The Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) offers an incredibly high number of grant opportunities under its various initiatives. Some initiatives are administered by NHMRC with applications submitted via the Sapphire platform, while others are administered by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources for the Australian Government’s Department of Health, with applications submitted via the business.gov.au website.
In this blog we respond to 5 questions or concerns commonly raised by applicants we’ve worked with about business.gov.au MRFF opportunities:
Aren’t the success rates low?
The sections look so different to the ones submitted through Sapphire.
Why does Project Methodology have to be addressed in an online field AND in a 12-page attachment?
How do other applicants structure the 12-page Project Plan attachment?
Do you have any general guidance for writing my 12-page Project Plan attachment?
'Aren't the success rates low?'
We’ve extracted the number of applications submitted and funded for all MRFF business.gov.au initiatives and opportunities from 2017 to June 2024 (Table 1).
One of the first things you’ll note is the wide variance in the proportion funded across years within initiatives. This is due to i) different numbers of applications submitted across years, which may be related to the different opportunities offered each year under the initiative, and ii) the size of the available funding pot for that year’s initiative. You’ll also notice the Rapid Applied Research Translation Initiative is the only one that has consistently funded the same number of applications across years.
Are the funded rates low? That’s relative. Some of the recent MRFF funding rates vary little from 2023 funding rates for NHMRC Ideas Grants (11.06%), Investigator Grants (14.3%) or Clinical Trials and Cohort Studies (11.6%). Funding rates for NHMRC Partnership Projects are higher than other NHMRC opportunities (35.3% in 2023) but some MRFF opportunities have equivalent or even higher rates in recent years.
Your choice to apply to an MRFF opportunity comes down to this: if you don’t apply, you have 100% chance of not being funded.
Table 1: Number of applications submitted and funded, and funding success rates for all MRFF initiatives and opportunities from 2017 to September 2024.
* Data are currently unavailable for Grant Opportunities where awardees are yet to be publicly announced.
If you’re interested in the funded rates for all MRFF initiatives and opportunities (including those administered by NHMRC), they can be found here.
'These sections look so different to the ones submitted through Sapphire'
Yes, they do.
But fear not!
Like many other funding applications, you have some online fields to complete, and some mandatory attachments to provide. Simple, right?
There is a 5,000 character online field for each of the 4 assessment criteria of i) Project Impact, ii) Project Methodology, iii) Capacity, Capability and Resources and iv) Overall Value and Risk.
Your title, description, milestones, outcomes and other common elements of funding applications are also addressed in online fields.
The attachments are:
12-page project plan
1-page Measures of Success Statement, using the mandated tabulated format
2-page Risk Management Plan
Chief Investigator (CI) excel template where you list the CIs who have shared authority and responsibility for leading, directing, conducting and reporting of your proposed project.
While there is some debate about whether applicants should include a summary of their responses to each of the assessment criteria in the 12-page attachment, there is NO debate about the majority of the 12-page attachment being dedicated to your highly detailed project methodological plan.
'Why does Project Methodology have to be addressed in an online field AND in a 12-page attachment?'
Perhaps this question is actually ‘How do I address Project Methodology in the online field and 12-page attachment without repetition?’
We suggest you approach the 12-pager by presenting robust, richly detailed, flawless methods for your proposed research studies. Use the online field to provide a summary of that plan; just like writing the abstract for a manuscript AFTER you’ve written the entire manuscript.
Make sure you paraphrase your detailed methodology when developing your summarised methodology for the online field, which will further help you avoid repetition.
A suggestion for your 5,000-character online methodology section is:
provide an overview of the gap and your proposed solution/approach
state your aims
avoid providing a background section; this field should be focused on your methodology only
clearly articulate the activities and techniques to be used: remember reviewers are looking for a flawless design and a richly detailed plan
limit jargon and complex terminology that can be confusing for a non-specialist assessors; instead, use layperson explanations to ensure assessors remains engaged
advocate for your research; be enthusiastic and champion your proposal because it makes it much easier for assessors to do the same
present a strong project feasibility analysis (addressing the domains of recruitment, legal, ethical, scheduling, technical, expertise and track record, timing, sustainability, and industry support, where relevant, plus other project-specific elements).
'How do other applicants structure the 12-page Project Plan attachment?'
MRFF doesn’t specify a mandatory structure for this attachment, apart from indicating it be used primarily to detail your methodology. Therefore, it can be helpful to see know how other applicants commonly structure it (Table 2).
Table 2: Commonly applied structure for the 12-page project plan attachment
For the methodology section in your 12-page project plan attachment discuss, IN DETAIL, the approach, activities and techniques for your proposed research.
Assessors are looking for a flawless design and a richly detailed, robust adaptive platform trial or registry-based plan so ensure you include sufficient detail so this can be determined.
When presenting your plan, keep the non-specialist in mind, and include the following details, where appropriate (revised from the NHMRC Ideas Grants 2023 guidelines, appendix E, p77):
detailed description of the experimental design
techniques and tools to be used
strategies for randomisation and/or stratification, and appropriate blinding, if relevant
details and justification of controls and cases
justification of sample size, including power calculation
justification of statistical methods
strategies to ensure the experimental results will be robust, unbiased and reproducible
how you’ll achieve male:female balance of trial participants, justifying where it isn’t warranted
any ethical considerations
strengths and weakness of the study design and approach
ensure you define your priority population
embed the priority population, other consumers, and partners in your methodology: from conceptualisation, during the study and in the dissemination plan.
'Do you have any general guidance for writing my 12-page Project Plan attachment?'
Comments