More than nine in ten Australian medical researchers who applied for government-funded innovation grants last year were rejected, despite the nation’s Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) holding nearly $25 billion in unspent resources—$5 billion more than its intended capacity. This stark rejection rate highlights a critical disconnect between available resources and the funding of innovative medical research projects.
Approximately half of the applicants, who were deemed to have outstanding proposals for the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) annual “ideas grants”—scoring six out of seven points—were denied funding. This situation underscores a growing issue where meritorious projects are sidelined as an increasing number of researchers vie for a relatively unchanged pool of funds.
Declining Success Rates and Rising Concerns
The NHMRC allocates around $250 million annually to support innovative health and medical research. However, data from 2025 reveals a troubling trend: 91.9% of applications for the ideas grants were unsuccessful, with only 190 funded projects out of 2347 applications. This 8.1% success rate marks a decline from the 10.1% success rate in 2024 and 11.1% in 2023.
The diminishing success rate has prompted crossbenchers, scientific bodies, and medical associations to urge the Albanese government to release additional funds from the MRFF to support more domestic projects. This call for action is particularly pressing as the Trump administration’s cuts to scientific and medical organizations disrupt research funding globally.
Medical Research Future Fund: Underutilized Potential
The MRFF, established by the former Coalition government, was initially designed to disburse approximately $1 billion annually once it matured at $20 billion. However, the government currently releases only $650 million per year. According to Parliamentary Budget Office costings commissioned by independent MP Monique Ryan, the fund could potentially increase its annual disbursements to $1.4 billion without affecting its base level of $24.5 billion over the next decade. The fund has since grown to $24.8 billion.
“Australia’s leading researchers are missing out on government support for world-class proposals, leaving exceptional talent uncertain about their future. The government cannot claim medical research is a priority while failing to treat it as one,” Ryan stated.
Ryan emphasized the precedent for using the MRFF to supplement NHMRC allocations, highlighting the discrepancy between available funds and the unmet needs of researchers.
Challenges and Strategic Goals
Professor Steve Wesselingh, NHMRC’s chief executive, attributed the drop in grant success to increased demand and larger funding requests. “That amount that we give out [$250 million per year] has essentially stayed static over time apart from some minor indexation,” he explained during a Senate estimates session. “But what we have seen is an increase in numbers of applications, and we have also seen an increase in the size of applications.”
While Wesselingh noted that some researchers might secure funding through other processes, he acknowledged the sector’s desire for more dispersed funds. “We are in the process right now with the department, chaired by Rosemary Huxtable, of developing a medical health and research strategy,” he said. “As that strategy is developed, we should be looking at the strategic goals of health and medical research and the resources required to achieve those goals.”
Advocacy for Increased Funding
Independent senator David Pocock stressed the importance of retaining world-class researchers who can focus on transformative studies rather than bureaucratic tasks. He, alongside Ryan and other independent MPs, is advocating for increased annual disbursements from the MRFF.
This push for action coincides with the Trump administration’s reductions to US research and medical institutions, including the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health, which is the largest public funder of biomedical research globally.
The ongoing debate over the MRFF’s utilization reflects broader concerns about the future of medical research in Australia. As the government considers strategic directions and funding allocations, the scientific community remains vigilant, advocating for a system that adequately supports the nation’s brightest minds and most promising projects.
