The Times Australia
The Times World News

.

how to fix Australia's broken NHMRC medical research funding system

  • Written by Tony Blakely, Professor of Epidemiology, Population Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne
how to fix Australia's broken NHMRC medical research funding system

Most health research in Australia is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which distributes around $800 million each year[1] through competitive grant schemes. An additional $650 million a year is funded via the Medical Research Future Fund[2], but this focuses more on big-picture “missions” than researcher-initiated projects.

Ten years ago, around 20% of applications for NHMRC funding were successful. Now, only about 10–15% are approved.

Over the same ten-year period, NHMRC funding has stayed flat while prices and population have increased. In inflation-adjusted and per capita terms, the NHMRC funding available has fallen by 30%.

As growing numbers of researchers compete for dwindling real NHMRC funding, research risks becoming “a high-status gig economy[3]”. To fix it, we need to spend more on research – and we need to spend it smarter.

More funding

To keep pace with other countries, and to keep health research a viable career, Australia first of all needs to increase the total amount of research funding.

Between 2008 and 2010, Australia matched the average among OECD countries of investing 2.2% of GDP in research and development. More recently, Australia’s spending has fallen to 1.8%, while the OECD average[4] has risen to 2.7%.

Read more: COVID has left Australia's biomedical research sector gasping for air[5]

When as few as one in ten applications is funded, there is a big element of chance in who succeeds.

Think of it like this: applications are ranked in order from best to worst, and then funded in order from the top down. If a successful application’s ranking is within say five percentage points of the funding cut-off, it might well have missed out if the assessment process were run again – because the process is always somewhat subjective and will never produce exactly the same results twice.

So 5% of the applications are “lucky” to get funding. When only 10% of applications get funding, that means half of the successful ones were lucky. But if there is more money to go around and 20% of applicants are funded, the lucky 5% are only a quarter of the successful applicants.

This is a simplistic explanation, but you can see that the lower the percentage of grants funded, the more of a lottery it becomes.

This increasing element of “luck” is demoralising for the research workforce of Australia, leading to depletion of academics and brain drain.

The ‘application-centric’ model

As well as increasing total funding, we need to look at how the NHMRC allocates these precious funds.

In the past five years, the NHMRC has moved to a system called “application-centric” funding. Five (or so) reviewers are selected for each grant and asked to independently score applications.

There are usually no panels for discussion and scoring of applications – which is what used to happen.

The advantages of application-centric assessment include (hopefully) getting the best experts on a particular grant to assess it, and a less logistically challenging task for the NHMRC (convening panels is hard work and time-consuming).

However, application-centric assessment has disadvantages.

First, assessor reviews are not subject to any scrutiny. In a panel system, differences of opinion and errors can be managed through discussion.

Second, many assessors will be working in a “grey zone”. If you are expert in the area of a proposal, and not already working with the applicants, you are likely to be competing with them for funding. This may result in unconscious bias or even deliberate manipulation of scores.

And third, there is simple “noise”. Imagine each score an assessor gives is made up of two components: the “true score” an application would receive on some unobservable gold standard assessment, plus or minus some “noise” or random error. That noise is probably half or more of the current variation between assessor scores.

Smarter scoring

So how do we reduce the influence of both assessor bias and simple “noise”?

First, assessor scores need to be “standardised” or “normalised”. This means rescaling all assessors’ scores to have the same mean (standardisation) or same mean and standard deviation (normalisation).

Read more: The NHMRC program grant overhaul: will it change the medical research landscape in Australia?[6]

This is a no-brainer. You can use a pretty simple Excel model (I have done it) to show this would substantially reduce the noise.

Second, the NHMRC could use other statistical tools to reduce both bias and noise.

One method would be to take the average ranking of applications across five methods:

  • with the raw scores (i.e. as done now)
  • with standardised scores
  • with normalised scores
  • dropping the lowest score for each application
  • dropping the highest score for each application.

The last two “drop one score” methods aim to remove the influence of potentially biased assessors.

The applications that make the cutoff rank on all the methods are funded. Those that are always beneath the threshold are not funded.

