In the early 1990s, while completing my honours degree in physics at the University of Melbourne, I was given a chance to discuss my work on 3RRR, Australia’s largest public radio station. I had no idea this one interview would change my entire career. I never left, and for the past 32 years I have been interviewing scientists on Sunday mornings as a volunteer.
I have watched entire fields of science emerge, seen diseases cured and, most importantly, had the privilege of meeting some of the greatest researchers in the world as they traverse their careers. Sadly, I have also watched as government funding levels (state and federal) have begun to change the very culture of research.
It is a rare weekend now that I meet a researcher who does not speak about the funding crisis. I remind them the embarrassing state we are in has been created from decades of neglect. We are entering a time when the neglect has been so protracted that history is starting to repeat, albeit with a far more damaged research ecosystem.
In 2008 the federal government commissioned a report, “Venturous Australia”. One of its key recommendations was the establishment of a national innovation council. Fast-forward to March 2026 and the federal government has just released the “Ambitious Australia” report, calling for, yes, you guessed correctly, a national innovation council. Should we look forward to another report in 2044, perhaps called “Desperate Australia”, calling for the same level of national co-ordination?
In health and medical research the situation would not pass the most basic pub test. The Medical Research Future Fund was promised to be a $20bn fund that would yield $1bn in funding for the sector every year. As the fund was building, the federal government naturally released less than $1bn to research, initially $650m. This made good sense for a few years. The fund is now sitting at over $24bn and can readily release almost $1.4bn per year without impacting the base. The federal government is still only providing $650m, holding on to the rest of the available funds for reasons unknown to us all.
On the ground, researchers are spending some 30-40 per cent of their year applying for grant funding. Success rates in many competitive grants are now below 10 per cent. Our best scientists are being told they are outstanding but, sorry, you are not good enough to be funded. When I was a physicist the success rates were around 25 per cent. It felt tough at the time, but I was confident enough to know that I could compete with the other three people who applied and get my funding. Today, if you are applying for funding in health and medical research, you need to beat some 11 other people, most of whom are internationally competitive researchers just like you.
For decades now I have been running workshops to help people apply for grants. I advise them on how to make their applications as competitive as possible. But I feel a sense of dread as I see the desperation. In many cases it is not just about the research work, it is often about whether or not people will have a job after Christmas. A job they have trained for for their entire life.
The Australian Society for Medical Research represents individual researchers across the country. As a peak body with limited funding, it is our job to lobby for better conditions for all researchers. This year, however, it feels like we are lobbying for the survival of one of Australia’s most extraordinary sectors. Last month we called on patient advocacy groups to support us in a letter to Minister for Health and Ageing Mark Butler calling for the immediate release of MRFF funding. More than 30 organisations signed that letter. Ultimately, the community is impacted the most.
Research careers, and research itself, are a long game. Political time frames can be particularly problematic where there is a lack of insight into how science works. I believe that for every decade we underfund our research programs, it will take two decades to repair the damage. If we fail now, we are taking out a mortgage on the future health, innovation and wellbeing of the next generation.
This article was originally published in The Australian