Bright ideas to light up the MRFF

There’s a pattern to submissions to the administration audit of the MRFF seen by CMM – calls for quite a few further and much better particulars

As Uni Sydney suggests, ““it is not clear who is responsible for the overall governance of the MRFF or how the many organisations involved in its management and governance … interact to make decisions,” (CMM June 8).

It’s a theme in Science and Technology Australia’s submission, which calls for “great (sic) clarity of the governance structure of the MRFF and how it relates to the selection of priorities and administration of research initiatives.”

STA also suggests published success rates after each application round. And it calls for longer-submission times, to allow for complex, multi-institution bids.

STA is careful to acknowledge that the MRFF is “a very different grant programme” to those of the National Health and Medical Research Council (and the Australian Research Council), but the way the NHRMC does things gets admiring mentions.

As it does in other submissions.