Gottschalk Medal

The Gottschalk Medal recognises outstanding contribution to research in the biomedical sciences.
Closed Submission deadline:
Gottschalk Medal
Image Description

Award highlights

  • The award recognises outstanding research in the biomedical sciences by researchers up to 10 years post-PhD in the calendar year of nomination.
  • This award recognises the contributions to science by the late Professor A Gottschalk FAA.

The Gottschalk Medal recognises the contributions to science by the late Professor A Gottschalk FAA.

Its purpose is to recognise outstanding research in the biomedical sciences by researchers up to 10 years post-PhD in the calendar year of nomination, except in the case of significant interruptions to a research career. For the purposes of this award, the Academy broadly defines biomedical sciences as the genetic, cellular and molecular basis of the development, physiology and disorders of humans and relevant model organisms. It includes the development of diagnostics and therapies, but generally not biomedical devices or clinical trials, unless they involved a major and/or unique new approach or principle.

The award is made annually and is restricted to candidates who are normally resident in Australia. Relevant research undertaken outside Australia may be considered, provided the researcher has conducted the majority of their research career—defined as periods of employment or study primarily involving research activities or research training—in Australia, and has been resident in Australia for at least the past two years. 

This award is open to nominations for candidates from all genders. The Australian Academy of Science encourages nominations of female candidates and of candidates from a broad geographical distribution.

Candidates may be put forward for more than one award. If a proposed candidate is already the recipient of an Academy early-career honorific award, they will not be eligible for nomination for another early-career or mid-career honorific award. A mid-career honorific award recipient will also not be eligible for nomination for another mid-career honorific award. Fellows of the Academy are ineligible to be nominated for early and mid-career awards.

Key dates

Below are the key dates for the nomination process. While we aim to keep to this schedule, some dates may change depending on circumstances.

Nominations open

Nominations close

Referee letter deadline

Notification of outcome

Public announcement of outcome

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and FAQs provide important information about eligibility, submission requirements, and assessment processes. Please review them carefully before submitting a nomination.

Please submit your nominations using the Nominate button found on the top right of this webpage when nominations are open.

Please note the Academy uses a nomination platform that is external to the main Academy site. Nominators will be required to create an account on the platform. Even if you are familiar with the nomination process, please allow extra time to familiarise yourself with the platform.

Early-career, mid-career and career medals

Can I nominate myself?

  • No – you must be nominated by someone else. Self-nominations are not accepted.

Can I submit a nomination on behalf of someone else?

  • Yes – you can submit a nomination on behalf of someone else if you are not the nominator. An example would be a university grants office or personal/executive assistant completing the online nomination form on behalf of a nominator. Once the form is submitted, the nominator will be sent an email confirming that the nomination has been completed. If a nominee submits a nomination for themselves on behalf of a nominator it will not be considered a self-nomination.

Residency requirements

  • Winners of all awards except the Haddon Forrester King Medal should be mainly resident in Australia and/or have a substantive position in Australia at the time of the nomination deadline. Unless explicitly stated in the awarding conditions, the research being put forward for the award should have been undertaken mainly in Australia. Some awards have more specific conditions that the relevant selection committee must apply and nominators are advised to read the conditions associated with each award very carefully.

Honorific career eligibility (more specific details found in the honorific awards nominator guidelines and the honorific award post PhD eligibility guidelines)

  • Career eligibility is calculated by calendar year.
  • Early career awards are open to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD.*
  • Mid-career awards are open to researchers between eight and 15 years post-PhD.*
  • Please note that the Awards Committee may consider nominees with post PhD dates outside of these ranges if a career exemption request is being submitted with the nomination, further guidelines on career exemption requests can be found in the nomination guidelines.
  • See the post-PhD eligibility guidelines document for relevant conferral dates.
  • * or equivalent first higher degree e.g. D.Phil., D.Psych., D.Sc.

Academy fellowship requirements in award nominations

  • Fellows and non-Fellows of the Academy can provide nominations for either Fellows or non-Fellows for all awards.

Women only awards

  • The Dorothy Hill, Nancy Millis and Ruby Payne-Scott Medals are for women only. These medals are open to nominees who self-identify as a woman in the award nomination form. The Academy does not require any statement beyond a nominee’s self-identification in the nomination form.
  • This practice is consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has recognised the non-binary nature of gender identity since 2013, and gives effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The Academy remains committed to the fundamental human rights principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and harassment, and privacy, as well as the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

PREVIOUS AWARDEES

Dr David Khoury, University of New South Wales

Dr David Khoury is an outstanding interdisciplinary researcher who has pioneered statistical and modelling approaches to address critical questions in infection and immunity. Since receiving his PhD in 2016, he’s authored 59 high-impact publications in top-tier journals including Nature Medicine and The Lancet Microbe.

