GrantEd’s submission to the Draft National Health and Medical Research Strategy Consultation
- thegrantedgroup
- Oct 20
- 8 min read
At GrantEd, we have supported Australian researchers to develop medical and health-related grant applications for well over a decade. In that time we have seen many researchers and research support staff face significant challenges due to the high competitiveness and low success rates of grants, substantial administrative burden from complex schemes and insufficient funding to feasibly perform the proposed research. Early and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) and under-represented groups have been particularly impacted.
Although we have several concerns (outlined below) about the new National Health and Medical Research Strategy, we welcome the opportunity a new strategy will provide for translational and consumer driven research to strengthen and leverage Australia’s world leading research capability. We hope this new strategy will lead to successful, equitable and sustainable pathways for researchers, universities and other stakeholders within the health and medical sector to translate research findings into impacts and benefits individuals and communities.
Do you agree with the proposed values?
While we agree with most of the proposed values, we highlight that the wording of ‘priority-driven’ research in the COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP value, doesn’t necessarily indicate this is inclusive of consumer-driven research. Consumers provide a unique and important contribution to ensure research addresses actual community needs, rather than just those identified by researchers. Studies involving consumers often yield research findings that are more likely to be adopted into practice and policy producing positive outcomes for the target population. Given research should be consumer- / priority-driven, not investigator-driven, we suggest amending the wording to read ‘consumer- and priority-driven research’. We also suggest defining these terms to avoid misunderstandings, which could be included in a ‘Definitions’ section at the end of the document.
Goals: What are the proposed goals?
The proposed 5 Goals of the National Strategy are to 1) Drive national prosperity and security, 2) Lead the world in health outcomes, 3) Deliver equity – no one left behind, 4) Secure a resilient and a sustainable health system and 5) Strengthen regional and global partnership.
In the 3rd goal, the word ‘postcode’ is included to ‘ensure every Australian, regardless of background or postcode, benefits from health and medical research.’ However, in this context, the Goal refers only to the geographical location or place of residence. Replacing 'postcode’ with ‘circumstances’ could also consider health discrepancies experienced by rural and remote communities. The numbering and/or ordering these Goals also gives the impression of a level of priority that may not exist therefore we suggest also removing the numbering.
Focus Areas: Do you agree with the proposed Focus Areas?
There are 5 Focus Areas proposed in the National Strategy that are thematic domains for the Actions that will deliver on the Goals of the National Strategy.
FOCUS AREA #1: Build a vibrant research system that delivers for the nation
The use of ‘horizon scanning’ is important but we suggest also including explicit wording that considers sustainability. With success rates of NHMRC and MRFF applications at historic lows and Australia having one of the lowest investments of research in the OECD as a % of GDP, and the cost of undertaking high quality research skyrocketing, ensuring a sustainable medical research community is imperative.
FOCUS AREA#2: Embed research processes that are modern, efficient and consumer centred
We suggest the umbrella term of ‘partnerships’ that is used to describe this Focus Area’s Values, and Goals must be formally defined as encompassing consumer and community involvement. This is particularly important given the terminology in MRFF Instructions for Grant Opportunities currently refers to partners and consumers as separate groups.
In this Focus Area, the emphasis on removing administrative burden on researchers will be welcomed, although it seems the burden being referred to is in ‘reporting post-award' rather than in the ‘pre-award/application’ stage. We question whether the burden in the pre-award/application stage will be reduced by streamlining application processes and, if so, how this will be achieved.
FOCUS AREA#4: Drive impact through research translation, innovation and commercial solutions
This Focus Area is directed at translational research through commercialisation leading to economic and industrial growth. This raises the question of where basic translational research fits within this Focus Area and prioritised investment in research with commercial potential. Many of our health gains come from decades-long investment in basic and discovery science, so there is imperative in retaining the substantial potential of discovery research to lead to transformative health gains.
What actions are associated with each Focus Area?
FOCUS AREA#1: The ‘'National priority setting and evaluation’ is an important inclusion in this Focus Area. However, it isn’t clear how this will create incentives to develop collaborative infrastructure to increase the level of investment in medical research without merging research institutions.
FOCUS AREA#2: We suggest evaluation processes should include a focus on the extent of consumer and community engagement that has occurred in previously funded projects. This suggestion reflects MRFF’s recognition of the importance in evaluating consumer engagement to ensure that it delivers what was proposed in funded applications. It is unclear if the MRFF Grant Opportunities currently administered under business.gov.au will have the same application process as those administered by NHMRC. If all MRFF Grant Opportunities are submitted via the same portal using the same guidelines and application forms, this would substantially reduce researcher confusion.
FOCUS AREA#3: In this Focus Area that is directed to accelerating research and its translation to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ health and wellbeing, the terminology is unclear. The terms of ‘community-led' vs ‘community-based’ have been used interchangeably, which introduces ambiguity. Additionally, ‘community-led' practices are referred to in the early stages of the research (e.g. codesigned research), however the translation of outcomes (discussed in points 2 and 3) are “community-based" and do not incorporate the “community-led” terminology.
