Griffith UniversityNHMRC Grants: trends, tips and challenges

Dr Tony WillisExecutive Director

Research Programs Branch

Structure:• Introduction to NHMRC

– Corporate plan– Budget

• Grant applications – trends• Gender issues• Strategic challenges

– MRFF– Structural review of programs

• Griffith – outcomes• Tips & ‘Grantspersonship’

NHMRC Corporate Plan 2015-2016

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/nh168

NHMRC budget and how we spend it

Departmental

Medical Research Endowment Account (MREA)

$905.00m

Dementia Research

Simplified & Consistent HMR

Cochrane activities

Anti-Venom Research Unit

Acute Rheumatic Fever

Clinical Trials Reform

NHMRC total annual expenditure, 2014 – 2015

*Excludes Administered funding of $200m over 5 years for the Boosting Dementia Research measure in the 2014-15 Budget, that is outside of MREA.

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Budget

2016-17 2017-18 2018-190m

100m

200m

300m

400m

500m

600m

700m

800m

900m

1,000m

$185m

$262m

$332m

$412m $414m$436m

$463m

$644m$618m

$703m $715m$746m

$689m

$774m

$859m

$796m $809m $822m $835m

$74.3m funding rephased from 2012-13

to 2014-15

Forward Estimates (FE)

NHMRC research funding budget:Medical Research Endowment Account

NHMRC annual MREA expenditure, 2014 – 2015

Project Grants $487.08m Program Grants

$118.90m Research

Fellowships $76.18m

Centres of Research Excellence $45.85m

Early Career Fellowships $44.65m

Independent Research Insti-tute Infrastruc-

ture Support Scheme (IRIISS)

$33.90m

Career Development Fellowships $28.71m

Partnership Projects $18.62m

Development Grants $13.19m

PostgraduateScholarships

$11.13m

Targeted Calls forResearch (TCRs)

$10.94m

Other funding Schemes (<$10m)

$40.93m

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014$0 M

$100 M

$200 M

$300 M

$400 M

$500 M

$600 M

$700 M

$800 M

$900 M

Public Health

Health Services Research

Clinical Medicine and Science

Basic Science

Expenditure by Broad Research Area

588134836.43; 75.3%

183609008.57; 23.5%

4113762.3; 0.5%3597890; 0.5%

1899505; 0.2%

UniversityMRIOtherHospitalGovernment 55.5%

35.4%

2.4%5.8% 1.0%

Where are NHMRC funds spent?

Administering Institutions (2014) Participating Institutions (2014)

Grant applications - trends

NHMRC Project Grants, 1980 – 2015

19801981

19821983

19841985

19861987

19881989

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

20122013

20142015

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

APP

RATE

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

Gra

nt a

pplic

ation

s

Calendar Year

Succ

ess r

ate

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20200

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Additional funding required to maintain funded rate at 2011 level of 23% ($m)

Projects baseline ($m)

Application Year(for funding to commence in the following year)

Tota

l Com

mitm

ent (

$m)

Funding required to maintain 23% funded rate for Project Grants

Chief Investigator (CI) Role

APPLICATION YEAR1983 1993 2003 2013

CIA 40.6 43.3 46.3 47.6CIB 38.2 42.8 46.3 48.4CIC 36.4 43.8 46.8 48.8CID 30.0 44.9 47.3 48.1CIE - - 49.0 48.0CIF - - 44.7 47.9CIG - - - 48.5CIH - - - 47.9CII - - - 47.4CIJ - - - 48.3Mean of all CIs 39.6 43.3 46.6 48.1Average oldest CI CIA CID CIE CIC

Mean age of Chief Investigators on Project Grants

Number of Project Grant applications per applicant

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

3096 29823345 3313

36804000

5250

47885151

5960 6030

6521 6674

7116

7581 7723

1.46 1.49 1.481.54 1.55 1.56

1.681.59 1.58

1.641.71 1.74 1.76

1.82 1.801.88

# Applicant Avg Apps/Applicant

Avg

Apps

/App

lican

t

No.

