Atlas finding: In 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council recorded approximately six dollars in research expenditure relevant to women’s health for every dollar relevant to men’s health.
Why it matters: Men’s health needs deserve a clear place in national research priorities. The government should demonstrate how its funding decisions address those needs.
What we want: Minister Mark Butler and NHMRC should explain the figures, publish the evidence behind their priorities and address identified gaps in research serving men.
1. What NHMRC says
NHMRC describes its work as improving health outcomes through research, evidence and innovation, with a focus on the healthcare areas that matter most to Australia. NHMRC’s stated role
That commitment includes men.
NHMRC also sets targeted research priorities to address significant knowledge gaps or unmet need. Its Reframing Women’s Health 2026 call lists $5 million to address critical gaps in women’s health research. This is a 2026 funding opportunity, separate from the historical expenditure figures below. NHMRC targeted research policy; Reframing Women’s Health 2026
Minister Butler, what comparable assessment has NHMRC undertaken of unmet research needs affecting men? Publish the identified gaps, how they were ranked, and the funding and action directed towards them.
An explanation based on investigator-led applications must also account for NHMRC’s own role in setting priorities and stimulating research.
Australian male life expectancy at birth was 81.1 years, compared with 85.1 years for females, in 2022–2024. That four-year gap underlines why men’s health needs require sustained research attention and an accountable funding response. ABS life expectancy
2. What the maths says
NHMRC publishes expenditure classified as relevant to men’s and women’s health.
| Period | Women’s health research | Men’s health research |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | $101.5 million | $16.7 million |
| 2016–2025, summed by Atlas | $884.6 million | $159.3 million |
The calculations are straightforward:
- 2025: $101.5m ÷ $16.7m = 6.08 to one.
- Ten years: $884.6m ÷ $159.3m = 5.55 to one.
- Ten-year difference: $884.6m − $159.3m = $725.3 million.
These are nominal sums of published research classifications. Categories can overlap, with a grant’s full value attributed to multiple topics. They are not exclusive funding pots, total healthcare spending or a measure of researchers’ sex. Most NHMRC funding is investigator-initiated. NHMRC figures and methodology
The recorded difference extends across a decade. It deserves a substantive explanation.
3. What Atlas believes
Atlas believes the government should account for the research attention given to men’s health.
Men should be able to see which of their health needs receive focused investigation, which remain under-researched and what government is doing about those gaps.
A general commitment to improving everyone’s health does not provide that account.
The figures put a concrete issue before the Minister: demonstrate how national research priorities respond to male health needs, and explain why the recorded expenditure differs so substantially.
4. What we want: upfront disclosure
NHMRC should publish an understandable account of research relevant to men and women, distinguishing:
- Research focused specifically on each sex.
- Research relevant to both.
- Reproductive and other clinical categories.
- Expenditure counted in more than one category.
Funding notices should also explain any population-based priority, restriction or preference before researchers apply, including how it affects assessment.
The public should be able to connect the government’s stated priorities to the research it funds.
5. Changes Atlas demands
Atlas calls on the Minister and NHMRC to identify under-researched male health needs and publish a funded plan to address them.
Where the evidence identifies barriers to developing or funding that research, Atlas calls for action to remove them, strengthen research capacity and improve the translation of findings into care.
Disclosure alone will not address neglected health needs. The response should explain what improvements government is willing to make, with a timetable and measurable outcomes.
6. The rules and justification relied upon
The expenditure record puts research priorities and outcomes before the Minister. Atlas seeks the grant rules, priority assessments and funding decisions behind those figures.
NHMRC should explain the assessment criteria, priority-setting process and funding rules behind the results.
Where relevant sex-based restrictions, preferences or special measures operate, it should identify the provisions relied upon and explain the evidence supporting their application.
Legal compliance and adequate attention to men’s health are separate questions.
7. The evidence that would answer this case
Atlas invites the Minister and NHMRC to publish:
- Grant-level records supporting the men’s-health and women’s-health classifications, including overlaps and consistent definitions.
- Application numbers, requested funding, success rates, awarded amounts, and average and median grant sizes for research relevant to each sex.
- The respective contributions of investigator-led funding and targeted calls, with targeted calls identified by health area.
- Assessments of unmet male health research needs and the disease-burden or health-outcome evidence used to rank them against other priorities.
- Current or planned targeted calls addressing those gaps, together with funding, timetables and measurable expected outcomes.
- Any internal analysis explaining the persistent difference in recorded expenditure.
Please identify which records and analyses are held, which are not currently produced, and how the missing information will be addressed.
NHMRC can answer this case with evidence.
If the government maintains that its research funding adequately addresses male health needs, it should demonstrate that through its priorities, funded work and results.
If NHMRC maintains that the difference reflects applications, research quality, health need or another evidence-based factor, it should publish the data and methodology showing that.
A statement of good intentions does not answer the practical question:
Are important male health needs receiving the research attention they require?
Minister Mark Butler, let’s discuss.
8. An invitation to meaningful dialogue
Atlas welcomes constructive, evidence-based communication about these findings and practical improvements to research serving men.
We invite the Minister and NHMRC to test our calculations, publish their methodology and identify any factual or analytical errors with supporting evidence.
Atlas will assess substantive responses, correct factual errors and update its findings where warranted. Responses will be published alongside the case where publication is permitted.
Update, 18 September 2026: Added NHMRC’s targeted-research role, the Reframing Women’s Health 2026 call and an expanded evidence request following peer review.
Correspondence status: No request has yet been sent.