Review to Strengthen Independent Medical Research Institutes: Submission in Response to the Issues Paper

This submission responds to the Issues Paper of the Review to Strengthen Independent Medical Research Institutes (iMRIs). Research Australia questions the Review’s scope, noting that the Issues Paper gives no clear definition of an iMRI: only 34 of the 67 institutes on the Review Panel’s list are National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Administering Institutions, and the Issues Paper’s figure of $178 million in competitive grants administered by iMRIs in 2013 is probably too low. Using examples such as the Hanson Institute, Black Dog Institute and Peter Doherty Institute, it maintains that a separate institutional identity carries costs but also brings benefits in attracting donors, staff and research focus, which any efficiency assessment must weigh. Answering the Review’s questions, it finds no single best-practice model or optimal size, and suggests benchmarking efficiency across all publicly funded research organisations using all income sources and research outputs. Its proposals include governance and management training for institutes, one-off ‘organisational innovation’ grants to help groups of institutes move to shared administrative systems, a pooled fund for pre-commercialisation research, eligibility of institutes for the Entrepreneurs’ Infrastructure Programme, and support for Academic Health Science Centres as recommended by the 2012 Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research (McKeon Review).