Tag: NHMRC

Improving Research Culture a collective responsibility

In May, the NHMRC released a draft Good Institutional Practice Guide which seeks to provide guidance to NHMRC-funded institutions and researchers about good institutional practice ‘to promote open, honest, supportive and respectful institutional cultures conducive to the conduct of high-quality research’. Its development has been overseen by NHMRC’s Research Quality Steering Committee.

Research Australia made a submission in response to the draft. While welcoming the Guide Research Australia indicated that awareness of practices and initiatives that can improve research culture is not the primary barrier to improving research culture; significant work has already been done to identify the issues and raise awareness. The key problem is implementing the measures needed to improve the culture.

Research Australia suggested the finalisation and publication of the Good Institutional Practice Guide will provide impetus for improvement that the sector can build on if we act collectively. Research Australia suggested leadership and involvement from the NHMRC will be essential, and would demonstrate the NHMRC’s ongoing commitment to improving research culture and practice. We offered to work with the NHMRC, the Research Quality Steering Committee, other peak bodies and research institutions that want to participate in a coalition to improve research practice and culture.

Research Australia’s submission is available here.

Effective and meaningful consumer involvement in HMR

In March 2024, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Consumers Health Forum of Australia Ltd (CHF) commenced a review of the 2016 Statement on Consumer and Community Involvement in Health and Medical Research (the Statement).

The Statement aims to support consumer and community involvement across all types and levels of health and medical research.

Research Australia’s submission has supported the expanded involvement of consumer and community representatives in HMR while emphasising the need for research organisations and funding bodies to appropriately train and resource researchers to ensure the involvement of consumers and community representatives is effective and meaningful.

Research Australia’s submission is available here.

Pre Budget Submission calls for greater investment in health and medical research and innovation

Research Australia’s Pre Budget submission to the Treasurer ahead of the 2024 Budget has made the case for increased investment in Australian health and medical research and innovation to support a healthier and more prosperous Australia.

The Australian Government’s investment in R&D is below the OECD average.

There is an additional $323 million approved for release from the MRFF in 2024-25 that the Government is not investing in medical research and innovation.

The Universities Accord process provides the ideal opportunity to increase the investment in the NHMRC, ARC and indirect research costs.

We have advocated for a greater role for the Australian Centre for Disease Control, for the greater use of Government procurement to support Australian innovation, and for the full development of the National HMR strategy and workforce strategy.

Read Research Australia’s submission here.

 

Getting better value from the MRFF and the NHMRC’s MREA

 

In May the Department of Health announced a national consultation focused on optimising the government’s funding arrangements for health and medical research by improving strategic alignment and coordination between the MRFF and the NHMRC’s Medical Research Endowment Account. Research Australia welcomes this initiative and the commitment that this reform will be undertaken within the broader context of a new National Health and Medical Research Strategy, a long-term campaign by Research Australia (and others).

Following consultation with our membership, Research Australia has made a submission in response to the Discussion paper.

Unified governance of the MRFF and the MREA presents a real opportunity to ensure the MRFF Priorities are developed with greater regard for what the MREA is funding, thereby ensuring better differentiation and complimentarily of the two funds. There is also an opportunity to address equity and health disparities through more coordinated and streamlined funding.

Research Australia has largely supported the proposed Model 2 as a way of improving coordination while recognising the distinct objectives and purposes of the two funds. Establishing one administrative funding body provides the opportunity for successful research projects to graduate more seamlessly from one funding program to the next including from an NHMRC program to an MRFF program. T

This new model must be delivered in such a way that preserves the MRFF’s funding for medical innovation, and that input from outside academia and medical research institutes is retained. Stakeholders from commercialisation, finance, and industry have a meaningful advisory role in both the priority setting and funding processes of the MRFF. Basic research can be funded by the NHMRC in a way that will ultimately support MRFF Priority areas if the two funds are better aligned.

Finally, a Workforce Plan must form part of the broader national HMR Strategy. This Workforce Plan should seek to address the challenges faced by early and mid-career health and medical researchers and identify careers/jobs critical to a future economy underpinned by a thriving innovation and modern manufacturing sector.

Consultation on changes to align the MRFF and MREA are ongoing and Research Australia is continuing to liaise with the Government on the sector’s behalf on these important reforms. If you would like to get involved please contact Research Australia’s General Manager Lucy Clynes at lucy.clynes@researchaustrlaia.,org or Head of Policy Greg Mullins at greg.mullins@researchaustralia.org

Research Australia’s submission is available here.  

Peer Review- 2 Stage Process for Idea Grants

Research Australia’s submission in response to the NHMRC’s Peer Review Consultation has urged the NHMRC to consult further on options for a two stage application process for the Ideas Grants.

