Australian researchers rely on global partners and collaborators more than ever because the scale, complexity and cost of truly “world-leading” research simply exceeds what we can do on our own. The challenges we share with the world in climate, biosecurity, clean energy and the responsible development of AI and quantum systems, not only demand access to the best expertise, skills, and infrastructure, but also the funding that supports them.
Yet decades old restrictions on how Australia’s research funding can be used for international collaboration by our universities and science agencies remain firmly in place.
Frustration with these restrictions can be seen in the growing enthusiasm for Australia’s association to the EU’s Horizon Europe programme. Association promises Australian researchers the chance to collaborate more freely with leading European universities, companies and agencies than they can using funding from our own research councils and science agencies.
Perhaps the answer is that, at least to date, we haven’t identified a mechanism that allows us to open our relatively modest levels of funding to global collaborators, whose own access to funding, talent and infrastructure is often much greater than our own.
The mechanism that could change how Australian funders and agencies support international collaboration is a principle commonly referred to as Money Follows Cooperation (MFC).
As it suggests, MFC allows research funding to flow across borders to where it is needed, when it is needed.
When applied through bilateral agreements between funding agencies, the principle allows reciprocal access to funding for collaborating researchers. Using this approach, funds can flow to international co-investigators as contributors, not as project leads, if their home funding system offers the same opportunity in return. This ensures that support follows the collaboration itself, creating balanced partnerships without additional cost or administrative burden.
Right now, funding rules at the ARC and NHMRC prohibit this kind of flexibility. International researchers are not treated as academic contributors but as supporting partners that must bring their own funds, as cash and / or in-kind contributions. As we’ve seen with the Horizon discussion, this limits how we can participate in, let alone shape, the future of global science.
Adopting MFC would flip this situation from a challenge to a very real opportunity. Rather than restricting collaboration we could leverage our many connections with much larger S&T partners. By opening our programs and limited funding, we could create a whole new raft of Horizon like opportunities, including funding for collaboration that would otherwise remain inaccessible.
Several countries like Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden have adopted MFC in their systems, including with much larger jurisdictions like the UK and Japan. This wasn’t done to offset any domestic funding issues, but to improve reciprocal access for their researchers and institutions to the best global expertise, talent and infrastructure.
Under the Norwegian Research Council’s (NRC) MFC arrangements with UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), and the Japan Science and Technology agency (JST), Norwegian researchers can be funded as part of any UKRI or JST grant. In return, any UK or Japanese researcher can be funded as collaborators from any NRC grant. As the principle is one of reciprocal access and not matched co-contributions, it provides researchers with proportional levels of investment from both sides in a much larger, and more diverse, set of research programs than either of their domestic systems could fully fund on their own.
If Australia had similar MFC agreements with the UK and Japan, not only would collaboration be much simpler, but we could scale many more world-leading programs with two of our most important, and much larger, strategic S&T partners.
Adopting MFC doesn’t mean we’d risk “giving away” hard-won research funding. Not only is that misrepresenting how the mechanism works, it misses the point as to why the flow of scientific expertise across our borders is essential to our global standing.
As outlined earlier, MFC would not only allow Australian researchers to recruit world-leading talent to our domestic programs, but to also participate fully in consortia funded by partners who are shaping the global research agenda. Without it, our researchers will continue to struggle with navigating complex international co-funding arrangements, or in the worst cases, declining participation in strategic global initiatives.
That doesn’t save funding, it diminishes the reach, growth and impact of our research at home and abroad.
The real question then, isn’t whether Australia can afford to let international collaborators access a fraction of our relatively limited funds, it’s whether we can afford to actively exclude ourselves from the gains that come from participation in larger global programs whose priorities align with our own.
Adopting MFC doesn’t require major structural reform, new commitments of funding or wholesale changes to existing research priorities or investments. It doesn’t replace existing merit review processes, obligate funding for international partners, or introduce complex parallel processes. What it does do is remove the outdated rules that stop Australian researchers from fully engaging the global collaborators they need to deliver truly world-leading research.
Implementing MFC would however require Australian funders and agencies to adopt a common set of guidelines, including a set a cap on how much of any grant can be allocated to international collaborators. In most examples, this cap is less than 50% of total grant value.
Administering organisations would also need to ensure they have sound processes in place for transferring funds across borders, managing exchange rate risk and monitoring compliance. Most already do, but these would need to be applied transparently and consistently under an MFC framework.
Once in place, our funders and science agencies, with the support of relevant government departments, could establish MFC based agreements with their strategic S&T partners and unlock a raft of new opportunities for Australian researchers.
There is no reason that Australia’s ability to contribute to global R&D should be constrained by outdated funding rules. Our current settings clearly limit our ability to fully engage with our strategic S&T partners even when their priorities and values align with our own.
Money Follows Cooperation offers a clear, proven and low-risk solution that would provide our researchers the flexibility to work with the best, wherever they are, and whenever they’re needed. It can do this without changing our national priorities, obligating new sources of funding, creating costly new merit review or additional administrative processes.
In a world facing increasing geopolitical challenges MFC represents a smarter, more strategic approach for Australia to fund its commitment to global S&T partnerships and ensure we remain at the forefront of global science.
Research Strategies Australia is advocating for MFC because the more globally engaged Australian universities and science agencies are, the more our community benefits from the world-leading knowledge, technology and innovations this brings to our shores.
We acknowledge the Dharawal people as the Traditional Owners of this land and pay our respects to Elders past and present. This is, was, and always will be Aboriginal land.
