Back

NHMRC Hunger Games

The writing of an NHMRC grant application is no small feat and the agency's assessment process is a major operation. However, in most instances this work is wasted, and this inefficiency in the system has become worse over recent years.

To demonstrate this: In its 2015 funding round, which includes a major announcement in early November, the agency funded only 516 of the 3758 applications received under its major funding scheme, the NHMRC Project Grants. The resulting success rate of 13.7% in essence means that 86.3% of grant applications, often involving weeks if not months of work, were a futile effort.

In 2010, the success rate for Project Grants was still 23.4%, even then presenting a very inefficient process. But over recent years the outlook for applicants has further deteriorated as the number of applications rose (3397 in 2010; 3758 in 2015) and less projects were chosen for funding (802 in 2010; 516 in 2015).

The chances for receiving NHMRC support are only slightly better for fellowships: In 2015, the main support schemes provided by the NHMRC - Career Development Fellowships, Early Career Fellowships, and Research Fellowships - had a combined success rate of just 18.5%.

This is not just a matter of inefficiency, there is also a massive social cost attached.

In a country that has a comparably small industry base, entire careers established over years will depend on continued funding success, as career breaks caused by missing out means less chance to publish, and this in turn means less chance of receiving a grant in future.

This is a situation made worse by the slow responsiveness of the system, with many months passing by before researchers even find out whether they are among the lucky few.

The question has to be asked if this is a desirable outcome for a nation that wants more young people to embrace a research career.

The difficulty of finding a more effective way of funding science is also subject to discussions overseas.

In 2012, the journal Nature published a series of comments on this, including from Paula Stephan, professor of economics at the US Georgia State University. In general terms, she says that science is full of perverse incentives that reduce efficiency and encourage bad financial choices, such as hiring too many temporary scientists employed through short-term grants.

Hers is a US centred perspective, but it could easily be applied to Australian conditions: if a postdoc doesn't get a research job, taxpayers do not get a return on their investment. While cheap and easily dispensible in the short term to fix tight budgets, "in reality, postdocs are not cheap: substantial resources - both their own and society's - have been invested in training them."

In Australia this may be especially a problem as it does not have a significant industry base capable of providing 'safe havens' for scientists who do not succeed in academia.

Answers don't come easy. But in many countries, including Australia, the ratios of staff scientists to temporary employed postdocs have continuously been falling in universities, and in Australia budding researchers face a double whammy of also having their chances diminished attracting a grant.

This should raise concern whether this is the best road to take in the long term.

Paula Stephans puts forward some potential solutions, such as better balancing the production of PhDs against the limited number of research jobs, and making graduate students and postdocs more costly to universities.

And another issue is worthwhile noting.

Victoria is the clear centre of Australian health & medical research: Relative to its population, the state attracted almost twice as much NHMRC funding as any other state (see below). But the NHMRC data suggest that more generally researchers are far more likely to be selected for NHMRC funding when they apply in the more densely populated states (Vic, Qld, NSW) than in less populated states (SA, WA, TAS).

Thus, researchers from Victoria, Queenland and New South Wales achieved success rates of between 16.4% and 18.4%, while only between 12.1% and 12.8% of applications from smaller states (SA, WA, TAS) were selected for funding.

Less funding means less chance to maintain research capacity, and this is likely to reinforce a trend of concentrating Australia's medical research in the major centres.

NHMRC grants has resulted in a total of around $736 million for health & medical research projects across 22 separate NHMRC grant schemes.

It includes $25 million for a single grant awarded under the Targeted Call for Research into Preparing Australia for the Genomics Revolution in Health Care scheme to the Australian Genomics Health Alliance (AGHA).

This second largest grant ever delivered through the NHMRC is meant to set Australia up as a global leader in genomic medicine. The expectation is that as genomics becomes better integrated into our healthcare system it will for many diseases speed up the process of diagnosis, and lead to drug therapies that can be better tailored to the individual needs of patients.

There is also a potential that genomic medicine will result in significant savings across the spectrum of health care delivery.

Project grants accounted for 55% of total funding. In total, almost $420 million were awarded to 516 projects at a success rate of 13.7%.

Included in this year's round were also $82 million for grants targeting dementia research as part of the Australian Government's $200 million over five years Boosting Dementia Research Initiative. Almost half (46%) of the funding was awarded to researchers at The University of Melbourne ($16.3 million) and the University of Sydney ($21.3 million).

The 2015 NHMR round also included $36.8 million for 15 new NHMRC Centres of Research Excellence, with five each established in the area of Clinical, Health Services, and Population Health.

With competitive grants worth $295 million Victoria again trumped all other states, with New South Wales' researchers attracting just $208 million. The success of Victoria is becoming even more notable when compared relative to its population: per resident, the state attracted almost twice ($50.2) the funding than its northern rival ($27.6).

And there is also little change in the gender gap, with male researchers again attracting far more funding than female researchers ($436 million versus $284 million). By contrast to grants delivered by the ARC, which do not show a significant difference in the success rate between genders (see ours story 'Great funding divide', the gender gap with NHMRC grants is both a result of less females applying and their lower chance of being selected for funding (16% for females versus 17.3% for males).