You are on page 1of 29

MAXIMISING THE IMPACT OF CANCER

RESEARCH FUNDING IN AUSTRALIA:
A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes

Developed by the Cancer Research Leadership Forum
January 2013

Foreword
Australia is fortunate to have a strong group of national charities whose mission it is to achieve positive
step change in the experience of cancer by funding impactful cancer research. This may be by funding
people, projects, research resources, or all of the above.
As a collective, we are uniquely placed. We have the freedom, agility and discretion to decide where it is
best to invest the funds raised with, by and from the community, within the boundaries of accountability
to our donors.
It is not our role to emulate government or private sector funding agencies. It is our role, with all the
scientific, medical and consumer expertise and input at our disposal, to cast a weather eye across the
cancer research system and decide where and how our interventions can make the greatest difference
for people with cancer today, and those who will face it in the future. This includes funding where others
do not; pooling funding to boost under-funded or critical areas of need; and constantly exploring the
possibility of joint ventures.
In fundraising, our sector often uses the phrase ‘Together, we can make a difference’. The members of
the CRLF are the living embodiment of that truth: as a sector, we contribute 30 per cent of the total
funding dedicated to cancer research in Australia. We are working together to make it count.

Carole Renouf
Chair, Project Steering Group

3
Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia:
A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes

Cure Cancer Australia Foundation Page 28 Secretariat: Page 29 Georgina Rogers National Breast Cancer Foundation Recommendation 2: Develop novel funding approaches. mechanisms and criteria Recommendation 3: Identify and fund research priorities and gaps Recommendation 4: Establish and maintain research infrastructure Recommendation 5: Support and build the research workforce Recommendation 6: Engage consumers and other stakeholders in research planning and funding Appendix 1: National Cancer Research Summit .list of professional facilitators and volunteers Appendix 4: Respondents to CRLF White Paper. Towards a National Cancer Research Plan Our sincere thanks to the Macquarie Group Foundation. consumers and other stakeholders. National Breast Cancer Foundation Page 22 Patricia Hancock Consumer representative Page 24 Edith Hurt Research Program Manager. 4 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 5 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . cancer researchers and clinicians.list of participants Appendix 3: National Cancer Research Summit . Acknowledgements This resource was developed by the Project Steering Group in consultation with members. Cancer Council Australia Page 27 Leanne Warner CEO. which provided crucial seed funding for this collaborative project. Cure Cancer Australia Foundation Page 26 Professor Ian Olver AM CEO.program Appendix 2: National Cancer Research Summit . National Breast Cancer Foundation Page 20 Dr Alison Butt Director Research Investment.The Cancer Research Leadership Forum Contents The Cancer Research Leadership Forum (CRLF) is an alliance of Australia’s peak national community-supported cancer organisations. Page 3 Foreword Page 4 The Cancer Research Leadership Forum Page 6 Background Page 8 Overview Page 11 Summary of Recommendations Page 12 Recommendation 1: Enhance collaboration between research funding organisations Page 14 Project Steering Group: Page 17 Carole Renouf (Chair) CEO. The CRLF gratefully acknowledges the input of individuals and organisations who made submissions in response to the CRLF white paper (listed in appendix 4) and the expert advice of participants at the National Cancer Research Summit (listed in appendix 2). Current members are: Australian Cancer Research Foundation Bowel Cancer Australia Cancer Council Australia Cure Cancer Australia Foundation Leukaemia Foundation Melanoma Institute Australia National Breast Cancer Foundation Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.

Current members are: Australian Cancer Research Foundation Bowel Cancer Australia Cancer Council Australia Cure Cancer Australia Foundation Leukaemia Foundation Melanoma Institute Australia National Breast Cancer Foundation Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.list of participants Appendix 3: National Cancer Research Summit . mechanisms and criteria Recommendation 3: Identify and fund research priorities and gaps Recommendation 4: Establish and maintain research infrastructure Recommendation 5: Support and build the research workforce Recommendation 6: Engage consumers and other stakeholders in research planning and funding Appendix 1: National Cancer Research Summit .list of professional facilitators and volunteers Appendix 4: Respondents to CRLF White Paper. Page 3 Foreword Page 4 The Cancer Research Leadership Forum Page 6 Background Page 8 Overview Page 11 Summary of Recommendations Page 12 Recommendation 1: Enhance collaboration between research funding organisations Page 14 Project Steering Group: Page 17 Carole Renouf (Chair) CEO.program Appendix 2: National Cancer Research Summit . cancer researchers and clinicians. which provided crucial seed funding for this collaborative project. Cure Cancer Australia Foundation Page 28 Secretariat: Page 29 Georgina Rogers National Breast Cancer Foundation Recommendation 2: Develop novel funding approaches. Acknowledgements This resource was developed by the Project Steering Group in consultation with members. National Breast Cancer Foundation Page 20 Dr Alison Butt Director Research Investment. National Breast Cancer Foundation Page 22 Patricia Hancock Consumer representative Page 24 Edith Hurt Research Program Manager. consumers and other stakeholders. Cure Cancer Australia Foundation Page 26 Professor Ian Olver AM CEO.The Cancer Research Leadership Forum Contents The Cancer Research Leadership Forum (CRLF) is an alliance of Australia’s peak national community-supported cancer organisations. Cancer Council Australia Page 27 Leanne Warner CEO. Towards a National Cancer Research Plan Our sincere thanks to the Macquarie Group Foundation. 4 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 5 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . The CRLF gratefully acknowledges the input of individuals and organisations who made submissions in response to the CRLF white paper (listed in appendix 4) and the expert advice of participants at the National Cancer Research Summit (listed in appendix 2).

Purpose and scope The CRLF has developed this resource to encourage and support better planning and coordination of research funding in Australia. Leukaemia Foundation. researchers. CRLF members share a common goal: to reduce the cancer burden in Australia. Towards a National Cancer Research Plan. 6 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 7 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . All respondents expressed support for the CRLF’s initiative and leadership in this regard. It will be available to all funders across the sector in the hope that it may encourage new co-funding partnerships. representing cancer researchers and clinicians. The second stage in developing this resource was a National Cancer Research Summit in Sydney in September 2012 with 89 invited participants. Each group included a consumer representative. overlaps and critical needs in research funding to help inform the investment decisions of organisations that fund cancer research. and strategies to nurture Australia’s cancer research strengths. research institutes and funding organisations. described the current cancer research funding landscape and potential new approaches. CRLF members are working together to coordinate planning. The paper was launched on 4 February 2012 and circulated widely to all key stakeholders. CEO of Cancer Council Australia. At an opening plenary. consumers. Professor Ian Olver. the CRLF successfully applied for a grant from the Macquarie Group Foundation’s collaborative funding scheme to support development of this resource in consultation with all stakeholders. Current members are Australian Cancer Research Foundation. the CRLF developed a white paper. The working groups focused on: • • • • • • basic science epidemiology/prevention/public health screening treatment supportive care/psycho-oncology/survivorship palliative care. Summit participants were allocated to multidisciplinary groups and asked to identify issues and challenges related to Australia’s cancer research workforce. In 2011 CRLF members collectively contributed $83 million of the approximately $300 million total investment in cancer research funding in Australia. Melanoma Institute Australia. In 2011. consumers and other stakeholders have worked together to identify priorities and gaps in all types of research across the cancer spectrum. and potential solutions.Development of this resource Background About the CRLF The Cancer Research Leadership Forum (CRLF) is an alliance of the national community-supported organisations that are the major non-government funders of cancer research in Australia. It was formed in 2009 to enhance coordination of investment in research and collaboration between cancer charities. The CRLF received submissions and letters of support in response (from the organisations and individuals listed in appendix 4). Cure Cancer Australia Foundation. National Breast Cancer Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. synergies. infrastructure and funding mechanisms. address priorities and accelerate progress in cancer control. share learnings and co-fund national cancer research projects. Cancer Council Australia (representing the eight state and territory Cancer Councils). The major cancer charities. One of the CRLF’s major initiatives to date has been the development of a resource that identifies gaps. Participants with specific expertise from across the cancer research spectrum were then grouped according to their discipline and asked to identify the key research questions in their area. and to recommend potential strategies to ensure our research funding achieves the greatest impact for people affected by and/or at risk of cancer. The Summit program and a list of participants are at appendices 1 and 2. To achieve their goal and make the greatest impact for all those affected by cancer. as well as pertinent roadblocks and issues. ABC health reporter and broadcaster Dr Norman Swan moderated a panel and audience discussion about the limits and challenges of existing funding models and new mechanisms to enhance research planning and funding. Most endorsed the rationale for greater coordination and collaboration across the sector and the key principles identified in the white paper. Respondents’ comments and recommendations were considered in the development of this resource. through the process described below. Bowel Cancer Australia. As a starting point for these discussions. priorities and gaps that are not being addressed.