There is considerable interest within our membership and across the health and medical research sector in a two-stage application process, and while there is not yet agreement on the approach, there is an appetite for change. Research Australia believes that a two-stage application process for Ideas Grants, incorporating an abbreviated application at the first stage, provides the chance to reduce the burden on applicants and reviewers alike, while better supporting the objectives of Ideas Grants to promote innovative and novel research.

In particular, the process could provide the focus on novel and innovative ideas and reduced emphasis on track record that the NHMRC is seeking.  Research Australia’s submission explores the opportunity to adopt a two-stage application process for Ideas Grants and puts forward some considerations for further investigation and consultation.

Research Australia’s submission

Changes to NHMRC’s Grant Program

The eagerly awaited changes to the NHMRC’s grant program have been announced this morning. As Research Australia and many others in our sector have advocated for, they are a combination of elements from the models proposed in the consultation paper issued in the middle of last year. Importantly, these changes reflect much of the advice provided to the review panel from the sector.

Research Australia welcomes the reforms announced and notes that there is never ‘a perfect solution’ but that these changes are a positive step in the right direction and address key issues flagged by the sector. Research Australia also commends the efforts of the NHMRC CEO Anne Kelso AO and the Expert Advisory Group chaired by Professor Steve Wesselingh.

The stated aims of the changes are to:

  1. Encourage research that is more creative and innovative
  2. Provide opportunities for Australia’s best health and medical researchers at all career stages, and
  3. Minimise the burden on researchers in preparing and reviewing grant applications, allowing them to spend more time on research.

Continue reading “Changes to NHMRC’s Grant Program”

Federal Medical Research Plan: The Health & Economic Roadmap We Need

Media Release: Wednesday, 9 November 2016

Link to the MRFF Strategy & Priorities.

With almost two in three Australian adults and one in four children overweight or obese, two-thirds of Australians over the age of 50 with poor bone density, and one in six Australians with chronic back pain, tonight’s release of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Strategy sets out the roadmap for addressing some of our biggest health issues.

That is the verdict from the medical research community and Research Australia, the organisation behind the virtual doubling of health (NHMRC) funding in 2000, and again in 2005.

“As the organisation that has been championing health and medical research for the last 15 years, we can tell you the MRFF is a real game changer,” said Research Australia Chair, Dr Christine Bennett.

CEO of Research Australia, Nadia Levin said the MRFF Strategy’s vision of a health system informed by quality research is exactly what’s needed.

“Research Australia shares the Strategy’s vision of a health system fully informed by quality health and medical research,” said Levin.

Continue reading “Federal Medical Research Plan: The Health & Economic Roadmap We Need”

Review of NHMRC funding programs

The NHMRC CEO Professor Anne Kelso has appointed an Expert Advisory Group to provide advice and assistance to the NHMRC in undertaking a Review of Funding Programs. A Consultation Paper was issued in July and was followed by a series of public forums in August.

Research Australia has made a submission in response to the Consultation Paper supporting the proposal for two streams of grants, one which emphasises the researchers’ track record and the other on the research proposal. The submission proposes that the limit on the number of Chief Investigators be removed and does not support a fixed duration of 5 years for grants. Research Australia supports the proposal for early career people grants with a research component, and recommends that a Fellowship Program independent of Team or Investigator grants be retained, particularly for researchers who participate in and support multiple research projects and would be adversely affected by the proposed caps on the number of grants a person can apply for or hold.

NHMRC Review

New expert report to guide Medical Research Future Fund

Media Release: Monday 6 June, 2016

A new report from the health and medical sector says the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) needs to prioritise closing gaps between health research, health practice and the health economy.

Translating Research for a sustainable future comprehensively brings together the positions of 160 of Australia’s leading health and medical research organisations, companies and personnel.

The review, contributed to by prominent researchers, universities, and businesses in the field, outlines the sector’s view on priorities for the MRFF over the next two and five years.

Continue reading “New expert report to guide Medical Research Future Fund”

Federal Budget a Combination of Treatments, Placebos and Nocebos for Health and Medical Research

Media Release: Wednesday 4 May 2016

Research Australia, which represents 160 health and medical research organisations, has described last night’s budget as mixed bag – with some wins, some losses and some more detail required.

“The Federal Government is making all of the right noises when it comes to innovation, health and research, and it is pleasing that they remain on the agenda,” said CEO Nadia Levin.

“The budget would be described by my members as a combination of ‘treatments, placebos and nocebos’, and the challenge for government is to back it up with funding.”

Continue reading “Federal Budget a Combination of Treatments, Placebos and Nocebos for Health and Medical Research”