Hong Kong

Organizing Questions

1. Which organization(s) are significant sources of research funding? 
2. What does the normal science funding/policy decision-making process look like?
3. Which patient advocacy groups, if any, are active in the area?
4. Are there existing national/regional organizations that work towards improving research funding/policy?
5. How do scientists currently contribute to the existing funding/policy-making/advocacy process, if at all? 
6. When are science funding/policy decisions made? 
7. What kinds of opportunities exist for scientists to interact with funders and policymakers?

1. Which organization(s) are significant sources of research funding? 

• National government
  • Food and Health Bureau, The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR):
    • Health and Medical Research Fund
  • Innovation and Technology Commission, HKSAR, China:
    • Innovation and Technology FundUniversity Grants Committee (UGC), HKSAR, China:
  • General Research Fund (GRF)
  • Collaborative Research Fund (CRF)
  • Theme-based Research Scheme (TRS)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China/RCG Joint Research Scheme

• Private funding/foundations/charity groups
  • S.K. Yee Medical Foundation
  • Croucher Foundation

 2. What does the normal science funding/policy decision-making process look like?

• Which group/committee/person within the funding/policy organization makes the decisions?

Applications are typically subject to a two-tier peer review. A grant review board, i.e., "Biology and Medicine" panel makes the decisions. External reviewers can be recommended by applicants and are assigned by the HKSAR government. In UGC, the Secretariat reviews the external reviewer (ER) database on a regular basis. An external consultant was engaged in May 2020 to conduct a review of the ER database with the goal of improving procedures to add and remove ERs from the database. 

• What are the criteria the funding/policy organization(s) use to make their decisions?

Each fund has different preferences and priorities on specific research areas. For example, the HMRF vetting process will focus on:

• • Scientific merits
  • Local relevance
  • Translational potential/value of the proposals
  • Capacity of the administering institutions
  • Sustainability of health promotion projects
  • Applicants' track records
  • Value for money of the proposals and research ethics, when applicable

3. Which patient advocacy groups, if any, are active in the area?

N/A

4. Are there existing national/regional organizations that work towards improving research funding/policy?

N/A

5. How do scientists currently contribute to the existing funding/policy-making/advocacy process, if at all?

Scientists may express their opinions to funders via a variety of channels, including email. Scientists may also become members of Advisory Groups.

6. When are science funding/policy decisions made? 

Generally, decisions are made annually. Some decisions are made on an ad-hoc basis.

7. What kinds of opportunities exist for scientists to interact with funders and policymakers?

• Can scientists invite decision makers to their lab/institution to see their work firsthand?

This is uncommon, unless funders decide to audit.

• Do the funding/policy organizations hold open meetings or solicit comments from the public that researchers can participate in?

Institutions organize briefing and sharing sessions during which researchers can inquire or submit comments directly to funding and/or policy organizations/

Contributors

Carol Y. Cheung, PhD (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China)

Calvin C.P. Pang, DPhil, FARVO (The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China)