OCHRe CONVOCATION 2024
Questions on Slido for the NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council)
The attendees at the Convocation were invited to asks questions of the presenters using Slido. Below are the questions relating to the NHMRC and the NHMRC’s response to the questions.
Question 1. Regarding targets for Indigenous CI-As, is this research imagined as Indigenous focussed only? Is there support for Indigenous researchers to research other things?
NHMRC, with the Principal Committee Indigenous Caucus | NHMRC (PCIC), have set a target for Indigenous CIAs as 3.4%. The target refers to all Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander CIAs, irrespective of what type of research they are funded for. In 2023, the number of Indigenous CIAs was 2%.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers are welcome to apply to NHMRC for any type of health and medical research – funding for Indigenous researchers is not limited to Indigenous focussed topics only.
Question 2. Same question as for Steve: does NHMRC have any interest of investment in supporting Indigenous researchers to do things other than Indigenous focused research?
Yes, see response above.
Question 3. How does the NHMRC ensure the integrity of the research for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities?
Grant applications with a focus on 20% or more of research or capability building on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health must address the Indigenous Research Excellence Criteria (IREC). The four criteria are: benefit, community engagement, sustainability and transferability and building capability. A video on how to address the IREC can be found on this page - Peer review | NHMRC
NHMRC, where possible, ensures that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers review applicant’s responses to the IREC. These IREC reports are included in the overall assessment of the grant application. Furthermore, where possible, NHMRC ensures that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research projects are reviewed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers. This is dependent on conflicts of interest and also the capacity burden on individuals.
The 2018 Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is useful to ensure research integrity and outlines the responsibilities of institutions and researchers - Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018 | NHMRC
Question 4. How is the international grant funding history and the research infrastructure, which is mainly considered to provide the fund. (We have interpreted this question as “Can we be competitive if we don’t have international experience and/or we don’t have the same level of available infrastructure as other applicants?”)
HMRC funds a range of grant schemes. These include: Investigator, Synergy, Ideas, Strategic and Leveraging grants. Funding will continue to be provided based on rigorous peer review of applications to ensure transparency, probity and fairness - Overview | NHMRC
In some NHMRC grant schemes, peer reviewers are asked to assess the track record of the applicants as well as the proposed research. However, NHMRC recognises that not all research careers are the same and therefore peer reviewers are asked to assess track records ‘relative to opportunity’, taking into account circumstances that have affected the applicant’s research productivity.
The purpose of this policy is to outline NHMRC’s Relative to Opportunity Policy with respect to:
· peer review of applicant track records
· eligibility to apply for Emerging Leadership (EL) Investigator Grants.
More information can be found here - NHMRC Relative to Opportunity Policy | NHMRC
Question 5. Is there an intersect or collaboration with AHMRC and state-based ethic committees? Do they play a role in assessing benefit and Indigenous governance?
Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples is discussed in Chapter 4.7 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are also required to apply the Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders, as the basis for assessing proposals for health research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation.
HRECs (state based or otherwise) may employ several mechanisms for the review of health research proposals involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. These include a standard review (where the HREC has the required expertise), standard review with support from invited experts, a sub-committee, an advisory group or relevant community members or referral to a specialist HREC such as the AH&MRC Ethics Committee.
As per the National Statement 5.1.39, HRECs that review research about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or communities should appoint one or more members who have knowledge of research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples or are familiar with relevant cultural knowledge, if such a person has not already been appointed in the membership.
Question 6. 70% is track record, how can a new researcher maximise points to improve potential success in their application?
NHMRC strongly recommends that potential applicants consider peer reviewing in the schemes they intend to apply to.
Contributing to peer review is an important step in your professional development, and provides the opportunity to contribute further to Australia's health and medical research. Participating in peer review offers you the opportunity to see the breadth of research conducted in Australia and to examine new research in your field of expertise. By improving your understanding of NHMRC's peer review process and reviewing applications, you have the possibility of strengthening your own applications in the future.
