As I work for a uni, I can say that this kind of thing is not uncommon. Increasingly academia is being stifled, largely by the way funding is now mandated. The Federal Education Minister now has the automatic right to veto any ARC (Australian Research Council) grant that she (or he) wants to. So, after a rigorous examination by a committee of eminent experts in a field, a mediocre-educated bureaucrat from Canberra can override the Council simply because they may not like the subject matter of the proposed research. Also, as the ARC has become more politicised in recent years - again due to the new funding schema's for universities - a lot of non-conventional, or potentially contentious research is now longer funded, or funded well. Universities are supposed to be the bastion of education and societal development, but Australia has successfully turned this around where universities are now cash cows, milking every last dollar we can, at the expense of education. I just wish the government would look past short term solutions and issues, and ask themselves where they'd like to see us in 20-30 years, and focus their educational direction that way.

Regarding Frank's comment about Fraser - whilst I do not agree with Fraser, I fully support his right to do his research and publish his findings. It is our responsibility as academics to not simply summarily dismiss him because we don't like what he has to say; but it IS our job to counter his arguments with our own research. That's called debate people - debate using research; both quantitative and qualitative. To silence people because we don't like what they say is just wrong. That's called Nazi Germany. People breathed a sigh of relief when 1984 came and went without society falling into the decay of Orwell's vision. Maybe he just dated his book a few decades to soon?