Development of this resource Background About the CRLF The Cancer Research Leadership Forum (CRLF) is an alliance of the national community-supported organisations that are the major non-government funders of cancer research in Australia. Towards a National Cancer Research Plan. At an opening plenary. In 2011 CRLF members collectively contributed $83 million of the approximately $300 million total investment in cancer research funding in Australia. In 2011. It will be available to all funders across the sector in the hope that it may encourage new co-funding partnerships. The major cancer charities. CEO of Cancer Council Australia. and strategies to nurture Australia’s cancer research strengths. Participants with specific expertise from across the cancer research spectrum were then grouped according to their discipline and asked to identify the key research questions in their area. researchers. Each group included a consumer representative. Cure Cancer Australia Foundation. The Summit program and a list of participants are at appendices 1 and 2. Melanoma Institute Australia. through the process described below. infrastructure and funding mechanisms. The CRLF received submissions and letters of support in response (from the organisations and individuals listed in appendix 4). as well as pertinent roadblocks and issues. ABC health reporter and broadcaster Dr Norman Swan moderated a panel and audience discussion about the limits and challenges of existing funding models and new mechanisms to enhance research planning and funding. The working groups focused on: • • • • • • basic science epidemiology/prevention/public health screening treatment supportive care/psycho-oncology/survivorship palliative care. research institutes and funding organisations. 6 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 7 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . share learnings and co-fund national cancer research projects. synergies. The paper was launched on 4 February 2012 and circulated widely to all key stakeholders. consumers and other stakeholders have worked together to identify priorities and gaps in all types of research across the cancer spectrum. All respondents expressed support for the CRLF’s initiative and leadership in this regard. the CRLF developed a white paper. and potential solutions. and to recommend potential strategies to ensure our research funding achieves the greatest impact for people affected by and/or at risk of cancer. priorities and gaps that are not being addressed. the CRLF successfully applied for a grant from the Macquarie Group Foundation’s collaborative funding scheme to support development of this resource in consultation with all stakeholders. It was formed in 2009 to enhance coordination of investment in research and collaboration between cancer charities. The second stage in developing this resource was a National Cancer Research Summit in Sydney in September 2012 with 89 invited participants. representing cancer researchers and clinicians. As a starting point for these discussions. described the current cancer research funding landscape and potential new approaches. Current members are Australian Cancer Research Foundation. Respondents’ comments and recommendations were considered in the development of this resource. address priorities and accelerate progress in cancer control. Summit participants were allocated to multidisciplinary groups and asked to identify issues and challenges related to Australia’s cancer research workforce. Most endorsed the rationale for greater coordination and collaboration across the sector and the key principles identified in the white paper. overlaps and critical needs in research funding to help inform the investment decisions of organisations that fund cancer research. consumers. To achieve their goal and make the greatest impact for all those affected by cancer. Professor Ian Olver. Cancer Council Australia (representing the eight state and territory Cancer Councils). Purpose and scope The CRLF has developed this resource to encourage and support better planning and coordination of research funding in Australia. Bowel Cancer Australia. Leukaemia Foundation. National Breast Cancer Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. One of the CRLF’s major initiatives to date has been the development of a resource that identifies gaps. CRLF members are working together to coordinate planning. CRLF members share a common goal: to reduce the cancer burden in Australia.

1 8 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research in Australia. and thus reducing incidence and improving outcomes for all Australians affected by this disease. Australia does not have a strategy to coordinate planning and funding of cancer research across the myriad of funding organisations. to attract and retain high quality cancer researchers and build capacity the need to establish and maintain enabling infrastructure and technologies. and more adequately fund indirect research costs. Throughout the development of this resource. participants at the National Cancer Research Summit and respondents to the CRLF white paper. An opportunity exists to enhance the impact of our collective investment in cancer research to improve cancer control and outcomes in Australia. Cancer research funders were encouraged to avoid traditional and rigid funding mechanisms and instead consider the continuation and further development of new approaches and mechanisms that complement the NHMRC and other government funding strategies. supporting the research workforce. if effected. While major funders such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Cancer Australia have a national charter. changes to priority-setting and funding approaches. Many echoed issues identified by the Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research in Australia (‘the McKeon Review’) including: • • • • • • opportunity losses due to gaps in national coordination between the multiple funders of research challenges for current funding mechanisms to support research priorities and longterm research onerous peer and ethical review processes restrictions on research activity in the health system. and encouraging ‘scale’ in philanthropy1.to mid-career researchers. Consultation with stakeholders across the Australian cancer research sector has highlighted strong support for funders of cancer research in Australia to further collaborate in planning. 1 in 2 Australians will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85. Unless otherwise stated. rationalising indirect cost funding. increase and improve funding for cancer research by addressing many of the broader issues and roadblocks. conduct and translation of cancer research in Australia. or issues and suggestions most commonly cited by. large-scale. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. causes and targeted treatments have increased the potential for major advances in cancer prevention and care in the next decade. 3 October 2012. Participants encouraged community-funded organisations to maintain and increase their advocacy for policy and systems change that will increase support for cancer research and researchers. programs. Contributors to the development of this resource (including Summit participants and respondents to the CRLF’s white paper) identified a broad range of issues and opportunities to enhance the funding. infrastructure and support by a large group of government and non-government (communityfunded and corporate) funders. collaborative and cross-disciplinary research support priority-driven research to meet current and projected needs establish and maintain infrastructure to sustain research nurture and build capacity in the cancer research workforce. This resource presents recommendations for new approaches and mechanisms that will support and complement the changes proposed by the McKeon Review and guide funding organisations in planning and funding their research investment to have the greatest impact in reducing the cancer burden in Australia. rather than minor. In Australia in 2011 approximately $300 million was awarded to national cancer research projects. significant gains in knowledge about cancer types. particularly those aimed at setting and supporting research priorities. the recommendations and statements in the following section reflect the general consensus of. In recent years. innovative research enable long-term. It was suggested that a proportion of research funding be committed to mechanisms designed to: • • • • • fund ‘blue sky’. Many of the solutions that participants proposed to address these issues also were reflected in the recommendations of the McKeon Review. awarding and evaluating research funding and to develop new funding models to maximise the impact of their collective investment. Consultation Paper: Summary. building enabling infrastructure.Overview At current rates. enabling advances in prevention. contributors recommended transformative. Research is key to increasing our understanding of cancer. The McKeon Review’s recommended changes to Commonwealth Government approaches and mechanisms for funding health and medical research will. and the need for greater support for early. and opportunities to better integrate and translate research to clinical care core skills gaps. Many of these were not unique to cancer research and extended well beyond the scope of the CRLF membership or indeed the community sector. detection and treatment. 9 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes .

Many echoed issues identified by the Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research in Australia (‘the McKeon Review’) including: • • • • • • opportunity losses due to gaps in national coordination between the multiple funders of research challenges for current funding mechanisms to support research priorities and longterm research onerous peer and ethical review processes restrictions on research activity in the health system. detection and treatment. 1 in 2 Australians will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85. programs. if effected. to attract and retain high quality cancer researchers and build capacity the need to establish and maintain enabling infrastructure and technologies. increase and improve funding for cancer research by addressing many of the broader issues and roadblocks. Cancer research funders were encouraged to avoid traditional and rigid funding mechanisms and instead consider the continuation and further development of new approaches and mechanisms that complement the NHMRC and other government funding strategies. enabling advances in prevention. and opportunities to better integrate and translate research to clinical care core skills gaps. building enabling infrastructure.to mid-career researchers. 3 October 2012. rather than minor. collaborative and cross-disciplinary research support priority-driven research to meet current and projected needs establish and maintain infrastructure to sustain research nurture and build capacity in the cancer research workforce. particularly those aimed at setting and supporting research priorities. In Australia in 2011 approximately $300 million was awarded to national cancer research projects. This resource presents recommendations for new approaches and mechanisms that will support and complement the changes proposed by the McKeon Review and guide funding organisations in planning and funding their research investment to have the greatest impact in reducing the cancer burden in Australia. Australia does not have a strategy to coordinate planning and funding of cancer research across the myriad of funding organisations. Research is key to increasing our understanding of cancer. conduct and translation of cancer research in Australia. Many of these were not unique to cancer research and extended well beyond the scope of the CRLF membership or indeed the community sector. and the need for greater support for early. contributors recommended transformative. causes and targeted treatments have increased the potential for major advances in cancer prevention and care in the next decade. supporting the research workforce. Throughout the development of this resource. large-scale. participants at the National Cancer Research Summit and respondents to the CRLF white paper. significant gains in knowledge about cancer types. and encouraging ‘scale’ in philanthropy1. Contributors to the development of this resource (including Summit participants and respondents to the CRLF’s white paper) identified a broad range of issues and opportunities to enhance the funding. and more adequately fund indirect research costs. or issues and suggestions most commonly cited by. Participants encouraged community-funded organisations to maintain and increase their advocacy for policy and systems change that will increase support for cancer research and researchers. changes to priority-setting and funding approaches. The McKeon Review’s recommended changes to Commonwealth Government approaches and mechanisms for funding health and medical research will. An opportunity exists to enhance the impact of our collective investment in cancer research to improve cancer control and outcomes in Australia. and thus reducing incidence and improving outcomes for all Australians affected by this disease. innovative research enable long-term. It was suggested that a proportion of research funding be committed to mechanisms designed to: • • • • • fund ‘blue sky’. Many of the solutions that participants proposed to address these issues also were reflected in the recommendations of the McKeon Review. Consultation Paper: Summary. awarding and evaluating research funding and to develop new funding models to maximise the impact of their collective investment. 9 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Consultation with stakeholders across the Australian cancer research sector has highlighted strong support for funders of cancer research in Australia to further collaborate in planning. rationalising indirect cost funding. While major funders such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Cancer Australia have a national charter. infrastructure and support by a large group of government and non-government (communityfunded and corporate) funders. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. 1 8 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research in Australia. the recommendations and statements in the following section reflect the general consensus of. Unless otherwise stated. In recent years.Overview At current rates.