FOCUS AREA#4: The role of basic research could be further clarified in the actions associated with this Focus Area considering its emphasis on research translation, and commercial outcomes. We suggest acknowledging that innovative solutions that can be translated into commercialisation opportunities, usually come from basic/fundamental and innovative research that may take many years to have impact.
Enablers: What improvements are suggested for the proposed Enabling Initiatives associated with the proposed Enablers?
WORKFORCE and the Workforce Enabling Initiative
Although the Strategic Examination of Research and Development (SERD) will provide strategic direction to guide health and medical research, it is unclear how they feed into the Workforce Enabler. If consumers and community are not involved in the SERD and have no voice in developing the workforce, how will their values, needs and challenges continue to be addressed (aligned with MRFF’s current focus)? The NHMRC’s updated Consumer and Community Involvement statement reflects commitment to meaningful engagement of consumers and communities in all research, yet this engagement is absent from the proposed Enabling Initiatives.
We suggest amending ‘WORKFORCE’ to include training and upskilling of researchers in consumer and community engagement e.g. building/maintaining relationships of trust–a suggestion that would seamlessly align this national HMR Strategy with NHMRC’s revised Consumer and Community Involvement statement.
WORKFORCE seems unidirectional, enabling researchers to enter industry but not industry-based professionals to return to research. Assessments must be adjusted so professionals with industry experience aren’t penalised for track record gaps when returning to research. FUNDING: Greater transparency about initiatives that will be prioritised across healthcare, educational and industrial settings would clarify how innovative science fits into this and explain where investments are directed.
FUNDING and the Funding Enabling Initiative
The FUNDING Enabler appears to be more focused on consolidating administration of funding rather than enabling more funding for researchers. What additional investments are offered to change the competitiveness of funding structures? Co-funded grants can be complex and require adaptability that may increase administrative burden. Reducing long term administrative costs will not likely result in more funding unless more money is injected.
Under FUNDING, it’s unclear how accountability for research impact will be built into the model since the impact may be realised far downstream from award of funding and research. We strongly advise against disinvestment based on impact given these significantly different timeframes.
INFRASTRUCTURE and the Infrastructure Enabling Initiative
Under INFRASTRCUTURE, we question whether the consolidation of infrastructure is in tension with the emphasis on regional, rural and remote research in Focus Area 2. We suggest clarifying to what extent such research, particularly if it involves consumers and community involvement, can be done outside the required areas.
Priority-ranking: What are our top priorities for GrantEd and what could impact successful implementation of these priorities generate?
Out of the 20 priorities listed, we have chosen the following as our top 3:
1) RESEARCH TRANSLATION: Priority must be given to translational initiatives that will result in significant down-stream changes.
2) NATIONAL PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION: This is crucial for researchers to be aligned with what is a priority for Australia. However, this complex process needs to consolidate many different views that have been realised through engagement with health stakeholders and consumers. Priorities would also need to be continually evaluated and be revisited often rather than sitting static for 3-5 years.
3) AN AUSTRALIAN HEALTH AND MEDICAL WORKFORCE: Prioritising research support and skill development will deliver a quality and sustainable investment to improve the health of all Australians.
Governance: Do you agree with the proposed National Strategy Advisory Council?
We acknowledge that establishing a National Strategy Advisory Council could enable transparent oversight of the National Strategy and we strongly encourage equal representation from all type of stakeholders to support basic research across all areas. Clarity should be given on who would be appointed to the National Strategy Advisory Council and what their responsibilities would be. Very little information is provided on the size of the council and types of stakeholders who would be involved. We also note that stakeholders are specifically mentioned in terms of ‘continuous improvement’ but not in terms of evaluating effectiveness or reassessing priorities, which suggests they may be excluded from those activities.
Metrics: What key indicators do you consider should be used to measure the success and impact of the National Strategy and over what period should they be measured?
There is a notable absence of increased job security for researchers from the 5 Key Goals, so there seems a disjoint between these Goals and the 4 Enablers, particularly WORKFORCE. Metrics to measure the success of the 10-year National Strategy should include increased health efficiencies and beneficial change to health policy and practice. These elements are currently embedded in some of the MRFF measures but have not been encompassed within the proposed metrics for the National Strategy. We recommend that outcome metrics also include information about how research is aligning with national priorities encompassing collaborative and consumer-led research. Output metrics that currently include publications, patents and policy influence seem antiquated. This sends a signal to that academic outputs are still the gold standard, when funders, governments, and communities increasingly want translation, adoption and implementation metrics to evaluate health improvements, equity gains and economic benefits.
For the Actions, there is specific use of the term ‘community feedback’, which introduces ambiguity as to whether the term ‘stakeholders’ (a term used throughout the document) includes or excludes community. We suggest consistency in terminology be used to avoid ambiguity, and that terminology be clarified so that it is clear which groups are included when ‘stakeholders’ are referred to in this National Strategy.
We suggest that metrics are measured annually, and reporting is done biennially, which is consistent with other reports to government where reports divide information annually in arrears (e.g. the 2027 report covers 2025 and 2026). It is essential that the reporting template be approved and provided to institutions well in advance.
What other challenges, opportunities or trends should National Strategy address?