Introduction
1. What is your name?
Name
Peter Parsons
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.
Better balance between basic and translational research, better funding-driven guidance for researchers to direct their efforts, and clearer justification to government and the public for medical research spending.
19. Which feature/s of the models will deliver these benefits? (Maximum 400 words)
Please provide your views. Maximum of 400 words.
The MRFF will have the overview of translation, narrowing down to some basic work much like the NHMRC development grants. It focuses more on the quality of the application than the track record of applicants.
The MREA/NHMRC approach has a more transparent review process and feeds its evaluation back to applicants. It is also more rigorous in some respects notably for originality. MRFF has funded clinical trials of limited originality.
The MREA/NHMRC approach has a more transparent review process and feeds its evaluation back to applicants. It is also more rigorous in some respects notably for originality. MRFF has funded clinical trials of limited originality.
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.
The MRFF application form is better than NHMRC project or development grant forms in focussing on impact, feasibility and risks. Also emphasis on project quality rather than track record. The lack of feedback including transparency in assessment to applicants is unfortunate.
The MREA/NHMRC process has undue emphasis on track record, unlike other bodies such as NIH.
The MREA/NHMRC process has undue emphasis on track record, unlike other bodies such as NIH.
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.
MRFF: more structure for the impact space in the form, reward originality, and feedback to applicants.
NHMRC: Shift the funding balance towards development type work, lower the emphasis on track record.
NHMRC: Shift the funding balance towards development type work, lower the emphasis on track record.
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