Schemes could be developed to support multi-stream and multi-state initiatives (crossing disciplinary. • Existing national research infrastructure including data. • Community organisations could develop a shared peer review process. recurrent (upon 5 year review) and single line grants. including planning and making decisions about research funding. mechanisms and criteria • Cancer research funders should explore new models and mechanisms to support innovative. addressing identified gaps and ensuring an appropriate balance of funding across the research spectrum and reflecting the burden of different cancers. ‘blue sky’ multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research aimed at achieving significant and internationally relevant outcomes. 11 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . including training and support in review of research grant applications. Develop novel funding approaches. Funders might consider establishing an advisory group to recommend and speed up acquisition of new research technologies and equipment. technologies and shared research infrastructure such as biobanks and genomics services needed to sustain cancer research. They might consider development of shared platforms for consumer engagement. health policy and translational research and evaluation. retaining and supporting the best researchers (particularly at the early. and quality research environments and infrastructure. particularly in clinical settings. longitudinal population studies to increase knowledge about cancer causes and risk factors. shared services platforms to reduce duplication. with clearly defined performance measures to be assessed at agreed time points in the grant term. Support and build the research workforce • Recruiting. with assessment criteria that are outcomes-focused and encourage innovation. All funders should provide longerterm.to mid-career stage) and a strong support workforce requires funding mechanisms that provide longer-term (5 year) grants. sustainable career pathways. Establish and maintain research infrastructure • New. • To strengthen the research culture. • Community organisations should continue advocating for more funding for cancer research (particularly for priority-driven research and people and infrastructure support). equipment. and development of research skills (particularly multidisciplinary and translational research) in the current and future clinical workforce. and to build capacity in health services. funding organisations could advocate for sequestered research time for clinicians. collaboration and translation. greater attraction for donors and the potential to leverage existing funding capacity. Engage consumers and other stakeholders in research planning and funding • Cancer research funding organisations should continue to promote and support meaningful consumer and stakeholder engagement in all stages of cancer research. technology and support services could be made more accessible to researchers through open access. A greater focus on translational. Identify and fund research priorities and gaps • Progress in cancer control in Australia could be hastened by targeting a greater proportion of the available funding to priority-driven research. health economics. • Funding organisations should develop mechanisms to fund and sustain large-scale. and mechanisms to provide in kind financial or project management advice and mentoring to research teams. longer-term and more flexible funding grants are needed to enable development and maintenance of the equipment.Summary of recommendations 1 2 3 4 5 6 Enhance collaboration between research funding organisations • Further collaboration in planning and funding cancer research in Australia should lead to better research outcomes. tumour-specific and/or geographic boundaries). better national coordination and more partnerships between funding agencies. and funding mechanisms that ensure grant recipients are able to access funding for indirect research costs. health policy and health economics research is needed to deliver better cancer outcomes through the health system and enhance the quality of life of people affected by cancer. or at least increased and simplified access.

‘blue sky’ multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research aimed at achieving significant and internationally relevant outcomes. longer-term and more flexible funding grants are needed to enable development and maintenance of the equipment. with clearly defined performance measures to be assessed at agreed time points in the grant term. retaining and supporting the best researchers (particularly at the early. with assessment criteria that are outcomes-focused and encourage innovation. Identify and fund research priorities and gaps • Progress in cancer control in Australia could be hastened by targeting a greater proportion of the available funding to priority-driven research. A greater focus on translational. technologies and shared research infrastructure such as biobanks and genomics services needed to sustain cancer research. funding organisations could advocate for sequestered research time for clinicians. addressing identified gaps and ensuring an appropriate balance of funding across the research spectrum and reflecting the burden of different cancers. All funders should provide longerterm. • Community organisations could develop a shared peer review process. Schemes could be developed to support multi-stream and multi-state initiatives (crossing disciplinary.Summary of recommendations 1 2 3 4 5 6 Enhance collaboration between research funding organisations • Further collaboration in planning and funding cancer research in Australia should lead to better research outcomes. technology and support services could be made more accessible to researchers through open access. health policy and translational research and evaluation. • Existing national research infrastructure including data. sustainable career pathways. health economics. including training and support in review of research grant applications. tumour-specific and/or geographic boundaries). and funding mechanisms that ensure grant recipients are able to access funding for indirect research costs. and quality research environments and infrastructure. and to build capacity in health services. They might consider development of shared platforms for consumer engagement. equipment. Develop novel funding approaches. better national coordination and more partnerships between funding agencies. collaboration and translation. recurrent (upon 5 year review) and single line grants. greater attraction for donors and the potential to leverage existing funding capacity. and development of research skills (particularly multidisciplinary and translational research) in the current and future clinical workforce. 11 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . including planning and making decisions about research funding. mechanisms and criteria • Cancer research funders should explore new models and mechanisms to support innovative. • To strengthen the research culture. • Community organisations should continue advocating for more funding for cancer research (particularly for priority-driven research and people and infrastructure support). shared services platforms to reduce duplication.to mid-career stage) and a strong support workforce requires funding mechanisms that provide longer-term (5 year) grants. Funders might consider establishing an advisory group to recommend and speed up acquisition of new research technologies and equipment. or at least increased and simplified access. Establish and maintain research infrastructure • New. longitudinal population studies to increase knowledge about cancer causes and risk factors. and mechanisms to provide in kind financial or project management advice and mentoring to research teams. health policy and health economics research is needed to deliver better cancer outcomes through the health system and enhance the quality of life of people affected by cancer. particularly in clinical settings. Engage consumers and other stakeholders in research planning and funding • Cancer research funding organisations should continue to promote and support meaningful consumer and stakeholder engagement in all stages of cancer research. Support and build the research workforce • Recruiting. • Funding organisations should develop mechanisms to fund and sustain large-scale.

• Collaborate to develop mechanisms that ensure grant recipients are able to access schemes that fund indirect costs of research. It could also enable community organisations to leverage additional funds from government and/or industry for types of research not currently supported. • Maintain and increase advocacy for more funding for cancer research (generally. which has increased the quality of peer review for research supported by some community organisations. Strategies recommended for consideration • Foster collaboration in planning and funding research.g. A commitment to greater coordination and collaboration would strengthen community organisations’ combined ‘voice’ and capacity to engage with and communicate issues and priorities to governments. to encourage collaborative research that crosses disciplinary. • Leverage existing funding capacity by encouraging more national coordination and partnerships between research funders. tumour-specific and/or geographic boundaries. Existing rules mean some institutions or consortia are unable to access support for indirect research costs when they receive certain types or tiers of funding. such as capital investment grants (for buildings and equipment). which should lead to better research outcomes and greater attraction for donors. as in the UK and USA. agreed research priorities and efforts to increase efficiencies and the impact of their collective funding. the donor community and people affected by cancer. Some direct their funding to research focused on a particular cancer type. While major funders such as the NHMRC and Cancer Australia have a national charter. Participants acknowledged the current role and potential of community organisations in advocacy and change agentry. It was recommended that at least community organisations consider developing a charter committing to a coordinated approach. 12 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 13 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Australia does not have a strategy to coordinate planning and funding of cancer research across the myriad of funding organisations. the CRLF) to drive enhanced coordination and some co-funding of cancer research. private and community sectors has resulted in multiple funding approaches and programs. Several CRLF members are partners in Cancer Australia’s Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. reduced funding administration costs and created greater leverage in funding capacity. Potential solutions Summit participants endorsed the value of an alliance of community organisations (e. While there are some collaborative. • Develop funding mechanisms that support multi-stream and multi-state initiatives. individual charities often have different priorities and strategies for awarding research grants and support. or in one state. • Develop shared services platforms for administration of research grant applications and peer review to reduce duplication of effort on the part of both researchers and reviewers. and for priority-driven research and people and infrastructure support in particular) and more national coordination and partnerships between research funders. Australia’s community sector comprises a large number of cancer charities.1 Enhance collaboration between research funding organisations Issues and opportunities The existence in Australia of multiple funding organisations from the public. The McKeon Review has recommended the Australian Charities and Not-for profits Commission be tasked with encouraging ‘aligned smaller charities to collaborate on research funding provision to increase impact’. which provide a significant proportion of research funding. but it lacks the impact of a large philanthropic cancer research foundation. co-funding initiatives across the sector. • Develop an audit tool to evaluate the impact of funding decisions. Some target funding to one area or aspect of research. There is potential to enhance the impact of the collective investment in cancer research through further collaboration and strategic planning. or project grants for early career researchers.