Applications that make the cut on some tests but fail on others could be sent out for further scrutiny – or the NHMRC could judge them by their average rank across the five methods.

This proposal won’t fix the problem with the total amount of funding available, but it would make the system fairer and less open to game-playing.

A less noisy and fairer system

Researchers know any funding system contains an element of chance. One study of Australian researchers[7] found they would be happy with a funding system that, if run twice in parallel, would see at least 75% of the funded grants funded in both runs.

I strongly suspect (and have modelled) that the current NHMRC system is achieving well below this 75% repeatability target.

Further improvements to the NHMRC system are possible and needed. Assessors could provide comments, as well as scores, to applicants. Better training for assessors would also help. And the biggest interdisciplinary grants should really be assessed by panels.

No funding system will be perfect. And when funding rates are low, those imperfections stand out more. But, at the moment, we are neither making the system as robust as we can nor sufficiently guarding against wayward scoring that goes under the radar.

Read more: 7 things the Australian Research Council review should tackle, from a researcher's point of view[8]

Read more https://theconversation.com/more-money-and-smarter-choices-how-to-fix-australias-broken-nhmrc-medical-research-funding-system-188003

Times Magazine

Headless CMS in Digital Twins and 3D Product Experiences

Image by freepik As the metaverse becomes more advanced and accessible, it's clear that multiple sectors will use digital twins and 3D product experiences to visualize, connect, and streamline efforts better. A digital twin is a virtual replica of ...

The Decline of Hyper-Casual: How Mid-Core Mobile Games Took Over in 2025

In recent years, the mobile gaming landscape has undergone a significant transformation, with mid-core mobile games emerging as the dominant force in app stores by 2025. This shift is underpinned by changing user habits and evolving monetization tr...

Understanding ITIL 4 and PRINCE2 Project Management Synergy

Key Highlights ITIL 4 focuses on IT service management, emphasising continual improvement and value creation through modern digital transformation approaches. PRINCE2 project management supports systematic planning and execution of projects wit...

What AI Adoption Means for the Future of Workplace Risk Management

Image by freepik As industrial operations become more complex and fast-paced, the risks faced by workers and employers alike continue to grow. Traditional safety models—reliant on manual oversight, reactive investigations, and standardised checklist...

From Beach Bops to Alpine Anthems: Your Sonos Survival Guide for a Long Weekend Escape

Alright, fellow adventurers and relaxation enthusiasts! So, you've packed your bags, charged your devices, and mentally prepared for that glorious King's Birthday long weekend. But hold on, are you really ready? Because a true long weekend warrior kn...

Effective Commercial Pest Control Solutions for a Safer Workplace

Keeping a workplace clean, safe, and free from pests is essential for maintaining productivity, protecting employee health, and upholding a company's reputation. Pests pose health risks, can cause structural damage, and can lead to serious legal an...

The Times Features

The Role of Your GP in Creating a Chronic Disease Management Plan That Works

Living with a long-term condition, whether that is diabetes, asthma, arthritis or heart disease, means making hundreds of small decisions every day. You plan your diet against m...

Troubleshooting Flickering Lights: A Comprehensive Guide for Homeowners

Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik Effectively addressing flickering lights in your home is more than just a matter of convenience; it's a pivotal aspect of both home safety and en...

My shins hurt after running. Could it be shin splints?

If you’ve started running for the first time, started again after a break, or your workout is more intense, you might have felt it. A dull, nagging ache down your shins after...

Metal Roof Replacement Cost Per Square Metre in 2025: A Comprehensive Guide for Australian Homeowners

In recent years, the trend of installing metal roofs has surged across Australia. With their reputation for being both robust and visually appealing, it's easy to understand thei...

Why You’re Always Adjusting Your Bra — and What to Do Instead

Image by freepik It starts with a gentle tug, then a subtle shift, and before you know it, you're adjusting your bra again — in the middle of work, at dinner, even on the couch. I...

How to Tell If Your Eyes Are Working Harder Than They Should Be

Image by freepik Most of us take our vision for granted—until it starts to let us down. Whether it's squinting at your phone, rubbing your eyes at the end of the day, or feeling ...