NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

Current and Emerging Issues for- NHMRC Fellowship Schemes submission

ID: 
34
Step 2 - Personal Details
First Name: 
Karen
Last Name: 
Thorpe
Step 3 - A. Some questions for you
1. Which of the following best explains your interest in NHMRC’s fellowship schemes: (select ONE only): 
I am currently working in the health and medical research sector
2. If you are a health and medical researcher, which of the following descriptions best classifies your research? (select ONE only): 
Public health research – please complete the next two questions
3. If you are a health and medical researcher, which of the following best describes the main source of funding that supports your salary? (select ONE only): 
institutional funds (possibly derived from multiple sources).
Step 3 - B. Consultations questions
Question 1: How should NHMRC’s funding balance between research grants and fellowships be adjusted as the total number of Project Grants available falls progressively over the next few years?: 
There are a number of adjustments to fellowships to free up more funds for project grants. I can suggest 1. Limit the number of times an individual can hold a fellowship with view that they will move to institutional academic post - higher number of fellows in ECR compared to MCR/SCR 2. Have more targeted fellowships 3, ensure that women researchers are fairly represented
Question 2: To increase the turnover of NHMRC Research Fellows, should these schemes be seen as ‘up and out schemes’, whereby Fellows wishing to reapply can only do so at a higher level?: 
yes
Question 3: Are there too many Fellowship levels? Does this structure impede the career progression of rapidly rising stars in health and medical research?: 
A range of levels likely suits the diversity of research types. It is difficult to have fast productivity in some areas and I am very mindful that progression for women researchers will take a different course
Question 4: Noting the implications outlined in the Issues paper, should NHMRC extend the duration of Early Career Fellowships to more than 4 years and Career Development Fellowships beyond 5 years (to 7 or 10 years)?: 
yes
Question 5: Should NHMRC identify and support strategic priority areas in order to build capacity for the future? What else should be done to support women and increase participation and success by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers?: 
Yes - strategic priority areas and balance across these areas should be considerd. It is alos important to take into account other available funds. In cancer research for example there are far more philanthropic funds. Co-ordination with other research fund providers for targeted calls would be a possibility here. Ohter less immediately salient research does not have such ready access to philanthropic funs With regard to women - i Suggest modelling off the ARC response , for example tin he Laureate fellow scheme where there are designated fellowships for women
Question 6: Is there a better solution to encouraging diversity in careers than those based on years post-PhD?: 
Yes . recognising experience in industry, translational activity and excellence in teaching / mentoring alongside researh should be acknowledged. The years postdoc is inequitable to women researchers
Question 7: Should employing institutions be expected to provide more certainty to their employees than now? : 
Unsure . Universities they cannot be expected to provide certainty for full time researchers when they do not have full funds supplied for this. However I like the way ARC make a requirement of prviding ongoing support following a Future Fellowship - I would recommend a few years not ongoing however t
Question 8: Would this be achieved if NHMRC required institutions to commit to one or more years of ongoing support for researchers exiting from NHMRC Fellowships? : 
Yes - this is appropriate
Question 9: Should this be restricted to Early Career and Career Development Fellows?: 
Probably given the limitation on funds

Page reviewed: 28 January, 2016