Improving alignment and coordination between the Medical Research Future Fund and Medical Research Endowment Account

The recommendations set out below will improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of the MRFF and NHMRC as bodies. Furthermore, by incorporating a wider range of research areas and priorities, the MRFF can address emerging health challenges comprehensively and encourage multidisciplinary collaborations. This approach would not only enrich the research landscape but also foster innovative solutions that have far-reaching implications for healthcare.

The model of better alignment through coordination is most likely to achieve the objective of funding a range of research areas and priorities and having a focus on translation of research into policy and practice. The NHMRC is well suited to funding discovery research but despite years of effort to broaden its remit the NHMRC has not substantively changed its funding distribution with relatively small amounts of funding going to research on translating evidence into practice, on new models of care, or on healthcare delivered in community settings. This implies the need for continued separation of the NHMRC and MRFF, but for the two entities to collaborate more effectively.

Bond University firmly believe that the MRFF and the NHMRC play complementary roles, and should remain separate entities, each focusing on their distinct areas of expertise and mandate. The NHMRC's longstanding commitment to funding rigorous research across various domains has been crucial in advancing scientific knowledge and evidence-based healthcare. Simultaneously, the MRFF's focus on translational and applied research has been instrumental in bridging the gap between scientific discoveries and clinical applications, thereby benefiting patients and the broader community.

To ensure efficient coordination and strategic alignment between the MRFF and NHMRC bodies, we recommend the establishment of an overarching body that oversees both the NHMRC and the MRFF. This body would provide guidance, foster collaboration, and ensure complementary efforts between the two entities, ultimately maximizing their impact on healthcare outcomes. Any oversight mechanism should aim to promote synergy, eliminate redundancies, and facilitate a seamless exchange of knowledge and resources across the research ecosystem. International examples include the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR) https://www.ukri.org/about-us/mrc/how-we-are-governed/oschr/ which was established following the Cooksey report in 2006. OSCHR’s mission is to facilitate more efficient translation of health research into health and economic benefits in the UK through better coordination of health research and more coherent funding arrangements to support translation, by working with research funders but also other government bodies.

Additionally, while maintaining the MRFF's core focus on translational research, we suggest broadening the scope of the calls for proposals. Two options would be:

(i) Have a mix of targeted and untargeted calls – the latter to allow for important opportunities missed by the current strategic priorities process;
(ii) Revise the priority setting process within strategic areas to use a longer timeframe allowing engagement of consumers and researchers. This would give broader input, and allow more time for researchers to do the needed reviews and pilot work prior to calls.

Though the MRFF and NHMRC should remain separate, we suggest that in the interests of efficiency and consistency that all applications should be through the NHMRC Sapphire system. This will reduce the burden on both applicants and those involved in the management and peer review of applicants.