayers’ dollars which was meant to be invested in world-leading, lifesaving health innovations.
astronomers have ever been the same, but “Marduk bless the king!” is a lot more fun than the ARC National Interest Test
Max the physics doggo crashed out hard after so many cuddles and pats and sniffs at @unimelb.bsky.social today.
Added context from @arc-tracker.bsky.social — the actual success rate in this funding scheme is a dismal 12.9% … it’s taken us two years (we were a near miss last year) and a HUGE amount of help and feedback to achieve this success.
Very pleased to find that my proposed DP project on the beam dynamics of next generation magnets in accelerators (with @tessacharles.bsky.social and Prof Rob Appleby) has been successfully funded — this is first ever ARC DP in accelerator physics (that I’m aware of…). 🤓🙌
Screenshot of tweet from the ARC saying they will announce DP26 outcomes on Tuesday 28th Oct, and LP25r1 outcomes on Wednesday 29th.
ARC says Discovery Projects outcomes will be tomorrow (Tuesday). Linkage Projects (2025, round 1) on Wed. Over past ~year, it's often been at about 11am (Canberra).
My bot will pick up the change to RMS & post immediately.
ARC should email outcomes to lead CIs, but might take an 1hr or so for DPs
The discovery that sparked a revolution in physics: #OnThisDay in 1897, JJ Thomson announced the existence of the corpuscle, later known as the electron — right here at the Ri! ⚛️
Watch the full talk with @suziesheehy.bsky.social: youtu.be/aXg3edeUrtc
I tend to create the zoom meeting and a calendar entry in Outlook first then invite folks via outlook…
It’s been a big week and now en route home from Canada where I was the Lansdowne Visiting Fellow at @uvic.bsky.social and TRIUMF. So many great chats, now looking forward to building some new collaborative projects with Magdalena Bazalova-Carter’s group.
Screenshot from ARC's PDF explaining some aspects of the EOI outcomes. Black text on white background with 5 bullet points providing the breakdown in the number of EOIs across the different assessment panels.
ARC has provided a bit of info about Discovery Projects EOI shortlisting process here ▶️ www.arc.gov.au/sites/defaul...
🔹27.7% success rate – 1127 shortlisted of 4063 EOIs
🔹43 EOIs with "disparate scores" were rescued
🔹All EOIs reviewed by 3 College of Experts assessors
Breakdown across panels👇
