1) The document discusses a grant application that was rejected by the Australian Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) due to using a 13 point font for the header instead of the required 14 point font. 2) A researcher, Dr. Adrian Barnett, criticized the NHMRC assessment process as being too complicated and pedantic in rejecting the application over such a minor technicality. 3) However, the document argues that strict adherence to rules by the NHMRC ensures fairness and removes personal judgement that could introduce bias or inequality. Maintaining standards of presentation is important even if it costs additional resources.

1. Sense,sensibilityandscience
Russell Grenning
In 1905, an obscure PatentClerk(ThirdClass) inthe SwissGovernmentPatentOfficeinBernwas
givena particularlysevere Annual Performance Reviewbyhissupervisor.
While he ratedwell for“Workswell with others”and “Sharescredit appropriately”, he onlyscored2
out of five for“Demonstratesskill and proficiency in carrying outassignments” and,disgracefully,
onlyone out of five for “Makessound and timely decisions – analysesfactsand reacheslogical
conclusions”.
His supervisorwrote inhisreport, “Thisis a patentoffice.Yourjob is to transformwritten patent
applicationsinto clear and precise language,and to study applicationsand pickoutthe new ideas of
an invention.These arethe priorities. Where doesit say thatyourpriorities are rewriting the rules of
the Universe,unifying spaceand time,unifying radiation and matter,ordemonstrating theexistence
of atoms?”
He barelyscrapeda pass.His supervisorwrote,“Based on hisperformanceasa patentclerk, I cannot
recommend himfora promotion atthis time” and if that wasn’tbad enough,he coppedthis
admonition:“Based on yourfilephoto,Iwould suggestyou sign up for the ‘DressforSuccess’class.
Really: a striped shirt with a plaid suit?”
The clerk’sname was Albert Einstein.Sixteenyearslaterhe wonthe Nobel PrizeforPhysics.
I was remindof Einstein’slosingbattle withbureaucracywhenIreadthat a grant applicationtothe
AustralianHealthandMedical ResearchCouncil hadbeenrejectedbecauseitsheaderwas0.2mm
smallerthanitshouldhave been.
Accordingto “The Australian”,“While the researcheris staying anonymous,Queensland University
of Technology publichealth researcherAdrian Barnetthasseen therejection letter and slammed the
NHMRCassessmentprocess astoo complicated and,in thiscase, ridiculously pedantic.”
Horror of horrors,the headingwastypedin13 pointrather than14 pointfont.
Dr Barnett believes that checkingfor fontsizes by university research officersand by NHMRC
reviewers and staff is a huge waste of time and, he asserts in this case, the grant application had
already been through external review,compounding the time wasted.
“To go throughallof that pain (of writing a grant) andsee yourpotentiallyground-breakingidea
tossedasidebecauseofa missingpixelis simplywrongandunscientific. Thesystemhas reallylost
its focus. It shouldbepurelyaboutthe science,not tiny bureaucraticmatters,” he said.
On the face of it, it may be easy to agree withDr Barnett but the factis that while civilised
standards throughout the worldare crumbling, thank goodness forour NHMRC, a true bastion
of old-fashioned presentation.
In my view,submitting a grant application with a heading in 13 point instead of the required 14
point is as scandalous as Einstein wearing a striped shirt witha plaid suit. If the NHMRC doesn’t
have a ‘Presentation for Success’ class, then I strongly recommend they establish one.

2. Fortunately, the NHMRC has defended its “strict conformance” rules, arguing that it ensured
fairness. “Strict conformanceremovestheneedfor thosemaking therules to use personal
judgement,whichcould itselfintroduce inequality,” aspokeswoman said.
Oh yes, the outraged Dr Barnett and his colleagues at QUTand the University of Melbourne may
well have found that a simplified assessment process could deliver acceptable funding decisions
while saving the NHMRC $2million to $5 million a year but, seriously, is that the point?
When should the requirement of looking nice be subjected to such a crass and base inquiry?
Perhaps oddly,Dr Barnett’s deplorable findings about irrelevant issues were funded by a
NHMRC grant which goes to show that they either have a sense of humour – whichis very
unlikely – or it wasn’t the result they had anticipated but, in any case it’s trouble-making, that’s
what it is. And I don’t like his chances of ever getting another NHMRC grant howeverhe
presents it – and it serves him right.
All sorts of people over the years have tried to flaunt authority. To take one example: There was
one British crank whodied in 1727 whose bizarre eccentricities were judged to be “notfit to be
printed” by the RoyalSociety – a sort of NHMRC in those days – and, rightly, they tried to cover
them up. This mad scientist was Isaac Newton and whohas ever heard of him since?
Well, a few I suppose, but that it not the point. Greater minds than his at the NHMRC – oh, sorry,
I meant the Royal Society – made a perfectly understandable and logical judgement.
Dr Barnett can go on and on with his whinging but the NHMRC is not to be turned. They say that
a simplified presentation system risks compromising the integrity of the system. Of course it
would – open the door one little crackand permit a 13 point header on a grant application and
whoknows what insanities and inanities willpour through?
I think that the NHMRC should be awarded the Dr Friedrich Haller Memorial Prize for
“Defendingproperpresentationinscientific research” and if there is actually no such Memorial
Prize, then they should establish it.
Dr Haller was Einstein’s Patent Officesupervisor.