Issue 1: The balance is changing between the number of research grants available and the number
of Fellowships
“However, the substantial increase in the budget size of each Project Grant, primarily due to a move
towards more 4 and 5 years grants as recommended by the McKeon Review3 and adopted into
Coalition Policy4 , is reducing the numbers of grants able to be funded each year.”…..” Question 1:
How should NHMRC’s funding balance between research grants and fellowships be adjusted as the
total number of Project Grants available falls progressively over the next few years?”
If project grants are getting bigger (which assumes that projects are also increasing in scope and
size) – then the maximum limit of 6 current project grants per CI needs to be lowered. It is simply
inequitable for a few researchers to hold the majority of available NHMRC project funding. A
maximum of 3 or 4 project grants per CI would be more equitable distribution of funds, as well as
potentially easing the pressure Universities exert on research fellows to apply for multiple project
grants every round, every year.
Issue 2: Is the structure of NHMRC fellowship schemes appropriate for 2015 and beyond?
“NHMRC maintains a pyramid shape to its Fellowships schemes. – 600 Early Career Fellowships
(ECF), 256 Career Development Fellowships (CDF), and the long-standing NHMRC Research
Fellowship scheme with 129 SRFA, 108 SRFB, 97 PRF and 99 SPRF level Fellows. Detailed numbers
are given in Table 3. ECF and each of the two levels of CDF can only be held once. In contrast,
Fellows in NHMRC senior Research Fellowships scheme (SRFA, SRFB, PRF and SPRF) may hold these
any number of times (5 years each, including at the same level) provided they can successfully
compete against all applicants in that year. The issue is whether this arrangement for NHMRC
Research Fellows (SRFA and above) means that emerging researchers from the CDFs and other
Fellowships, and other researchers emerging from clinical and academic research environments,
industry and from overseas, have reduced chances to gain a Research Fellowship and therefore
developing further as full time researchers.”…… “Question 2: To increase the turnover of NHMRC
Research Fellows, should these schemes be seen as ‘up and out schemes’, whereby Fellows wishing
to reapply can only do so at a higher level?”
Re-distribution of funding to ensure there are (roughly) equal numbers of ECF, CDFs and RFs offered.
Tighter eligibility for NHMRC fellowships of any type – restrict only to those who do not have
permanent positions at Universities. If they have a secure position at a University, then their
institution should be funding their time in research.
In answer to Question 2: Yes – fellows wishing to re-apply should be required to do so at higher level
each time they apply to ensure career flow and minimise “stagnation”.
“Question 4: Taking into account that awarding longer grants means fewer grants overall in steady
state funding, should NHMRC extend the duration of Early Career Fellowships to more than four
years? Should the Career Development Fellowship be extended beyond 5 years to, say, seven or ten
years?”
If projects grants are now expected to last for at least 4-5 years, then 5 years should be the minimal
term for all research fellowship schemes (excluding short non-research fellowships like TRIP, and
Practitioner).
Issue 3: Should there be a stronger strategic approach to granting Fellowships?
“NHMRC must always base its decision-making on excellence and this is the primary basis of the
current schemes. However, many urge NHMRC to establish special fellowships in areas of need such
as bio- and health informatics and statistics, or for NHMRC to build capacity in particular areas of
health. Governments have chosen mental health and dementia for particular focus in recent years.”
…” Question 5: Should NHMRC identify particular areas that require capacity building for the future
and maintain support for those areas for long enough time to make a difference? What else should
be done to support women and increase participation and success by Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander researchers?”
NHMRC should continue to fund fellowships based on excellence. The challenge with strategically
targeted fellowships is how to ensure that the most excellent medical researchers are being funded?
Is there any evidence from overseas that strategic targeting produces better outcomes for medical
research, and health benefits?
To support women in science, particularly in later more senior positions, greater flexibility is required
for those with family/carer duties. Either part-time fellowships should be offered or support packages
that can assist in funding child-care, family travel requirements etc. The reporting of career breaks
need to be broader. If an applicant has had a career break over 5 years ago to start a family, this
career break is not considered under current reporting of career break (within last 5 years). Yet, a
substantial break to have, say, 2 children, followed by some time working part-time, will affect
outputs over at least the next 10 years as it takes a considerable amount of time to re-establish
competitive rates of output. Also, a greater range of performance indicators should be considered in
track record assessment. The traditional outputs of papers, grants and students are very sensitive to
career breaks. A period of part-time work to care for family should not be considered a “lack of
dedication to career” and “no leadership profile”. These women represent considerable talent with
significant potential to be future research leaders, if they are supported through this time. Other
outputs during part-time work could include examples of community/institutional service, examples
of translation, and supporting, supervising and mentoring other members of the research team.
Issue 4: Responsibilities of employing institutions and the health and medical research sector
“Researchers employed by research institutions with fellowships support from NHMRC, unlike those
employed to also teach or provide health care, are understandably concerned about security of
employment….. Question 7: Should employing institutions be expected to provide more certainty to
their employees than now? Question 8: Would this be achieved if NHMRC required institutions to
commit to one or more years of ongoing support for researchers exiting from NHMRC Fellowships?
Question 9: Should this be restricted to Early Career and Career Development Fellows?”
Employing institutions should be expected to provide up to 2 years of salary security for those
transitioning between fellowship schemes (say, from ECF to CDF, or CDF to SRF). In addition, they
should be expected to match NHMRC salary support for those on senior fellowships (eg, five years
salary following a term as SRF). Employing institutions receive many gains from the hard work and
achievements of NHMRC fellows including research reputation and government funding. It is
equitable to expect that some of these gains should be returned to successful NHMRC fellows in the
form of job security.