Megan Sanders, Chief Executive Officer at Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia, shared on LinkedIn:
“Today I attended the consultation webinar on the draft Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Strategy and Priorities.
Overall, I was encouraged by the emphasis on translation, implementation and greater continuity across funding priorities. These are sensible directions if we want clinical research to deliver lasting improvements in patient care.
One aspect of the discussion that particularly interested me was the use of international benchmarking.
Benchmarking Australia’s research funding system against comparable organisations is valuable.
However, it also raises an important question: what should we be benchmarking to determine whether public investment is delivering value?
The effectiveness of a research funding system is shaped by more than where funding is allocated. It is also influenced by factors such as:
- grant success rates
- the number of projects funded
- continuity and predictability of funding opportunities
- the administrative burden of applying.
Two countries may invest a similar proportion of their research budget in clinical trials or translational research, yet create very different research ecosystems if one funds substantially more projects or researchers have a much greater likelihood of securing funding.
As Australia develops its next MRFF Strategy, ensuring we benchmark the characteristics that drive research capability and meaningful outcomes may be just as important as benchmarking where funding is invested.
The consultation on the draft Strategy and Priorities is open until 16 August 2026.
If you are involved in health and medical research, I encourage you to take the opportunity to review the documents and contribute to the consultation.”
Other articles about MRFF on OncoDaily.