From Vision to Delivery: Making Ambition Work Within NHMRC Investigator Grants

Each year, as the NHMRC Investigator Grant round approaches, researchers across Australia map out their vision for the next 5 years to propose an ambitious and innovative, yet feasible program of research.

The task is deceptively simple: describe a program that is coherent, bold and capable of delivering new knowledge to address significant problems plaguing the health and medical sector. The vision often comes easily to researchers, as it draws on their passion and contributions to the field. But as they begin to devise a plan to reach their vision, another reality starts to set in. The budget, particularly at Emerging Leadership and lower Leadership levels, is finite, tightly defined, and often far less expansive than the ideas it is meant to support. And somewhere in that tension, uncertainly begins to surface about whether the program can achieve real impact within the 5-year period.

The Feasibility Gap

Feasibility in research funding is rarely a simple yes–no judgment, even though it is often presented that way in formal proposals.

On paper, every funded project appears feasible by design. In practice, feasibility rests on a network of assumptions that may be more than what is just written in the application itself. It may rely on personnel or collaborators’ time and expertise that is not fully costed, institutional infrastructure that may quietly absorb real costs, or resources and data from other sources. This introduces a persistent gap between what is formally described and what is actually required to deliver outcomes. This gap becomes most evident when projects are ambitious, but funding for resources is tightly constrained.

 

Within this gap sits an uncomfortable but unavoidable reality: most ambitious Investigator Grant programs depend, either explicitly or implicitly, on other funding across their lifespan. An underfunded program may score lowly for Knowledge Gain because it lacks the internal capacity to fully staff all proposed aims, absorb delays or failed approaches, or to pivot into new directions without additional support provided. This makes us question whether the feasibility over a 5-year horizon is determined solely by the quality of the research plan, or by whether the surrounding system can sustain it. In this sense, the ‘5-year program’ may function less as a self-contained unit and more as a hub within a broader, interdependent funding ecosystem.

Balancing Independence, Scale, and Overlap

Applicants are navigating competing expectations. They must demonstrate independence and avoid overlap, while also convincing reviewers that their program is sufficiently resourced to succeed. The issue is not that research relies on multiple funding streams, but that this reliance is rarely articulated clearly without appearing to duplicate efforts across funded grants.

 

How this dynamic is interpreted, however, differs across career stages. For Emerging Leadership programs, the emphasis is on establishing independence, which can be harder to articulate, particularly where there is proximity to previous supervisors or existing projects. Here, the feasibility gap is navigated by demonstrating that, even within a shared ecosystem, the proposed work occupies a distinct intellectual space rather than extending someone else’s program.

 

For senior Leadership programs, independence is assumed, and there is an emphasis toward scale and integration. Few substantial Investigator Leadership Grants are built on a single source of funding, as generally multiple funding streams are expected as part of leading a broad research agenda. These programs evolve through layered support, where different grants contribute to distinct but interconnected components of a broader intellectual trajectory. The feasibility question is no longer whether other funding exists, but how to avoid the perception that this necessary layering is ‘double dipping’ through repetition of the same work packaged under different funding labels.

What Does a Feasible and Ambitious Program Actually Look Like?

A feasible and ambitious program is not one that tries to do everything. It makes deliberate choices about what will be delivered and how. Ambition and feasibility are not in opposition but should work together to provide a coherent middle ground where the significance of the ideas is matched by a credible pathway for achieving them.

 

In practice, the most credible Investigator Grant programs, particularly those operating within modest budgets, scope ambition strategically. The focus is on the work that must be achieved within the grant, not every possible direction the research could take. This selectivity does not diminish ambition. Rather it sharpens it, ensuring that what is proposed can be meaningfully executed rather than superficially covered.

Clarity around resourcing is another defining feature. Feasibility is strengthened when it is obvious who is doing the work, how much time they are contributing, and where that support is coming from. Rather than obscuring the role of other funding or institutional support, strong proposals make these relationships legible. This transparency builds confidence that the program is not only intellectually coherent, but practically deliverable.

Feasible and ambitious programs recognise that research rarely unfolds exactly as planned. Instead of over-specifying every step, they build in adaptive capacity, acknowledging the risks and describing their contingencies to generate knowledge that supports the program’s success. This flexibility is not a sign of uncertainty, but of realism.

Finally, there is an honesty about scale. A modestly funded program, particularly at the Emerging Leadership level, should not read like a compressed Leadership Level 3 agenda. It gains credibility by demonstrating depth, focus, and the ability to execute well that is expressed through the significance and coherence of the work, rather than the sheer volume of aims.

Reframing Feasibility Within Funding Ecosystem

The Investigator Grant scheme has played an important role in shifting Australian research toward longer-term, programmatic thinking, and this remains a genuine strength. In articulating a 5-year vision, it has encouraged researchers to think beyond immediate project cycles, supporting the development of research trajectories that extend well into the future. Perhaps a more useful way to frame feasibility is not whether additional funding is required, but how clearly Investigator Grants are understood as part of a broader funding ecosystem. Making these relationships more visible would not fundamentally change how research is funded but align expectations more closely with how research is conducted, particularly at the more senior levels, to support sustainability.