Australian Academy of Science

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MEDICINE

INVESTMENT REVIEW OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH

Submission prepared by:

Professor Bob Williamson

Director
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Royal Children’s Hospital
PARKVILLE  VIC  3052

PH: 03 8341 6200
Email: williamb@cryptic.rch.unimelb.edu.au

1 December 2003

SUBMISSION TO THE INVESTMENT REVIEW OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH, FROM THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR MEDICINE OF THE 
AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE

The Government deserves every credit for implementing most of the recommendations of the Wills Report. The Australian Academy of Science notes that this has kept Australia within the range of resource allocation of OECD countries, albeit towards the bottom of this range. However, without this excellent commitment, Australia would have been at risk of becoming non-competitive in biomedical research internationally.

The Academy believes there are two separate problems that it identifies as relevant to research infrastructure funding. 

First, in terms of quanta, there is insufficient funding for research infrastructure overall as a proportion of the total commitment to biomedical research. Grants are important, but so too are facilities for bioinformatics, investment in patenting and protection of IP, mouse facilities that are effective and so on (as well as simple infrastructure such as buildings). It is also worth noting that there are few effective attempts to force Universities and Institutes to collaborate or merge (in spite of the Wills recommendations), and even fewer examples of Commonwealth/State collaboration. 

Second, infrastructure is allocated in an opaque and unfair manner. No Commonwealth infrastructure goes to Medical Research Institutes, even though much of the best research is carried out on these campuses. In Universities, it goes to "University Central" rather than to the Departments and scientists who carry out research. Sometimes as little as 10% of the allocation to the Universities is given to the group that wins the grant. A mechanism must be found to ensure both a level playing field between all researchers of excellence, and also to ensure that the research infrastructure goes (at least in large part) to those who carry out the excellent research.

The Academy does not believe that the NHMRC allocates sufficient resources to young investigators, and recommends that at least 10% of the total budget of the NHMRC should be given as grants to young investigators for projects put forward and controlled by them, as is done by a number of mechanisms by the ARC.

All categories of special Fellowships, such as the Federation Fellowships, should be available equally to all areas of science (including medical and clinical research, in which Australia has a history of excellence).

The Academy does not have major comments or criticisms of the implementation of priority driven research, translational research or commercialisation in terms of implementation of the Wills Report. We would note, however, that it is important to ensure that priority driven research is based on criteria of excellence (this must not become a "soft field" where research of lower standard is tolerated). We would also note that Aboriginal Health remains an area of serious concern, and suggest that a policy committee should be constituted to make long term recommendations (including training of Aboriginal medical, scientific and allied health staff). In the face of growing pressures on teaching hospitals, there has been a serious decline in clinical research. Major opportunities are being lost for translation of knowledge of basic research into clinical practice.

Finally, we would note that while there has been a welcome increase in the number of early phase commercial start-ups and links with industry, these have often faltered after three to five years, when a serious need for capitalisation could not be met within Australia.

The Academy supports the analysis of the Wills Report that it is important to ensure that the NHMRC has a secretariat that has a measure of independence from the Public Service structure of the Department of Health. We do not imply by this that NHMRC should be totally separate from the Department, because that could lead to a situation where research was not coordinated with the health and medical needs of Australia. However, the Academy notes that in the U.S. and U.K., the NIH and MRC operate with a degree of "coordinated independence" that allows these agencies considerably more freedom to argue for and defend medical research than appears to be available to NHMRC. While we accept that this may, in part, be due to personalities, the Academy would argue that NHMRC should have more independence in future.

The Academy would argue that there should be specific funding set aside for both inter-State and international collaborations between Australian researchers. Such funding should be available with a minimum of bureaucratic mechanism. The Academy also notes that Australia does not play a major role in NIH or OECD matters, and recommends that our role internationally should be increased. The Academy would be pleased to offer help in this context.

The Academy wishes to reiterate three points.

First, the Government should be congratulated on its implementation of the Wills Report, as this has led to an improvement in the quality and quantity of medical and health research in our country. 

Second, mechanisms should be found (not only through the NHMRC) for continuing to increase support at a comparable rate, to biomedical and healthresearch in Australia. 

Finally, research infrastructure should be allocated according to the quality of the research, irrespective of whether the research is carried out in University, Institute or CSIRO, and should (in large measure) be quarantined for research rather than for general funds.