• Develop shared services platforms for administration of research grant applications and peer review to reduce duplication of effort on the part of both researchers and reviewers. There is potential to enhance the impact of the collective investment in cancer research through further collaboration and strategic planning. agreed research priorities and efforts to increase efficiencies and the impact of their collective funding.g. Strategies recommended for consideration • Foster collaboration in planning and funding research. It could also enable community organisations to leverage additional funds from government and/or industry for types of research not currently supported. Some target funding to one area or aspect of research. While major funders such as the NHMRC and Cancer Australia have a national charter. which should lead to better research outcomes and greater attraction for donors. • Maintain and increase advocacy for more funding for cancer research (generally. individual charities often have different priorities and strategies for awarding research grants and support. 12 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 13 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Participants acknowledged the current role and potential of community organisations in advocacy and change agentry. private and community sectors has resulted in multiple funding approaches and programs. or in one state. Australia does not have a strategy to coordinate planning and funding of cancer research across the myriad of funding organisations. • Leverage existing funding capacity by encouraging more national coordination and partnerships between research funders. such as capital investment grants (for buildings and equipment). A commitment to greater coordination and collaboration would strengthen community organisations’ combined ‘voice’ and capacity to engage with and communicate issues and priorities to governments. as in the UK and USA. • Develop funding mechanisms that support multi-stream and multi-state initiatives. which has increased the quality of peer review for research supported by some community organisations. It was recommended that at least community organisations consider developing a charter committing to a coordinated approach. and for priority-driven research and people and infrastructure support in particular) and more national coordination and partnerships between research funders. reduced funding administration costs and created greater leverage in funding capacity. Some direct their funding to research focused on a particular cancer type. • Develop an audit tool to evaluate the impact of funding decisions. While there are some collaborative. • Collaborate to develop mechanisms that ensure grant recipients are able to access schemes that fund indirect costs of research. The McKeon Review has recommended the Australian Charities and Not-for profits Commission be tasked with encouraging ‘aligned smaller charities to collaborate on research funding provision to increase impact’. to encourage collaborative research that crosses disciplinary. which provide a significant proportion of research funding. or project grants for early career researchers. Existing rules mean some institutions or consortia are unable to access support for indirect research costs when they receive certain types or tiers of funding.1 Enhance collaboration between research funding organisations Issues and opportunities The existence in Australia of multiple funding organisations from the public. the donor community and people affected by cancer. Several CRLF members are partners in Cancer Australia’s Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. co-funding initiatives across the sector. Potential solutions Summit participants endorsed the value of an alliance of community organisations (e. but it lacks the impact of a large philanthropic cancer research foundation. Australia’s community sector comprises a large number of cancer charities. the CRLF) to drive enhanced coordination and some co-funding of cancer research. tumour-specific and/or geographic boundaries.

They should also consider reviewing their funding assessment criteria. and are unable to support large scale and long-term research such as epidemiological studies. and engagement of collaborators from outside traditional disciplines of cancer research • innovation or novel concept. collaboration and translation. ‘multi-state’. • Provide longer-term. traditional funding mechanisms. and less on traditional measures of track record such as first author publications. recurrent (upon 5 year review) and single line grants. ‘multi-centre’. Challenges in obtaining comprehensive funding – covering the (often significant) indirect costs of research – means researchers frequently have to apply for support from multiple funders. Potential solutions Community organisations have great potential to fund multi-state. A key theme in discussions about funding processes was the need to shift to an outcomes-focused model. with assessment criteria that are outcomes-focused and encourage innovation. with clearly defined performance measures to be assessed at agreed time points in the grant term. It was suggested that funders support more large-scale. • Develop a shared peer review process for community organisations funding cancer research. and translation of promising preclinical findings. Traditional short-term funding cycles create job insecurities. Strategies recommended for consideration • Develop new models and mechanisms to support innovative research. This would reduce the impost on researchers to source indirect costs from multiple agencies. Participants urged funding organisations to avoid rigid funding mechanisms and develop new models. Many participants felt this would be best achieved by fostering large-scale. rather than mimic or supplement. and provide them with some flexibility in using funds and potentially increase collaboration. ‘crossdisciplinary’ and/or international. and explore the potential for innovative partnerships with corporate/industry investors. to allow natural extension and development of research programs that meet agreed benchmarks. input to policy development) • large-scale collaboration – ‘multidisciplinary’. Participants suggested funding organisations consider developing a shared peer review process. multidisciplinary projects – to overcome traditional disease ‘silos’ – and/or to commit a percentage of their individual investments to innovative. peer review and ethical review processes as impediments to obtaining sufficient and timely funding for research. ‘blue sky’ research. Funding organisations should direct funding to innovative and priority cancer research that other funders currently cannot or do not fund. potentially building on the process that several community organisations participate in through Cancer Australia’s Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. mechanisms and criteria Issues and opportunities A number of roadblocks to efficient cancer research related to existing funding models and mechanisms were highlighted during the Summit. Participants acknowledged the flexibility of community organisations. All funding organisations were urged to provide comprehensive and longer-term grants. to focus on outcomes and place greater weight on criteria such as innovation. There was some support for offering grants with an ‘option to renew’ clause. Many participants identified onerous grant application. • Explore ‘venture capitalist’ models and partnerships with corporate/industry investors to support blue sky or high risk projects. rather than mirroring existing government schemes. which provides a potential opportunity to develop new models that would complement. innovative research. Current funding models (particularly public research funding) tend to favour ‘safe’ investments. Funding organisations could look to the business world and investigate models of philanthropic ‘venture capitalism’ to fund ‘blue sky’ or high risk projects. collaboration and translation. 14 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes The most common suggestions for new assessment criteria were: • anticipated outcomes / potential impact of the research • track record of translational outcomes (clinical or public health outcomes. commercialisation. with limited opportunities to fund novel. There was strong support for a standard long-term (5 year) ‘maintenance’ grant.2 Develop novel funding approaches. multidisciplinary and crossdisciplinary research programs. strategic research aimed at achieving the most significant ‘big picture’ and ‘internationally relevant’ outcomes. Funding organisations could consider awarding ‘single line’ grants to investigators to cover all costs of research including salaries and indirect research costs. with periodical review/s to assess performance indicators and an opportunity to cease funding if they were not met. 15 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes .

and less on traditional measures of track record such as first author publications. 14 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes The most common suggestions for new assessment criteria were: • anticipated outcomes / potential impact of the research • track record of translational outcomes (clinical or public health outcomes. multidisciplinary and crossdisciplinary research programs. Funding organisations should direct funding to innovative and priority cancer research that other funders currently cannot or do not fund. Many participants identified onerous grant application. collaboration and translation. Funding organisations could look to the business world and investigate models of philanthropic ‘venture capitalism’ to fund ‘blue sky’ or high risk projects. multidisciplinary projects – to overcome traditional disease ‘silos’ – and/or to commit a percentage of their individual investments to innovative. ‘multi-centre’. Challenges in obtaining comprehensive funding – covering the (often significant) indirect costs of research – means researchers frequently have to apply for support from multiple funders. with assessment criteria that are outcomes-focused and encourage innovation. innovative research. and engagement of collaborators from outside traditional disciplines of cancer research • innovation or novel concept. Current funding models (particularly public research funding) tend to favour ‘safe’ investments. and explore the potential for innovative partnerships with corporate/industry investors. They should also consider reviewing their funding assessment criteria. and translation of promising preclinical findings. traditional funding mechanisms. rather than mimic or supplement. ‘crossdisciplinary’ and/or international. A key theme in discussions about funding processes was the need to shift to an outcomes-focused model. There was some support for offering grants with an ‘option to renew’ clause.2 Develop novel funding approaches. Traditional short-term funding cycles create job insecurities. and are unable to support large scale and long-term research such as epidemiological studies. ‘multi-state’. potentially building on the process that several community organisations participate in through Cancer Australia’s Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. There was strong support for a standard long-term (5 year) ‘maintenance’ grant. rather than mirroring existing government schemes. All funding organisations were urged to provide comprehensive and longer-term grants. collaboration and translation. 15 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Participants suggested funding organisations consider developing a shared peer review process. input to policy development) • large-scale collaboration – ‘multidisciplinary’. strategic research aimed at achieving the most significant ‘big picture’ and ‘internationally relevant’ outcomes. with limited opportunities to fund novel. to focus on outcomes and place greater weight on criteria such as innovation. Potential solutions Community organisations have great potential to fund multi-state. • Explore ‘venture capitalist’ models and partnerships with corporate/industry investors to support blue sky or high risk projects. Participants urged funding organisations to avoid rigid funding mechanisms and develop new models. This would reduce the impost on researchers to source indirect costs from multiple agencies. with clearly defined performance measures to be assessed at agreed time points in the grant term. peer review and ethical review processes as impediments to obtaining sufficient and timely funding for research. to allow natural extension and development of research programs that meet agreed benchmarks. recurrent (upon 5 year review) and single line grants. • Provide longer-term. Strategies recommended for consideration • Develop new models and mechanisms to support innovative research. and provide them with some flexibility in using funds and potentially increase collaboration. commercialisation. Funding organisations could consider awarding ‘single line’ grants to investigators to cover all costs of research including salaries and indirect research costs. • Develop a shared peer review process for community organisations funding cancer research. mechanisms and criteria Issues and opportunities A number of roadblocks to efficient cancer research related to existing funding models and mechanisms were highlighted during the Summit. Participants acknowledged the flexibility of community organisations. Many participants felt this would be best achieved by fostering large-scale. which provides a potential opportunity to develop new models that would complement. ‘blue sky’ research. It was suggested that funders support more large-scale. with periodical review/s to assess performance indicators and an opportunity to cease funding if they were not met.

