
Welcome
We manage the Government's investment in health research. Our vision is to improve the health and quality of life of all New Zealanders.

Funding Opportunities
The HRC allocates funding through an annual funding round for researcher initiated projects, Requests for Proposals, and a range of career development awards.

About Us
We invest in a broad range of research on issues important to New Zealand, and support the development of health research careers. Our mission is 'benefiting New Zealand through health research'.

News and Publications
We produce a wide range of publications and documents, which provide information about funding opportunities, research outcomes and HRC-related news.

Ethics and Regulatory
We help ensure all research involving human participants is based on good science, meets ethical standards and complies with best practice.

Contact Us
If you have any questions about the HRC or would like to know more about how our funding process works, please drop us a line.
Gene Technology Advisory Committee
News and Media
Our latest and archived media releases and news articles.
-
Pictured: Professor Dave Grattan. Image courtesy of University of Otago.Media Release
About 25 per cent of New Zealand couples who are wanting to conceive may experience infertility or seek medical help. But thanks to a series of discoveries funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, new light is being shed on the mechanisms underlying infertility and the part played by key pathways within the brain.
In a University of Otago laboratory, Professor David Grattan may have just found a missing piece of the fertility puzzle. But his finding is best explained by going back a step, to a major discovery by Professor Allan Herbison that laid the groundwork for the latest revelation.
Professor Herbison, who heads the University of Otago-based Centre for Neuroendocrinology, had his latest findings published last November in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. In a landmark study, he’d identified a group of about 2000 kisspeptin neurons in the brain's hypothalamus which generate an hourly luteinizing hormone (LH) pulse that controls fertility in both females and males.
"We knew that episodic pulses control fertility, but the question for the past 40 years has been how does the brain do that? How does it manage to generate those pulses because the pulses are the key thing that determines fertility,” says Professor Herbison.
"If the LH hormone is at a continuous high level or a continuous low level, then reproduction shuts down – so it must be pulsatile. If it's not pulsatile or the pulses are at the wrong rate then it can cause infertility,” he explains. For example, when the pulses are too fast in women, it causes polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and if they are too slow or non-existent, it leads to hypothalamic amenorrhea and infertility.
For Professor Herbison, the next step was to understand how this small group of kisspeptin neurons communicate to synchronise their hourly activity.
"Because we are working in the brain and it is incredibly complicated, we need to be developing new technologies that allow us to look at brain function better and in more detail.
"For example, we have developed a methodology where we can measure the activity of those key kisspeptin neurons online in real-time, all day and night, as an animal is moving about. Five years ago, that was only dreamed of."
Meanwhile, in a neighbouring lab, Professor Dave Grattan’s team has been busy finding another key piece of the fertility puzzle, focusing on the actions of the lactation hormone, prolactin, in the brain.
Elevated levels of prolactin have for many decades been known as a cause of infertility but – again – how it works has been a mystery. Building on the work of his colleague Allan Herbison, Professor Grattan is also now investigating the effect of prolactin on the pattern of LH pulses.
His latest research, funded by the Health Research Council, has found that administering just a single injection of prolactin appears to slow down and stop the LH pulses to the ovaries.
"We’re thinking that that's the mechanism where if you have chronically elevated prolactin, for example from a pituitary tumour, or physiologically such as in pregnancy or lactation, then the high prolactin is going to turn off the reproductive hormones.
"In lactation that's normal – it’s what you expect. But if you have high prolactin at the wrong time it causes infertility and that can happen whether you're a male or female.”
Professor Grattan’s key discovery has been to show the presence of prolactin receptors on the kisspeptin cells identified by Professor Herbison's research.
"The very recent data we've got, that I think is really exciting, is that when we knock out prolactin receptors in the kisspeptin cells we then lose the ability to suppress the LH pulses – they just carry on regardless. So it fits the idea that the way prolactin works is by directly suppressing the activity of the kisspeptin cells."
