Response 273180313

Back to Response listing

Introduction

1. What is your name?

Name
Paul Breen

3. Are you providing feedback as an individual or an organisation?

Please select one item
Radio button: Ticked Individual
Radio button: Unticked Organisation

Guiding questions

18. What benefits should be achieved through improving the alignment and coordination of the MRFF and MREA? (Maximum 400 words)

Please provide your views. Maximum of 400 words.
This response is related to a major issue around biomedical engineering in Australia.
Far too often biomedical engineering proposals are shoehorned into either ARC or NHMRC. They are often rejected by NHMRC as not clinical enough (i.e. leading to changes in care) or rejected by ARC as being health related. The benefits of biomedical engineering research are often lauded (Resmed, Cochlear, Saluda), however, arguably they would be difficult to fund through current schemes.
The alignment and coordination of the MRFF and MREA needs to address this chasm by providing an open opportunity for biomedical innovation.

19. Which feature/s of the models will deliver these benefits? (Maximum 400 words)

Please provide your views. Maximum of 400 words.
A single entity needs to manage the health grant schemes or risk another chasm being opened where good research falls through the gaps.

20. What elements of the existing arrangements for the MRFF and the MREA work well and should be retained? Which feature/s of the models will help ensure these elements are preserved? (Maximum 400 words)

Please provide your views. Maximum of 400 words.
I struggle to think what works well. Having actually panels was good when it happened at NHMRC - that is gone now.

21. Which aspects of the current arrangements could be changed to deliver the most appropriate and effective change, and why? Which feature/s of the models will help deliver this change? (Maximum 400 words)

Please provide your views. Maximum of 400 words.
There are far too many grant opportunities. These should be massively consolidated. It's notable that there are so many that they didn't all fit on page 19 of the discussion paper. How is anyone supposed to keep abreast of the differences? What is the measurable benefit of so many delineations. Why is there not a similar Linkage Program like in the ARC? CRE's are probably a waste of time and money. Where is the opportunity for real international collaboration - I currently bypass NHMRC and seek NIH funding as at least that funding can be sent internationally.

22. Is there anything you would like to raise that is not otherwise captured by these questions? (Maximum 400 words)

Please provide your views. Maximum of 400 words.
In the context of Medical Research, the term "STEM" is often used interchangeably with "Science". This is a misnomer. For example, Science follows the Scientific Method (hypothesis driven) whereas Engineering follows the Engineering Method (needs driven). This differential seems to be missing in Australian discourse and I believe is a fundamental reason for the focus on basic sciences in NHMRC and ARC applications and core to Australia's good performance in publications and poor performance in translation/commercialisation.

Consent to publish

25. Can we publish your response?

Please select one item
Radio button: Ticked Yes
Radio button: Unticked Yes, but keep my name private
Radio button: Unticked No