and the inability of most current funding schemes to support large-scale. requiring greater investment in health services. priorities of people affected by cancer (patients. 2 17 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . health economics and translational research. incidence (achieving the greatest good for the greatest number). survivorship and outcomes was comparatively low2. caregivers and survivors). Until recently. Cancer Australia’s analysis of research funding in 2003 to 2005 highlighted some gaps in the awarding of cancer research funding across the spectrum of research.3 Identify and fund research priorities and gaps Issues and opportunities There was general consensus that research funding in Australia is ‘spread thinly’. Summit participants acknowledged these discrepancies. prevention. or potential to reduce the future cancer burden (by focusing on cancer prevention and early detection). and relative to disease burden and mortality. ‘a portion of investment should be strategically focused to ensure key priority areas are addressed’. impact (measured by Quality Adjusted Life Years). but there was not consensus about the prioritysetting measure: suggestions included burden of disease (mortality). early detection. and cancer control. Cancer research in Australia: An overview of cancer research projects and research programs in Australia 2003 to 2005. There was agreement about the need to align cancer research funding with cancer control priorities. Cancer Australia. and direct funding to research in aetiology. health policy. there has tended to be a focus away from defining and resourcing priority-driven research in Australia. longitudinal studies which are the foundation of most epidemiological research. Research in these areas has often been limited by funders’ traditional focus on biological research. It found the majority of funding was directed to research in biology and treatment. diagnosis and prognosis. As noted by the McKeon Review. and that progress in cancer control could be hastened by targeting a larger proportion of the available funding to a smaller number of priority questions.

and the inability of most current funding schemes to support large-scale. 2 17 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . priorities of people affected by cancer (patients. Until recently.3 Identify and fund research priorities and gaps Issues and opportunities There was general consensus that research funding in Australia is ‘spread thinly’. requiring greater investment in health services. Research in these areas has often been limited by funders’ traditional focus on biological research. ‘a portion of investment should be strategically focused to ensure key priority areas are addressed’. Cancer Australia’s analysis of research funding in 2003 to 2005 highlighted some gaps in the awarding of cancer research funding across the spectrum of research. early detection. diagnosis and prognosis. There was agreement about the need to align cancer research funding with cancer control priorities. It found the majority of funding was directed to research in biology and treatment. impact (measured by Quality Adjusted Life Years). survivorship and outcomes was comparatively low2. and cancer control. prevention. health economics and translational research. caregivers and survivors). As noted by the McKeon Review. and that progress in cancer control could be hastened by targeting a larger proportion of the available funding to a smaller number of priority questions. longitudinal studies which are the foundation of most epidemiological research. or potential to reduce the future cancer burden (by focusing on cancer prevention and early detection). Cancer Australia. Summit participants acknowledged these discrepancies. but there was not consensus about the prioritysetting measure: suggestions included burden of disease (mortality). incidence (achieving the greatest good for the greatest number). there has tended to be a focus away from defining and resourcing priority-driven research in Australia. health policy. and direct funding to research in aetiology. and relative to disease burden and mortality. Cancer research in Australia: An overview of cancer research projects and research programs in Australia 2003 to 2005.

longitudinal population studies (and data linkage) to increase knowledge about cancer causes and risk factors. • Develop a specific mechanism and strategies to build capacity in health services. To redress the imbalance in funding across the research spectrum and cancer types.Potential solutions Various ideas about how cancer research priorities should be set and funded were proffered. 18 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Increasing emphasis on such research would require new funding models to support large epidemiological studies and associated biobanks. early detection and therapeutic strategies. There was significant support for better coordinating and prioritising investment in epidemiological. Strategies recommended for consideration • While maintaining some support for investigator-driven research. to address them. to enhance prevention. Most recommended funders form multidisciplinary groups (including consumers) to define the research priority questions and then either call for applications. • Develop mechanisms to fund and sustain large-scale. or direct funding to established academic or integrated health research centres or research consortia with a track record of innovation.g. target most research funding to priority-driven research to generate further improvements in cancer outcomes. health economics. Many participants recommended funding agencies pool their research funding to fund a small number (or some suggested just one or two) ‘big’ priority projects with potential to make a significant difference to cancer incidence. • Consider the benefits of more investment in funding partnerships that leverage funding to support research priorities (like Cancer Australia’s Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme). health policy and translational research and evaluation. Participants highlighted the potential for investment in research into cancer causes. health policy and health economics research to deliver better cancer outcomes through the Australian health system (and do it most cost-effectively) and enhance the quality of life of cancer survivors and people living with cancer. population health and health services research given the predicted increase in cancer incidence and prevalence in coming years. prevention and early detection – e. Participants recommended a greater focus on translational. it was suggested funders consider models or mechanisms such as Cancer Council NSW’s Strategic Research Partnership (STREP) grants program. mortality and/or quality of life of people with cancer. to prioritise investment and discovery in poor-prognosis cancers and cancers where the level of funding has not traditionally reflected the burden or impact of disease. leveraging preventative health research into population-based screening or testing new screening methodologies – to reduce incidence and mortality rates.

Potential solutions Various ideas about how cancer research priorities should be set and funded were proffered. health policy and translational research and evaluation. Participants highlighted the potential for investment in research into cancer causes. Increasing emphasis on such research would require new funding models to support large epidemiological studies and associated biobanks. • Develop a specific mechanism and strategies to build capacity in health services. population health and health services research given the predicted increase in cancer incidence and prevalence in coming years. health economics. Participants recommended a greater focus on translational. leveraging preventative health research into population-based screening or testing new screening methodologies – to reduce incidence and mortality rates. longitudinal population studies (and data linkage) to increase knowledge about cancer causes and risk factors. • Consider the benefits of more investment in funding partnerships that leverage funding to support research priorities (like Cancer Australia’s Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme). to address them. To redress the imbalance in funding across the research spectrum and cancer types. Most recommended funders form multidisciplinary groups (including consumers) to define the research priority questions and then either call for applications. 18 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes .g. prevention and early detection – e. • Develop mechanisms to fund and sustain large-scale. health policy and health economics research to deliver better cancer outcomes through the Australian health system (and do it most cost-effectively) and enhance the quality of life of cancer survivors and people living with cancer. it was suggested funders consider models or mechanisms such as Cancer Council NSW’s Strategic Research Partnership (STREP) grants program. Many participants recommended funding agencies pool their research funding to fund a small number (or some suggested just one or two) ‘big’ priority projects with potential to make a significant difference to cancer incidence. target most research funding to priority-driven research to generate further improvements in cancer outcomes. or direct funding to established academic or integrated health research centres or research consortia with a track record of innovation. early detection and therapeutic strategies. Strategies recommended for consideration • While maintaining some support for investigator-driven research. mortality and/or quality of life of people with cancer. There was significant support for better coordinating and prioritising investment in epidemiological. to prioritise investment and discovery in poor-prognosis cancers and cancers where the level of funding has not traditionally reflected the burden or impact of disease. to enhance prevention.