Both researchers are keen to bring together the discoveries made through the two projects and directly measure the effect of prolactin on kisspeptin activity and the pulses sent from that small group of neurons.
Expanding fundamental knowledge about the specific ways prolactin works has the potential to bring new treatments where couples struggle to conceive due to high prolactin levels.
"For the most part it can be treated effectively because it is so well known, but there might be more specific ways you can target a pathway rather than the sledgehammer type of approach of current treatments," says Professor Grattan.
For his colleague who has paved the way to more targeted research, involving new methodologies, Grattan has the greatest respect. "To be able to actually measure a population of neurons in a conscious animal and at the same time measure the hormonal output that is regulating – nobody else in the world has done that. It is absolutely cutting-edge stuff."
Other members of the Centre for Neuroendocrinology are partway through Health Research Council-funded projects involving fertility-related work. Professor Greg Anderson is examining metabolism and body weight to understand the impacts of obesity and undernutrition on fertility. And Associate Professor Rebecca Campbell is investigating the brain mechanisms leading to PCOS, which affects about 10 per cent of women. Findings from her research have just been published, showing that blocking androgen actions could help re-set reproductive function to normal levels by modifying brain circuitry important to fertility.
"The synergies of having multiple groups working on independent but related projects and having each of them developing different tools and ways of looking at it is incredibly valuable," says Professor Grattan.
Health Research Council chief executive Professor Kath McPherson says the discoveries taking place are the result of many years’ research and persistence by these researchers.
“It’s often the long-game with research like this – it takes time to find all the vital pieces in a complex process. David has successfully gained HRC support for prolactin research since 1997, and Allan since 2006. Bit by bit, their progress is advancing our knowledge of infertility causes, not just here but around the world.
“We’re really proud to be supporting work that increasingly looks as if it will, in time, help many people on their parenting journey.”
Pictured: Professor Dave Grattan. Image courtesy of the University of Otago.
A little extra: Kisspeptin was originally discovered by oncology researchers at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, in Hershey, and was partly named after the hometown’s famous ‘Hershey’s Kiss’ chocolate. At the time, researchers had no idea that it had a role in fertility. Around 2003, kisspeptin was discovered to play a critical role in fertility.
-
News Article
Improving the health and wellness of Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand and Canada is the goal driving a partnership between three medical research funding agencies.
In December 2017, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC), the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) renewed their commitment to collaborate on mutual health research priorities for Indigenous peoples in these three countries.
In developing and undertaking any initiatives, the agencies will respect and harness the expertise, culture and values of the populations they represent – the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Māori people, and the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples – while supporting Indigenous methodological approaches to health and wellbeing research.
Previous agreements have prompted joint research action into areas of significant burden experienced by Indigenous peoples, including diabetes and suicide prevention, and strategic initiatives to support emerging researchers of Indigenous ancestry, including an international mentorship workshop.
Strengthening the Indigenous health research workforce, from early researchers and up, remains a central focus under the renewed agreement.
NHMRC, HRC and CIHR are in a strong position to set additional priorities this year having each worked with their communities recently to understand what matters most, which will also inform agencies' broader research strategies. This will prove invaluable throughout the partnership as agencies develop a joint action plan and re-assess priorities each year.
The three agencies have built a solid working relationship that spans 15 years. They are confident that positive and measurable outcomes with broader reach can be realised for Indigenous peoples and the research sector, while celebrating, reflecting and building on the gains that have already been made.
Pictured: Representatives of the three medical research funding agencies: From left, Mr Stacey Pene and Dr Tania Pocock from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Professor Anne Kelso from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and Dr Carrie Bourassa from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
-
News Article
OPINION: The Health Research Council of New Zealand’s chief executive, Professor Kath McPherson, adds her voice to the debate stimulated by a Stuff column published earlier this week.
Earlier this week, Stuff published a piece titled The Treaty has no place in scientific endeavour. The twittersphere responded swiftly and reading the comments has been a mix of challenging, distressing and inspiring.
