Examined here are models of resource allocation adopted by Australia’s premier biomedical research funding council, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), since pressure to make research more ‘relevant’ has been exerted. For a council that disburses its funds chiefly to high-impact fundamental research, allocating resources to priority-driven research that contributes directly to population health and evidence-based health care is a challenging transition. It is contended that while the NHMRC has attempted to accommodate a ‘rationalist’ user-driven approach to resource allocation, it has moved only marginally away from a highly decentralised (investigator-driven) model to a mixed-mode system that resembles ‘muddling with some skill’.

PAGES
373 – 390
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’
Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Australian Biomedical Research: Muddling with Some Skill
Original Articles