technologies and/or IT and informatics platforms. Potential solutions New. • Develop mechanisms and partnerships to provide in kind financial or project management advice/mentoring to research teams. Biobanks have often developed on an ad hoc basis. equipment. genomics services (a national sequencing centre). professional ‘silo-ing’. Continuing long-term and coordinated support for Australia’s cooperative trials groups was recommended to advance cancer treatment. Researchers also acknowledged that the lack of business. or access to. equipment. Such infrastructure must be strategically developed in Australia to ensure our cancer research sector remains internationally competitive and collaborative and continues to generate outcomes to improve cancer control and care. Most cancer research requires specialist equipment. and researchers identified multiple barriers to accessing and using data. funders were also encouraged to consider how to fund ‘soft’ infrastructure to support researchers.4 Establish and maintain research infrastructure Issues and opportunities ‘Infrastructure’ refers to the full range of sustainable resources required to support the research effort. such as biobanks. duplication and barriers to access. by developing partnerships with corporates to provide pro bono advice/mentoring by financial and business leaders. a technology for which funding is requested may be obsolete by the time the grant application is assessed and the project is funded. project management and financial management skills in research teams is a barrier to the most efficient acquisition. use and/or commercialisation of infrastructure assets. and encouraging national coordination • establishing a national advisory group to recommend and speed up acquisition of new technologies • developing genomics capability by establishing a national sequencing centre (collection of annotated tissue from all patients at diagnosis and upon completion of treatment) • developing an open access national registry of cancer patients. development of a national biobanking hub. meetings/travel. Existing data is not well coordinated or linked. as well as IT systems. • Establish an advisory group to recommend and speed up acquisition of new research technologies and equipment. There is an opportunity to better coordinate funding to establish and maintain national research assets such as bio-specimen banks. facilities. 20 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes Summit participants’ suggestions to increase researchers’ access to essential infrastructure included: • mapping existing biobanks and bioresources to identify gaps. Participants identified significant gaps in the availability of. and ensure Australian groups remain internationally competitive. Participants suggested community and commercial organisations consider how they could inject better financial or project management into the research sector. and costs (given distance between centres). The McKeon Review has recommended acceleration of efforts to build a national database of deidentified. linked patient and healthy population data for research purposes. support retention of researchers. for example. such as buildings and equipment. Identified disincentives to sharing and linking such infrastructure included competition between researchers. technologies and other large-scale research infrastructure needed to sustain cancer research. population cohorts. such as biobanks and data registries. biobanks and bioinformatics and mouse model resources. 21 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Researchers identified the speed of technological change. and national databases and registries. but is not limited to large. specialist equipment (and technical staff to use and maintain it) and other smaller scale resources required to enable research. access – to existing national research infrastructure including data. While maintaining investment in ‘hard’ infrastructure. delays in accessing new technologies (estimated as up to two years for Australian researchers) and the length of grant funding cycles as impediments to cutting edge research: for example. and long-term funding mechanisms to build capacity in enabling technologies and supporting services such as bioinformatics. and there is a need to improve access and reduce costs. resources to enable large-scale drug development. and costs. technology and support services. Strategies recommended for consideration • Develop funding mechanisms – ideally collaboratively and nationally – to establish and maintain shared infrastructure needed to support cancer research. • Enable or advocate for open access – or at least increased and simplified. the strategic infrastructure needed to sustain and advance cancer research. staff and bio-specimens • supporting translational research by funding chemistry. genomics services. including onerous ethics and privacy requirements. ‘ownership’ concerns. This includes. shared national resources. longer-term and more flexible funding grants are needed to enable development and maintenance of equipment. • Explore opportunities to partner with governments and industry to leverage the available funding for infrastructure development and long-term maintenance.

population cohorts. a technology for which funding is requested may be obsolete by the time the grant application is assessed and the project is funded. The McKeon Review has recommended acceleration of efforts to build a national database of deidentified. and costs. or access to. This includes. duplication and barriers to access.4 Establish and maintain research infrastructure Issues and opportunities ‘Infrastructure’ refers to the full range of sustainable resources required to support the research effort. equipment. Participants suggested community and commercial organisations consider how they could inject better financial or project management into the research sector. Continuing long-term and coordinated support for Australia’s cooperative trials groups was recommended to advance cancer treatment. shared national resources. support retention of researchers. Potential solutions New. There is an opportunity to better coordinate funding to establish and maintain national research assets such as bio-specimen banks. staff and bio-specimens • supporting translational research by funding chemistry. such as buildings and equipment. ‘ownership’ concerns. • Enable or advocate for open access – or at least increased and simplified. While maintaining investment in ‘hard’ infrastructure. such as biobanks. • Develop mechanisms and partnerships to provide in kind financial or project management advice/mentoring to research teams. Existing data is not well coordinated or linked. the strategic infrastructure needed to sustain and advance cancer research. Such infrastructure must be strategically developed in Australia to ensure our cancer research sector remains internationally competitive and collaborative and continues to generate outcomes to improve cancer control and care. and there is a need to improve access and reduce costs. but is not limited to large. longer-term and more flexible funding grants are needed to enable development and maintenance of equipment. equipment. and long-term funding mechanisms to build capacity in enabling technologies and supporting services such as bioinformatics. for example. development of a national biobanking hub. project management and financial management skills in research teams is a barrier to the most efficient acquisition. such as biobanks and data registries. Biobanks have often developed on an ad hoc basis. including onerous ethics and privacy requirements. Researchers also acknowledged that the lack of business. and costs (given distance between centres). Strategies recommended for consideration • Develop funding mechanisms – ideally collaboratively and nationally – to establish and maintain shared infrastructure needed to support cancer research. technologies and/or IT and informatics platforms. genomics services (a national sequencing centre). Most cancer research requires specialist equipment. • Establish an advisory group to recommend and speed up acquisition of new research technologies and equipment. meetings/travel. specialist equipment (and technical staff to use and maintain it) and other smaller scale resources required to enable research. and ensure Australian groups remain internationally competitive. • Explore opportunities to partner with governments and industry to leverage the available funding for infrastructure development and long-term maintenance. and national databases and registries. Identified disincentives to sharing and linking such infrastructure included competition between researchers. access – to existing national research infrastructure including data. and researchers identified multiple barriers to accessing and using data. professional ‘silo-ing’. biobanks and bioinformatics and mouse model resources. delays in accessing new technologies (estimated as up to two years for Australian researchers) and the length of grant funding cycles as impediments to cutting edge research: for example. linked patient and healthy population data for research purposes. resources to enable large-scale drug development. facilities. by developing partnerships with corporates to provide pro bono advice/mentoring by financial and business leaders. genomics services. and encouraging national coordination • establishing a national advisory group to recommend and speed up acquisition of new technologies • developing genomics capability by establishing a national sequencing centre (collection of annotated tissue from all patients at diagnosis and upon completion of treatment) • developing an open access national registry of cancer patients. Researchers identified the speed of technological change. funders were also encouraged to consider how to fund ‘soft’ infrastructure to support researchers. technology and support services. technologies and other large-scale research infrastructure needed to sustain cancer research. Participants identified significant gaps in the availability of. use and/or commercialisation of infrastructure assets. as well as IT systems. 20 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes Summit participants’ suggestions to increase researchers’ access to essential infrastructure included: • mapping existing biobanks and bioresources to identify gaps. 21 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes .

training to address research skills gaps (e. enabling sustainable career pathways (via career planning).5 Support and build the research workforce Issues and opportunities Australian cancer researchers have made significant contributions to knowledge and advances in cancer care. universities and research institutes. and development of research skills (particularly multidisciplinary and translational research) in the current and future clinical workforce. • Encourage/advocate for recognition of importance of sequestered research time for clinicians. and focus on research skills (particularly multidisciplinary and translational research) in undergraduate medical training and retraining of the current clinical workforce. The key issues and challenges facing Australia’s cancer research workforce are similar to those for the broader health and medical research workforce. sustainable career pathway • uncompetitive salaries • difficulties in obtaining funding at early. Annual funding cycles mean some researchers are vulnerable to ‘gaps’ in funding that may jeopardise completion of research. while more firmly embedding research into clinical care. genomics. and encouraging better linkages between hospitals. time constraints and/or the absence of a ‘research culture’ in hospitals and health service delivery. psycho-oncology research. which inhibit job security and career structure. systems biology. bioinformatics. to ‘recognise excellence’ and provide job security.and mid-career stages • poor career paths for clinical academics – resulting in low recruitment and retention • the need to develop capacity in new disciplines. Strategies recommended for consideration • Develop mechanisms to provide more support for early and mid-career researchers. But Summit participants noted that maintaining and enhancing this reputation for excellence in cancer research requires further support for cancer researchers and action to address imminent gaps in capacity. and discourage long-term retention. and consider offering more than one grant round per year. Funding organisations could advocate for protected time for clinicians to engage in research. as a key mechanism to increase cancer research outcomes. Participants noted a need to foster clinician and health service researchers in particular. Several participants reiterated that having and supporting ‘the right people’ is the key to ‘the right research’. enable multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaboration. • Direct research funding only to centres or consortia that encourage an integrated approach (through links with hospitals. and providing quality research environments and infrastructure. and helps to build capacity and expedite research translation.). biostatistics and health economics • inadequate grounding in multidisciplinary and translational research skills in undergraduate training. development of academic oncology programs. Suggested strategies to increase recruitment and retention of young researchers (particularly at the early. Potential solutions Summit participants recommended initiatives aimed at recruiting and retaining talented cancer researchers. Funding schemes in other countries (such as the US National Institutes of Health’s) operate on more frequent cycles to prevent this. Particular challenges for clinician-researchers are the restrictions on research activity due to clinical workload. etc. including bioinformatics.g. which have been enunciated in many government and non-government reports in recent years and include: • employment insecurity and lack of a supportive. in functional genomics. primary care. • Provide longer-term (5 year) funding of individual researchers or groups. and provide support and mentoring for junior researchers. It was noted that the current focus on developing medical research precincts around hospital sites encourages the co-location of researchers from different disciplines and with their clinical colleagues. professional development of researchers and opportunities for dual or cross-disciplinary training.to mid-career stage) included providing longer-term (5 year) grants. 22 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 23 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Recommended strategies to strengthen the research culture. included embedding researchers in multidisciplinary clinical teams. Many of these issues were attributed to short-term grants. health service research. particularly in clinical settings. molecular pathology).

