Contemporary (post-Wills) survey of the views of Australian medical researchers: importance of funding, infrastructure and motivators for a research career

The release of Australia’s Health and Medical Research Strategic Review chaired by Peter Wills (the Wills Report1) in May 1999 led to a commitment by the Australian Government to increase investment in medical research significantly. Over the next 6 years, annual funding for health and medical research through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) was increased to more than double base research funding from $165 million in 1998–99 to more than $400 million in 2004–05. With this increase, it is timely to consider the views of Australian health and medical researchers.

Beyond a general measurement of job satisfaction and the assessment of workplace conditions,2 little information exists on the broader perceptions and opinions of Australian health and medical researchers. A 2001 survey of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found that while there was a high level of job satisfaction among life scientists in the United States, younger scientists had concerns about career path, and a significant disparity in pay between men and women was identified.3 More recently, a 2004 survey of scientists in North America and Europe showed that factors considered most important to their research were adequate laboratory and research facilities, and appropriate resources to meet infrastructure needs not covered by research grants.4 In Australia, a workplace survey conducted by the Australian Society for Medical Research (ASMR) in 1999 sought to identify how Australian biomedical researchers regarded the Australian research environment, and what factors were perceived to be important to the exodus of Australian researchers to overseas research organisations.2 Issues identified included low levels of funding, poor job security, low salaries, and reduced employment opportunities. Given the paucity of data relating to wider research considerations and outcomes in Australia, particularly after the Wills Report, Research Australia commissioned a national poll of health and medical researchers to explore researchers’ attitudes and concerns on a variety of issues.5

The adequacy of funding and the level of infrastructure support remain the two most critical concerns for Australian health and medical researchers, despite increased research funding which followed the Wills Report. Health expenditure in Australia for 2002–03 totalled some $72.2 billion —9.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).6 However, Australian health and medical research expenditure as a percentage of GDP ranks well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average.

A key recommendation of the 2004 Investment Review of Health and Medical Research (The Grant Report)7 was that government investment through the Wills funding package has started to deliver results, and that further increases in funding for health and medical research will yield similarly considerable health benefits and economic dividends.8 Views on funding expressed by survey participants are consistent with those from the 1999 ASMR survey. However, the extent of researcher dissatisfaction with funding highlighted in our survey is more pronounced, given the federal government’s doubling of the NHMRC budget since 1999.

While arguments for health benefits and economic return carry much weight within the research sector in Australia and off-shore,9-13 governments will require strong support from tax payers to maintain this investment growth. Opinion polls show that there is strong public support for increased government investment in health and medical research. Further, many Australians would prefer to have surplus government funds invested in health and medical research rather than receive a tax cut.14 A 2005 opinion poll shows that nearly all of those surveyed believe that federal government funding for health and medical research should exceed the 0.12% of GDP allocated in 2003.15 This finding lends further support to the Grant Report recommendation to increase government investment to the OECD average of 0.2% of GDP, thereby increasing overall government investment to $1.8 billion by 2008–09.7

As more public money is spent on research, there is increasing emphasis on documenting research outcomes, on research performance benchmarking, and on the adequacy of research governance.16 There are warning signs that research funding might not always increase,17 and value-for-money and appropriate selectivity in research funding will be essential to justify further increases in research spending.

The second major concern for Australian health and medical researchers is the adequacy of infrastructure support. While funding has increased since 1999, there has not been a parallel proportionate increase in infrastructure support. Recent Department of Education, Science and Training reviews similarly attest to the level of concern that exists about adequate infrastructure and the further investment required.18,19 While independent medical research institutes have argued that they are disadvantaged by not being eligible for Australian Government infrastructure funding schemes,20,21 our findings suggest that researchers based at independent medical research institutes were more likely to feel satisfied with the level of infrastructure and support available compared with their colleagues at universities. The Grant Report urged that overall infrastructure funding be increased for both universities and medical research institutes to sufficient and effectual levels to meet the real costs of research.7 In response, the government last year announced new infrastructure funding for medical research institutes, commensurate with funding provided to universities via the Research Infrastructure Block Grants scheme. University infrastructure funding was not adjusted at the same time.

Researchers are predominantly motivated by the excitement of discovery, rather than salary, community recognition or the potential for personal wealth from the commercialisation of their discoveries. Publications are viewed as a more important research outcome than the patenting of research findings or creation of new businesses. Presently, publications constitute 10% of the research block funding provided by the Australian Government to universities as part of its Institutional Grants Scheme and the Research Training Scheme formulae. While some observers view this component more as a measure of productivity rather than research impact,22-24 publications have been retained as a measure of research output in funding formulae.25 The high rating placed on publications compared with the low weighting in terms of funding suggests that researchers themselves value publications as an important output and benefit of their research careers. The slightly greater emphasis on the importance of generating publications by university researchers may, in part, reflect the fact that these form a specific component of the government funding of universities in Australia.

Our study had certain limitations. Views were sought from researchers working in organisations who were members of Research Australia, which might include certain biases. There was also relative under-representation of certain research types such as health service and hospital-based researchers, so that conclusions about those groups may be less reliable. In addition, interstate comparisons are limited by small numbers in some states.

A future study could explore the views of health service researchers in light of the Grant Report recommendation7 for specific additional investment in policy and practice-focused research. The strength of our study however, is that it explores the effect of the post-Wills funding increases, through the opinions of researchers themselves, in the environments in which they conduct their research. Our study is a timely assessment as health and medical research funding increases near their completion, and future investment strategies are yet to be implemented.

1 Participants who rated adequacy of funding and infrastucture and support as “very” or “extremely” important, and were “very” or “extremely” satisfied with these aspects

---

* Denotes statistically significant difference.

NSW = New South Wales; WA = Western Australia; SA = South Australia; Anova = one-way analysis of variance.