A variety of resources are available on the Investigator Grants website (Investigator Grants | NHMRC) to assist applicants, including a video featuring experienced peer reviewers who highlight how they approach peer review (peer review mentor video), a peer reviewer briefing from previous rounds of the scheme, and a peer review introduction briefing, hosted by NHMRC’s CEO, Professor Steve Wesselingh.
The 2025 Investigator Grant scheme opened on 19 June and GrantConnect includes additional support guidance for applicants such as the ‘Key Characteristics of Investigator Grant Applications’ document and the scheme’s Peer Review Guidelines. A common characteristic of high scoring applications are ones that have addressed all criteria questions clearly and with reference to the assessment guidance that is provided in the peer review guidelines.
NHMRC is committed to strengthening the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researcher workforce and improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health outcomes. While Investigator Grants is a highly competitive scheme, dedicated funding (structural priority funding) is quarantined to support applicants of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent or who are conducting research to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. Lastly, all Investigator Grant applicants receive written feedback from peer reviewers who reviewed their application, which can be used to improve future applications.
Question 7. Is there prospect to review the weighting? Can potential impact/benefit be worth more? Are seasoned CIAs likely to get repeat funding and others may miss out. (edited).
NHMRC has established an expert working committee (the score descriptor and research impact working group) to review the score descriptors and research impact criteria for track record-based schemes such as Investigator Grants and Synergy Grants. This work is informed by the Research Impact Track Record Assessment evaluation Final Report, and the discussions of the Health Research Impact Committee. The Working Group will discuss a proposed new framing of the research impact criteria that hopes to remove some of the difficulty that specific applicant groups (including early-mid career researchers and researchers focussed on improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s health) face in addressing the criteria. As part of these discussions, it is possible that the weightings for each assessment criteria will be considered to ensure NHMRC continues to achieve its aims and objectives of its grant program. NHMRC aims to implement these changes from the 2026 Investigator Grant round.
It is also worth noting that for the Investigator Grant scheme, there are 3 funding competitions (Emerging Leadership 1, Emerging Leadership 2 and Leadership – see section 2 of the Investigator Grants 2024 Guidelines). In this way, early and mid-career researchers are only in competition with other researchers at a similar career stage, ensuring not only a fairer assessment, but that NHMRC continues to fund world leaders in their research fields at all career stages.
Question 8. How does the NHMRC develop their strategies to address the Closing the Gap targets? What are the priorities for the NHMRC?
Road Map 3: A strategic framework for improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health through research is NHMRC’s 10-year strategic framework to improve the health of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. This was developed with NHMRC’s Principal Committee Indigenous Caucus and through a national consultation. The national consultation was held in 2017 and included seven face-to-face workshops, an online survey and an online public consultation process.
Road Map 3 identifies three priorities: Strengthen the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researcher workforce; Engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; and Support research in high priority areas. Road Map 3 is accompanied by a triennial Action Plan and there is annual reporting against these actions. Road Map 3 – A strategic framework | NHMRC
NHMRC also holds public calls to nominate research priorities in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health which may result in a Targeted Call for Research (TCR). The submissions are cross-referenced with key national documents including Closing the Gap and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan. PCIC advice is sought on finalising priority areas for funding.
Two public calls for research priorities have been held with seven Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health TCRs being funded. Targeted Calls for Research | NHMRC
Question 9. Does NHMRC take relative to opportunity into account, especially for early careers, during IREC scoring?
Indigenous Research Excellence Criteria (IREC) peer reviewers’ key responsibility is to verify whether the research proposed has at least 20% of the research effort and/or capacity building focused on Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander health. If they verify that an application meets this threshold, they are required to provide NHMRC with an assessment on how it addresses the IREC. For applications that do not meet the 20% threshold, they provide a short justification as to why not. They do not participate in scoring applications against the Investigator Grants score descriptors, rather their role is to act as an Indigenous health research peer reviewer and provide an assessment against the IREC. When making their assessment, they are not provided documents containing relative to opportunity (RTO) information – they are only provided the grant proposal, the applicant’s response to the IREC and the application summary.
Further queries can be directed to the Indigenous Advice team at indigenous.advice@nhmrc.gov.au.