and mid-career stages • poor career paths for clinical academics – resulting in low recruitment and retention • the need to develop capacity in new disciplines. and discourage long-term retention. Funding schemes in other countries (such as the US National Institutes of Health’s) operate on more frequent cycles to prevent this.to mid-career stage) included providing longer-term (5 year) grants. genomics. training to address research skills gaps (e. Participants noted a need to foster clinician and health service researchers in particular. etc. as a key mechanism to increase cancer research outcomes.5 Support and build the research workforce Issues and opportunities Australian cancer researchers have made significant contributions to knowledge and advances in cancer care. which inhibit job security and career structure. molecular pathology). which have been enunciated in many government and non-government reports in recent years and include: • employment insecurity and lack of a supportive. to ‘recognise excellence’ and provide job security. and providing quality research environments and infrastructure. and helps to build capacity and expedite research translation. enable multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaboration. particularly in clinical settings. psycho-oncology research. and encouraging better linkages between hospitals. time constraints and/or the absence of a ‘research culture’ in hospitals and health service delivery. included embedding researchers in multidisciplinary clinical teams.). development of academic oncology programs. Many of these issues were attributed to short-term grants. while more firmly embedding research into clinical care. Strategies recommended for consideration • Develop mechanisms to provide more support for early and mid-career researchers. Potential solutions Summit participants recommended initiatives aimed at recruiting and retaining talented cancer researchers. Particular challenges for clinician-researchers are the restrictions on research activity due to clinical workload. primary care. and development of research skills (particularly multidisciplinary and translational research) in the current and future clinical workforce. • Direct research funding only to centres or consortia that encourage an integrated approach (through links with hospitals. professional development of researchers and opportunities for dual or cross-disciplinary training. Suggested strategies to increase recruitment and retention of young researchers (particularly at the early. • Provide longer-term (5 year) funding of individual researchers or groups. sustainable career pathway • uncompetitive salaries • difficulties in obtaining funding at early. enabling sustainable career pathways (via career planning). in functional genomics. including bioinformatics. systems biology. universities and research institutes. and focus on research skills (particularly multidisciplinary and translational research) in undergraduate medical training and retraining of the current clinical workforce. Recommended strategies to strengthen the research culture. 22 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 23 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Funding organisations could advocate for protected time for clinicians to engage in research. Several participants reiterated that having and supporting ‘the right people’ is the key to ‘the right research’. • Encourage/advocate for recognition of importance of sequestered research time for clinicians. It was noted that the current focus on developing medical research precincts around hospital sites encourages the co-location of researchers from different disciplines and with their clinical colleagues. bioinformatics. and consider offering more than one grant round per year.g. Annual funding cycles mean some researchers are vulnerable to ‘gaps’ in funding that may jeopardise completion of research. The key issues and challenges facing Australia’s cancer research workforce are similar to those for the broader health and medical research workforce. biostatistics and health economics • inadequate grounding in multidisciplinary and translational research skills in undergraduate training. But Summit participants noted that maintaining and enhancing this reputation for excellence in cancer research requires further support for cancer researchers and action to address imminent gaps in capacity. health service research. and provide support and mentoring for junior researchers.

There is potential for greater efficiency and knowledge sharing if funding organisations develop shared platforms for consumer engagement and training. of community organisations’ funding of cancer research in Australia. including training and support in review of research grant applications. In addition. Potential solutions Summit participants recommended funders check that their research agendas and priorities align with the needs of people affected by cancer now. and in translation of research into practice. and a need to assess funding structures and process to ensure consumers and other stakeholders are appropriately engaged in decision-making about research priorities and funding.6 Engage consumers and other stakeholders in research planning and funding Issues and opportunities Cancer research funders’ investment in Australian research and researchers has enabled significant advances in cancer control in this country and globally. and mostly efficient processes. tumour-specific and/or geographic boundaries. to ensure the research agenda reflects the needs and issues of greatest priority to people affected by cancer. researchers. People affected by cancer and advocacy groups are important contributors to and advocates for cancer research. Participants at the Summit acknowledged the outcomes. Summit participants emphasised the benefits of consumer involvement in research planning and funding decisions. 24 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 23 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Consumers need to be involved and supported to contribute in meaningful ways at each stage of research from planning and priority-setting to dissemination of findings. clinicians. policymakers and industry need to be engaged at each stage from research planning to the dissemination of findings and translation to practice. as well as projected future needs. or in one state – to consider the value of collaborative research that crosses disciplinary. Strategies recommended for consideration • All cancer research funding organisations should continue to promote and support consumer and stakeholder engagement in planning and making decisions about funding of cancer research in Australia. Drawing on the expert advice of clinicians and policymakers in particular would inform priority setting to maximise impact and translation of research findings to practice and policy. • Consider development of shared platforms for consumer engagement. But they noted the potential for greater coordination and collaboration. Participants also noted the importance of encouraging stakeholders – particularly those who are members of or advisors to boards of organisations funding research focused on a particular cancer type.

People affected by cancer and advocacy groups are important contributors to and advocates for cancer research. There is potential for greater efficiency and knowledge sharing if funding organisations develop shared platforms for consumer engagement and training. and mostly efficient processes. Potential solutions Summit participants recommended funders check that their research agendas and priorities align with the needs of people affected by cancer now. policymakers and industry need to be engaged at each stage from research planning to the dissemination of findings and translation to practice. But they noted the potential for greater coordination and collaboration. and in translation of research into practice. of community organisations’ funding of cancer research in Australia. including training and support in review of research grant applications. Strategies recommended for consideration • All cancer research funding organisations should continue to promote and support consumer and stakeholder engagement in planning and making decisions about funding of cancer research in Australia. 24 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 23 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . researchers. Consumers need to be involved and supported to contribute in meaningful ways at each stage of research from planning and priority-setting to dissemination of findings.6 Engage consumers and other stakeholders in research planning and funding Issues and opportunities Cancer research funders’ investment in Australian research and researchers has enabled significant advances in cancer control in this country and globally. In addition. Summit participants emphasised the benefits of consumer involvement in research planning and funding decisions. Participants at the Summit acknowledged the outcomes. and a need to assess funding structures and process to ensure consumers and other stakeholders are appropriately engaged in decision-making about research priorities and funding. Participants also noted the importance of encouraging stakeholders – particularly those who are members of or advisors to boards of organisations funding research focused on a particular cancer type. or in one state – to consider the value of collaborative research that crosses disciplinary. to ensure the research agenda reflects the needs and issues of greatest priority to people affected by cancer. Drawing on the expert advice of clinicians and policymakers in particular would inform priority setting to maximise impact and translation of research findings to practice and policy. as well as projected future needs. • Consider development of shared platforms for consumer engagement. clinicians. tumour-specific and/or geographic boundaries.

50pm Closing remarks.30pm.5.50pm.00am-11.30pm Working Group Sessions • Basic Science • Epidemiology/Prevention/Public Health • Screening • Treatment • Supportive Care/Psychooncology/Survivorship • Palliative Care A/Prof Nik Zeps 3. Head. Mrs Trish Bartlett Prof Christobel Saunders Dr Catherine Holliday Mr John Stubbs.00pm. Emerging Trends and the McKeon Review. Chair TNCRP Steering Committee Prof Bruce Mann Ms Annie Crawford Mr Glen Turner Ms Karen Avery Ms Carole Renouf Ms Elaine Henry OAM Ms Julie Marker Ms Sally Crossing Prof Jane Ussher Mr Colin Bartlett Prof Rob Sanson-Fisher Ms Lisa Herron Mr Harry Martin Ms Sharon Czerniec A/Prof Claire Vajdic Prof Andrew Biankin. Prof Ian Olver 6.5.6.4.30pm Workshop on Funding Mechanisms with Prof Steve Wesselingh Lunch – the open sessions of the Summit finish here.45pm Summary of working group findings. Carole Renouf. with Prof Ian Frazer Prof Michael Brown Mr Ian Stubbin Prof Dorothy Keefe 1. Ms Leanne Warner.00am Workshop on Workforce with Prof Jim Bishop A/Prof Paul McKenzie Prof Ian Frazer AC Ms Kelly Webster Prof David Bowtell Ms Catherine Stace Ms Peta Jurd Mrs Lesley McQuire Dr Ofra Fried Prof Steve Wesselingh Mr David Brettell Prof Andreas Strasser Prof Maria Kavallaris Prof Ian Olver AM Ms Lisa George Prof Emma Whitelaw 12.30pm-1.45pm.Appendices Appendix 1: National Cancer Research Summit program Appendix 2: National Cancer Research Summit – list of participants Dr Diana Adams Mr Bob Prosser Ms Patricia Hancock Friday 7th September 2012 Ms Amanda Maltabarow Ms Jackie Coles Prof Joseph Trapani 5. by invitation only 2.55pm.00am Opening remarks and recap from Friday.15pm The Cancer Research Funding Landscape.8.3.30am-8.3.30pm Registration Prof Warren Alexander Prof Roger Reddel Prof Nick Hawkins 5.50am Registration Mr Brian McFadyen Prof Simon Foote Ms Leanne Warner 8.15pm Summary.30pm.55pm Welcome Remarks.30pm Drinks & Canapés Reception 10.7.00pm. Prof Ian Olver 3.5.00am Workshop on Infrastructure with David Brettell 11. Dr Sam Prince.00pm Afternoon tea and departure 26 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 27 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes .30am-12. Macquarie Group Foundation 5. Ms Patricia Hancock.00am-10. Mr Tony Maxwell Ms Annabel Davies Dr Claire Wakefield Dr Megan Best A/Prof Penny Schofield Prof John Hopper AM Prof Grant McArthur Mr Ian Dear Prof Robyn Ward Saturday 8th September 2012 Prof Andrew Biankin A/Prof Clare Scott Dr Viive Howell 8. Carole Renouf Prof James Bishop AO A/Prof Andrew Spillane Ms Edith Hurt 9.3.50am-9. The afternoon sessions are closed.45pm Opening Remarks. Prof Ian Olver.15pm-2.15pm.00pm Dr Andrew Penman Mr Max Gosling Prof Bryan Williams Dr Alison Butt Mr John Stubbs Ms Victoria Kvisle Mr Matt Pitt Ms Nicca Grant Dr Anna Williamson Prof Suzanne Chambers Dr Norman Swan Ms Judith Lees Ms Vicki Pridmore Mr Paul Grogan Ms Margaret Wright Ms Kathy Chapman Ms Danielle Tindle Dr Yvonne Luxford Dr Sam Prince Prof Neville Hacker Ms Leonie Young Prof Georgia Chenevix-Trench Dr Libby Topp Prof Finlay Macrae 5. Carole Renouf 3. Lisa George.20pm.00am-11.45pm. panellists included: 7.20pm Panel Discussion with MC Dr Norman Swan.30pm Morning Tea 11.

