Funding should be allocated through formal priority setting and rigorous peer review rather than by gifting by politicians
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is the major funder of medical research in Australia. Although there has been a greater than four-fold increase in funds available to the NHMRC since 2000–01, this has not kept pace with the increase in number of applications, so success rates have plummeted.1 Less than 15% of project grant applications are now successful, compared with over 40% in the 1980s. The low success rates have led to frustration within the research community due to the amount of time spent writing and reviewing applications, and the discouragement experienced by early career researchers in pursuing a research career. In response, the NHMRC has recently reformed its grant program to simplify the number of grant types and the burden on applicants and reviewers, but it continues to support peer review by independent experts as the basis for allocating funding, ensuring excellence, transparency, probity and fairness.2
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. National Health and Medical Research Council. Structural review of NHMRC’s grant program consultation paper. Canberra: NHMRC, 2016. https://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/files/consultations/drafts/16305nhmrcgrantdatapaper-web.pdf (accessed Dec 2017).
- 2. National Health and Medical Research Council. Structural review of NHMRC’s grant program [website]. Canberra: NHMRC; 2017. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/structural-review-nhmrc-s-grant-program (accessed July 2017).
- 3. Department of Health. Budget: links to the Department of Health portfolio budgets [website]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2017. www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Budget-1 (accessed Aug 2017).
- 4. Li D, Agha L. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 2015; 348: 434-438.
- 5. Department of Finance. Commonwealth grants rules and guidelines [website]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2014. https://www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/grants (accessed Dec 2017).
- 6. Department of Health. Medical Research Future Fund [website]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2017. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mrff (accessed Dec 2017).
- 7. McLucas J. Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015: Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015, Second Reading. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/48015b9d-e70e-42c7-892d-e6ade12a500c/0016/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf (accessed Sept 2017).
- 8. Christensen H, Batterham PJ, Griffiths KM, et al. Research priorities in mental health. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2013; 47: 355-362.
- 9. Segelov E, Chan D, Lawrence B, et al. Identifying and prioritizing gaps in neuroendocrine tumor research: a modified Delphi process with patients and health care providers to set the research action plan for the newly formed Commonwealth Neuroendocrine Tumor Collaboration. J Glob Oncol 2017; 3: 380-388.
No relevant disclosures.