So, where does the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) stand? Well, we are one of the government agencies responsible for setting New Zealand’s health research priorities for the next 10 years, and I can tell you that the whole process is taking place in partnership with Māori. It must.
If you aren’t involved in science or the process of consultation in science, you might read the Stuff article and be persuaded that science is values-free, should be disconnected from societal views, and that it’s somehow pure in a way that consultation with Māori would negate.
The author is likely not entirely alone in thinking consultation with Māori or with lay members of society about what goes on in science is non-essential (or limiting). At times, I suspect, many have seen it to be more of an after-thought rather than integral. However, science leadership in New Zealand, and a growing number of scientists, are committed to supporting a different view, to get the very best science we can to benefit New Zealand.
I won’t repeat here all that has been said by the University of Otago’s Associate Professor William Levack or Professor Margreet Vissers responding to the original piece, as to why consultation with Māori is a fundamentally legitimate part of what, and how, we do things in New Zealand. These researchers and many others clearly know the Treaty has a rightful place in science and that consultation with tangata whenua – and other citizens – helps improve their work, and the relevance of their work to New Zealanders.
In my own experience as a researcher, consultation with Māori (and people with disabilities, given my area of research) has always lifted my game, challenged me to rethink some assumptions I have made (what can be more scientific than that!) and pushed me to do better work. Being challenged about why I have chosen a particular topic or methodology has actually been helpful in refining my focus, or building a better argument as to the meaningfulness of the project, or why I thought it mattered.
A recent documentary about Stan Walker illustrated what consultation or partnership can, and does, achieve between Māori and researchers. It was Stan’s whānau who stimulated some of our best minds to focus on just why so many people were dying of the same variant of cancer. The basic biomedical science that was done was stimulated by a question that mattered to Māori. As a result, more New Zealanders are surviving and the Health Research Council is proud to have supported that work.
The same thing is true in Huntington’s Chorea, sudden infant death syndrome, and should be true in many other health conditions where Māori have higher incidence, greater prevalence of difficulties, and worse outcomes.
Science is about people (both scientists and those who use their results); it is about values (most scientists go into the fields they do because they care, and are motivated to make a contribution and a difference); it is political (as is clear from the Stuff piece), and it is about debate and argument (ideally respectful) to move thinking, knowledge and a range of benefits forward.
I welcome the commitment of the scientists we support, and the challenge they provide us in thinking about how to ensure New Zealand health research is the very best it can be.
For the Health Research Council, a pillar of our strategy is to ensure our research investment improves equity and sees our indigenous people and their capacity in science strengthened. You cannot separate consultation with Māori from good science in New Zealand. They are connected and, in fact, depend upon one another.
-
News Article
Entering a multi-sensory virtual reality environment that measures reactions such as heart rate and sweat, might be the key to developing more effective preventive healthcare measures for New Zealanders.
Dr Melanie Tomintz, a researcher at the University of Canterbury, has just been awarded a $150,000 explorer grant from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) to build such an environment, and to study the reactions of e-cigarette and tobacco smokers within it.
“A radical shift in thinking needs to be introduced to understand underlying causes of people’s subconscious behaviour,” says Dr Tomintz. Currently, health data is mainly collected by using surveys which can lead to bias and inaccurate representations of people’s actual behaviour, she claims.
Her exploratory study aims to measure people’s behavioural and psychophysiological reactions when exposed to virtual stimuli, such as tobacco, different flavours of e-cigarette liquids, and other conditions within a virtual world.
Dr Tomintz hopes the newly-collected behavioural data will be transformed into knowledge to support the development of innovative and personalised prevention and cessation support, and – in future – for planning healthier environments.
For her research, she’ll have access to an existing virtual lab, with two multisensory VR cage prototypes for multimodal feedback. But additional technology that exposes study participants to external stimuli, such as tobacco smoke and e-liquid flavours, will need to be acquired. Beyond this project, the virtual lab could be used to test people’s reactions to proposed future policies – a useful step before rolling out new treatments and policies, she says.