30pm Drinks & Canapés Reception 10. Macquarie Group Foundation 5.15pm-2.00pm.30am-8. with Prof Ian Frazer Prof Michael Brown Mr Ian Stubbin Prof Dorothy Keefe 1.45pm Opening Remarks.5.55pm Welcome Remarks.50pm Closing remarks.00pm Dr Andrew Penman Mr Max Gosling Prof Bryan Williams Dr Alison Butt Mr John Stubbs Ms Victoria Kvisle Mr Matt Pitt Ms Nicca Grant Dr Anna Williamson Prof Suzanne Chambers Dr Norman Swan Ms Judith Lees Ms Vicki Pridmore Mr Paul Grogan Ms Margaret Wright Ms Kathy Chapman Ms Danielle Tindle Dr Yvonne Luxford Dr Sam Prince Prof Neville Hacker Ms Leonie Young Prof Georgia Chenevix-Trench Dr Libby Topp Prof Finlay Macrae 5.00am-10.15pm The Cancer Research Funding Landscape.30pm.30pm Registration Prof Warren Alexander Prof Roger Reddel Prof Nick Hawkins 5. Carole Renouf Prof James Bishop AO A/Prof Andrew Spillane Ms Edith Hurt 9.5.00pm Afternoon tea and departure 26 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes 27 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes .00am Workshop on Infrastructure with David Brettell 11.45pm Summary of working group findings.30pm Workshop on Funding Mechanisms with Prof Steve Wesselingh Lunch – the open sessions of the Summit finish here.Appendices Appendix 1: National Cancer Research Summit program Appendix 2: National Cancer Research Summit – list of participants Dr Diana Adams Mr Bob Prosser Ms Patricia Hancock Friday 7th September 2012 Ms Amanda Maltabarow Ms Jackie Coles Prof Joseph Trapani 5.45pm.6.30pm Working Group Sessions • Basic Science • Epidemiology/Prevention/Public Health • Screening • Treatment • Supportive Care/Psychooncology/Survivorship • Palliative Care A/Prof Nik Zeps 3.50am-9.00pm.20pm. Dr Sam Prince.7. Emerging Trends and the McKeon Review. Mrs Trish Bartlett Prof Christobel Saunders Dr Catherine Holliday Mr John Stubbs.3.55pm.3. Prof Ian Olver 6. The afternoon sessions are closed. Ms Patricia Hancock.4.20pm Panel Discussion with MC Dr Norman Swan.00am-11. Chair TNCRP Steering Committee Prof Bruce Mann Ms Annie Crawford Mr Glen Turner Ms Karen Avery Ms Carole Renouf Ms Elaine Henry OAM Ms Julie Marker Ms Sally Crossing Prof Jane Ussher Mr Colin Bartlett Prof Rob Sanson-Fisher Ms Lisa Herron Mr Harry Martin Ms Sharon Czerniec A/Prof Claire Vajdic Prof Andrew Biankin.50pm.30pm. Mr Tony Maxwell Ms Annabel Davies Dr Claire Wakefield Dr Megan Best A/Prof Penny Schofield Prof John Hopper AM Prof Grant McArthur Mr Ian Dear Prof Robyn Ward Saturday 8th September 2012 Prof Andrew Biankin A/Prof Clare Scott Dr Viive Howell 8.15pm Summary. Ms Leanne Warner. Prof Ian Olver 3.5.50am Registration Mr Brian McFadyen Prof Simon Foote Ms Leanne Warner 8.30pm-1.45pm. Head. Prof Ian Olver.8. Carole Renouf 3.00am-11. Carole Renouf.00am Workshop on Workforce with Prof Jim Bishop A/Prof Paul McKenzie Prof Ian Frazer AC Ms Kelly Webster Prof David Bowtell Ms Catherine Stace Ms Peta Jurd Mrs Lesley McQuire Dr Ofra Fried Prof Steve Wesselingh Mr David Brettell Prof Andreas Strasser Prof Maria Kavallaris Prof Ian Olver AM Ms Lisa George Prof Emma Whitelaw 12. Lisa George.30pm Morning Tea 11.15pm.00am Opening remarks and recap from Friday. by invitation only 2.30am-12.3. panellists included: 7.

Towards a national cancer research plan Submissions: • • • • • • • Breast Cancer Network Australia Cancer Council NSW Cancer Institute NSW Clinical Oncological Society of Australia Emeritus Professor James Lawson AM. MD Medical Oncology Group of Australia State and Territory Managers of the breast. Deputy Premier and Minister for Health Western Australia Michelle O’Byrne MP. Cancer Council Victoria Consumers Health Forum of Australia Hon David Davis MP.Appendices Appendix 3: National Cancer Research Summit: List of professional facilitators and volunteers Professional facilitators Ms Karen Haig Ms Sarah Humphreys Mr Neil Jones Ms Elizabeth Klaes Mr Brian Maguire Ms Cliona Molins Ms Margaret Moore Ms Maria Walsh Volunteers Ms Hannah Klaes Ms Gabrielle Sheehan Mr Joseph Sheehan 28 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes Appendix 4: Respondents to CRLF white paper. bowel and cervical cancer screening programs (joint response) • Professor David Roder • SA Health (incorporating feedback from the SA Cancer Clinical Network) Letters of support: • • • • • • • • Breast Surgeons of Australia and New Zealand Inc. Minister for Health Tasmania The Hon Jillian Skinner MP. Minister for Health and Minister for Medical Research New South Wales 29 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Minister for Health Victoria Philip Felton Dr Kim Hames MLA.

bowel and cervical cancer screening programs (joint response) • Professor David Roder • SA Health (incorporating feedback from the SA Cancer Clinical Network) Letters of support: • • • • • • • • Breast Surgeons of Australia and New Zealand Inc. Towards a national cancer research plan Submissions: • • • • • • • Breast Cancer Network Australia Cancer Council NSW Cancer Institute NSW Clinical Oncological Society of Australia Emeritus Professor James Lawson AM. Minister for Health Tasmania The Hon Jillian Skinner MP. Minister for Health and Minister for Medical Research New South Wales 29 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . Deputy Premier and Minister for Health Western Australia Michelle O’Byrne MP. Cancer Council Victoria Consumers Health Forum of Australia Hon David Davis MP.Appendices Appendix 3: National Cancer Research Summit: List of professional facilitators and volunteers Professional facilitators Ms Karen Haig Ms Sarah Humphreys Mr Neil Jones Ms Elizabeth Klaes Mr Brian Maguire Ms Cliona Molins Ms Margaret Moore Ms Maria Walsh Volunteers Ms Hannah Klaes Ms Gabrielle Sheehan Mr Joseph Sheehan 28 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes Appendix 4: Respondents to CRLF white paper. Minister for Health Victoria Philip Felton Dr Kim Hames MLA. MD Medical Oncology Group of Australia State and Territory Managers of the breast.

Cancer Research Leadership Forum 2013 Copyright © 2013 Cancer Research Leadership Forum. All rights reserved. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reporoduce any part of this publication should be addressed to The Cancer Research Leadership Forum: c/o National Breast Cancer Foundation GPO Box 4126 Sydney NSW 2001 (02) 8098 4800 30 Maximising the impact of cancer research funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes . (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright owner.Acknowledgements Writer: Lisa-Maree Herron Design: Kate Patterson Suggested Citation Maximising the Impact of Cancer Research Funding in Australia: A national resource to guide research investment and improve cancer outcomes. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form.