App

licati

ons EOI

Year

NHMRC Project Grants: trends

• Number of Project Grants awarded per year is now falling.

• Average total grant size and average grant size per annum are growing.

• Average age of chief investigators is rising.

• Number of chief investigators per grant is growing.

• Number of applications per chief investigator is growing.

Gender issues

Retention and progression of women in Australian health and medical

2015 NHMRC Fellowship applications

What is the issue?

Fellowship Type % women applicants

ECF 63%

CDF 54%

SRF A 27%

SRF B 37%

PRF 30%

SPRF 11%

Fellowship applications 2015

ECFs CDFs SRF A SRF B PRF SPRF0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

WomenMen

NHMRC Fellowships

Prop

ortio

n %

*similar trend across BRAs

Proportion of 2015 funding - total

Women

Men

Research Funding - 2015Fu

Basic Science Clinical Medicine

Public Health Health Services Research

Women Women

WomenWomen

Men Men

MenMen

Research Funding – 2015

• Career disruptions and relative to opportunity;

• Part-time NHMRC fellowships;

• Better balanced representation between men and women on peer review committees;

• Elizabeth Blackburn Fellowship to recognise outstanding women scientists;

• NHMRC Women in Health Science Committee; and

• Revised NHMRC’s Administering Institution Policy to place greater emphasis on gender equity.

What have we done?

Strategic challenges & opportunities• MRFF• Structural review of programs

Medical Research Future Fund

• Legislation passed August 2015

• Support for medical research and medical innovation

• A $20b perpetual fund to generate income over the long term

• Australian Medical Research Advisory Board to be announced soon

Medical Research Future Fund

• Australian Medical Research Advisory Board consults then sets 5-year Strategy and 2-year Priorities.

• Board includes NHMRC CEO and takes NHMRC strategy into account.

• Health Minister takes Priorities into account and may seek expert advice in making decisions about financial assistance from the Fund.

• Grants can be made to support medical research and innovation at a medical research institute, university, corporate Commonwealth entity or corporation.

Impact of MRFF on medical research funding

Essential to align strategic priorities of NHMRC and the MRFFNHMRC supports the foundation of national capability in HMR

Structural Review of NHMRC’s Grant ProgrammeCurrent challenges

• After years of strong growth, the Medical Research Endowment Account is now in a steady state.

• Costs of research have increased – impacting on grant sizes.

• Rising number of applications (particularly Projects).

Greater competition for research grants and fellowships

Structural Review of NHMRC’s Grant ProgrammeCurrent challenges

• Increased burden on applicants and expert reviewers.

• Concerns have been raised about:

o opportunities for early to mid-career researchers

o opportunities for innovation and the exploration of new areas of research

The Review will examine:

1. the structure of the current grant programme, including:

• the impact of the grant programme on the health and medical research sector;

• the flexibility of the grant programme to meet future needs for health and medical research in Australia; and

2. alternative models and their potential to overcome the current challenges.

Structural Review of NHMRC’s Grant ProgrammeScope

Structural Review of NHMRC’s Grant ProgrammeProcess and timing

• An Expert Advisory Group will advise the CEO

• NHMRC Council and Principal Committees will also provide advice.

• Extensive external consultation will be undertaken:

• targeted consultation with key stakeholders, and

• public consultation (around mid-2016).

• The Review will take most of 2016 - updates via Tracker, web.

www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/structural-review-nhmrc-s-grant-programme

Griffith University – outcomes

Griffith University funding outcomes

• Majority of 2015 Applications were to Project Grants (61 of 91 Apps)

• Overall funded rate (all Apps) – 14.8% - Were above the scheme-wide success rate for Project Grants

(16.4% v 13.7%)- Women dominate Basic science (success rate for women v men;

38.5% vs 13.8%) - Basic Science is strongest Broad Research Area (9 grants awarded

for a success rate of 21.4%)- Success Rate for women across all schemes is greater compared to

men for 2015; 15.6% vs 13.0%

• Very successful in: - TRIPs – 33% funded rate

Tips & Grantspersonship

General

• Review and understand the Assessment Criteria

• Think like an assessor/panel member– An external assessor may only review 1-2 applications– A panel member will be a 1SP/2SP for up to 10 apps (20 in total) and will

need to know these applications in great detail– All reviewers are important:

• The SPs scores will determine the NFFC lists• For non-NFFC’d apps, all panel members get to score and they are equally weighted

General• Readability

– Two main groups of reviewers will review your application: • Those who will not be 100% familiar with your techniques or field• Those who are in the game – but they may have a conflict of interest

– Structure information to suit all assessors– Write and organise your application so the assessors can readily grasp and

explain what you are proposing • Easy to read• Use subheadings etc so that assessors under time pressure will be able to grasp the main

points of your proposal. • A clear, well-written, properly organised application is more likely to be favoured• Use the active, rather than passive, voice. For example, write "We will develop an

experiment, "not "An experiment will be developed .”

General• Be realistic

- Don't propose more work than can be reasonably done during the proposed project period.

- Is there appropriate scientific expertise within the team?- Is the budget is reasonable and well-justified?

• Make it interesting

General• Writing Tips

– Use English!– Be consistent with terms, references and writing style– Minimise use of acronyms – Be specific and informative– Avoid redundancies– Use diagrams, figures and tables and include appropriate legends– Make sure the figures and labels are readable in the size they will

appear in the application– Identify weak links in your application so the application you

submit is solid, making a strong case for your project– If writing is not your forte, seek help!

General

• Proofreading and Final Edits– Allow sufficient time to proofread (yourself and colleagues)– If possible, have both experts in your field and those who are less familiar

with your science provide feedback. The application should be easy to understand by all

– If more than one investigator is contributing to the writing, try to have one overall editor

– Have zero tolerance for typographical errors, misspellings, grammatical mistakes or sloppy formatting

– Prior to submission, perform a final proofread of the entire grant application

Project Grants – key issues for 2016

• Importance of the synopsis– Used to determine allocation to Assigners Academy and Grant Review Panels– Minimal movement of applications in 2016

• Conformance– Must comply– GRPs closely review application eligibility

• Budget construction and justification– Justify budgets including duration, PSPs, DRCs and equipment

– Honest budgets

– Do not include general salary requests in DRCs

– Do not include publication or conference attendance costs

Project Grants – what’s new in 2016?

• New Investigator applications– Simplified process– Eligibility form is in RGMS and viewable at any time

• Conformance– Some changes – see NHMRC Funding Rules

• Additional assessor comments – 2o spokesperson– Up to four assessor comments – 1o and 2o spokesperson and two

external assessors

– Rebuttal page limit increased from two to three pages

Project Grants

• Who will judge your proposal? • Target the most appropriate assessors and Peer Review Panel• Your application is assigned to external assessors and to a panel

based only on the information you enter in RGMS for: – peer review area – fields of research – fields of research subcategory (methods) – research keywords/phrases – the synopsis.

Project Grants• Make sure you have a thorough grasp of the three Assessment

Criteria: – Scientific Quality (50%)

• General quality, methodologies etc• feasibility

– Significance of the expected outcomes and/or Innovation of the concept (25%)

• Does not need to be both• Sell the significance and/or innovation of your research proposal

– Team Quality and Capability relevant to the application and relative to opportunity (25%)

• Entire team• Not based on CIA only• CDs and relative to opportunity important• New field in RGMS

Project Grants

• Reproducibility of research*– details for appropriate blinding

– strategies for randomisation and/or stratification

– justification of sample-size, including power calculation

– justification of statistical methods

– strategies to compensate for the effects of sex-differences, different animal strains and/or different end-points

*where applicable

Project Grants REBUTTAL• Rebuttals

– Two periods of rebuttals• Applicants cannot switch between periods

• Release of assessor comments dependent on their submission to NHMRC

– ALWAYS submit a rebuttal – it is the last opportunity to make a case

– Concerns about the quality of the assessor report/s – raise with NHMRC as soon as possible

– Remove negative tone in rebuttals – get someone else to read it before submission

NB: 3 pages in 2016

Thank you!