In another project being backed by the Health Research Council, a different and equally-novel approach will be used to address another pervasive behaviour: excessive ‘screen use’ by teenagers.
Screen use is now the main waking activity of New Zealand youth – or screenagers – and it’s a public health issue, asserts Dr Samantha Marsh from the University of Auckland.
Use of newer mobile devices and social media has been linked with unhappiness, loneliness, depression, risk-taking, isolation, exclusion and suicide. Yet, there are few tools available that effectively reduce screen-time in the long-term, she says.
Now, with her newly-gained explorer grant, Dr Marsh can design and test an intervention aimed at parents, to help them make decisions about reducing their teen’s screen time and to follow through on them.
Using the principles of neuroeconomics, which asserts that decision-making (particularly under risk and uncertainty) initiates in the emotion centre of the brain, Marsh will explore how to target emotion in the decision-making process, as opposed to relying on logic and rationalisation which has failed to address the issue.
Rather than focusing on outcomes (ie. ‘we are doing this to reduce screen time’), this technique influences decision-making by focusing on values, and the beliefs that inspire us. We might deeply value the idea of teens engaging with their environment or family, for example: excessive screen use merely represents a barrier or roadblock to this value,” explains Dr Marsh.
The ‘Start with WHY’ framework she proposes to use, has had success in the corporate world, but in the research environment is a radically different approach, she notes.
‘Different’ is part of the landscape when it comes to the Health Research Council’s explorer grants, says the crown agency’s chief executive, Professor Kath McPherson. The explorer grant scheme seeks to attract and fund transformative research ideas with the potential for major impact on healthcare.
In keeping with the innovative nature of these grants, the process of assessing applications also differs from the Health Research Council’s usual process of seeking external peer review. Instead, applications are short, anonymised, and reviewed by sub-panels within the explorer grant assessing committee, with emphasis placed on the ‘big picture’ and not researcher reputation.
“Our explorer grants aim to support scientists to do work that challenges established wisdom – to really go where no one has gone before and break new ground,” says Professor McPherson. “We know some of these studies will make a real difference to what we know, how we think, and eventually result in better outcomes for New Zealanders.”
A total of 10 explorer grants have today been announced, worth a combined value of $1.5 million. They cover a range of health disciplines and include an idea to use smallpox proteins to treat human inflammation, and the development of an all-new test for diagnosing prostate cancer.
See below for the full list of 2018 HRC explorer grant recipients, and to read lay summaries go to http://www.hrc.govt.nz/funding-opportunities/recipients and filter for ‘Researcher Initiated Proposals’, ‘Explorer Grants’ and ‘2018’.
2018 Explorer Grant recipients – full list
Dr Chris Baldi, University of Otago, Dunedin
A unique cellular mechanism for diabetic heart disease?
24 months, $150,000
Dr Paul Harris, University of Auckland
Pinpointing prostate cancer: A paradigm shift in diagnosis
24 months, $150,000
Ms Gayl Humphrey, University of Auckland
EngageBOT: Exploring chatbots for supporting patient engagement
24 months, $150,000
Professor Kurt Krause, University of Otago, Dunedin
Using smallpox proteins to treat human inflammation
24 months, $150,000
Dr Samantha Marsh, University of Auckland
'‘This is not an intervention, it’s a movement!’: reducing screen time in teens
24 months, $150,000
Professor Neil McNaughton, University of Otago, Dunedin
Developing and validating a novel site for mobile and unobtrusive EEG recording
24 months, $150,000
Associate Professor Anthony Phillips, University of Auckland
Is there a ‘fourth axis’ of vesicular communication?
24 months, $150,000
Dr Melanie Tomintz, University of Canterbury
Towards personalised digital health services for preventable health conditions
24 months, $150,000
Dr Ehsan Vaghefi, University of Auckland
Ocular laser bio-meter, fast and cheap early diagnosis of vision impairment
24 months, $150,000
Dr Paul Young, University of Auckland
A universal scaffold for multivalent vaccine development
24 months, $150,000