Leveraging his background in applied mathematics, Dr Khoury has led methods to integrate clinical and laboratory data to deliver major impacts in malaria drug development, and COVID-19 and mpox vaccine policy. Among his many contributions, Dr Khoury was the first globally to identify an immune correlate of protection for COVID-19. He has innovated the way we assess new drugs for malaria, and he has also made major contributions to vaccine policy to combat the mpox pandemic.

Associate Professor Amy Cain, Macquarie University

Antibiotic resistance is predicted to cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050 – more than all cancers combined. This is because our trusty miracle drugs – antibiotics – no longer work against deadly infectious bacteria. Shockingly, we have next to no new antibiotics in the discovery pipeline and a lack of financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies have left academics to drive development of these life-saving drugs. Associate Professor Amy Cain’s research bridges a key gap between finding promising drug targets in bacteria and developing potent new antibiotics. She is developing and applying new technologies to the most deadly hospital bacteria to build blueprints of how their genes adapt during treatment with existing antibiotics, revealing hidden weaknesses that can be targeted with new drugs. She has also established Australia’s first ‘Galleria Research Facility’, an ethical, high-throughput insect model. She uses this to screen drug effectiveness and toxicity, bringing promising new antibiotics closer to human use.

Associate Professor Shom Goel, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre

Associate Professor Shom Goel is an oncologist and scientist at the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Over recent years, his laboratory research has sought to identify and understand treatments that block cancer cell division, with a focus on breast cancer. Through this work, he has made seminal discoveries that have changed the way we think about cancer cell division, cancer immunology, and cancer epigenetics. Importantly, these findings have led Associate Professor Goel to design novel therapeutic approaches for breast cancer and spearhead the translation of his findings into the clinic. The encouraging results from initial trials have triggered him to initiate two global studies that could change breast cancer treatment paradigms within the next 12 months. Importantly, the most recent lab discoveries from the Goel lab have further advanced thinking in this field and are driving the development of yet another generation of novel cancer therapies

Professor Eric Chow, Monash University

Approximately 570,000 cancer cases in women and 60,000 in men are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), a virus transmitted through sexual contact causing cervical, throat, genital and anal cancers. The HPV vaccine can protect women from cervical cancers, but Professor Eric Chow’s work has shown that the same vaccine can also protect men from HPV-related throat and ano-genital cancers, paving the way for new vaccination strategies, particularly in men. In the area of gonorrhoea transmission (more than 82 million cases world-wide annually), his research has identified kissing as the major means of transmission – rewriting 100-year-old paradigms. This finding will drive changes in future sexual health education programs relating to safer sex. Professor Chow has also contributed greatly to understanding changes in transmission of sexually transmissible infections (STIs) in the COVID-19 pandemic, and emerging outbreaks of non-classical STIs such as hepatitis A and mpox. Cumulatively, he has made an exceptional contribution to the field of sexual health.

Associate Professor Kirsty Short, University of Queensland

Associate Professor Kirsty Short’s work focuses on pandemic preparedness, with a specific goal to use basic research to improve clinical care and public health policy in the case of a viral outbreak. She has provided some of the first clinical and experimental evidence that overweight, obesity and diabetes affect the severity of both influenza and COVID-19. Associate Professor Short has also played an important role in defining the role of children in spreading SARSCoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Her work has resulted in high impact publications, improved public health and clinical care.

Professor Si Ming Man, Australian National University

Professor Si Ming Man’s work has significantly advanced our understanding of inflammation as an underlying mechanism of health and disease. His achievements are focused in three areas: (1) Identifying the parts of microbes that cause inflammation during infection and the molecules in our immune system that trigger this response. This work may lead to targeted treatments for diseases caused by too much inflammation, for example sepsis, food poisoning and gout. (2) Uncovering previously unknown molecules made by our bodies that directly attack microbes and working out if these can be turned into treatments that will work against bacteria, including those that are resistant to current antibiotics. (3) He discovered that some of the same molecules used by our immune system to detect and respond to microbes by initiating inflammation are also important in preventing cancer. This discovery might be useful in diagnosis or predicting outcomes in cancer or may offer clues to cancer prevention. 

Dr Alisa Glukhova, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)

All cellular organisms exchange information with their environment in the form of chemical molecules or light, electrical or physical stimuli. G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are primary information sensors at the cell surface and are major drug targets for a multitude of conditions. Dr Alisa Glukhova is using structural biology approaches to understand the biology of GPCRs and, specifically, how these receptors recognise chemical signals and how they transmit these signals inside the cell. Her research provided the first structural insights into the activation mechanism of the A1 adenosine receptor, a target for pain management and heart disease, opening possibilities for structure-based drug design. Her current work, in collaboration with researchers from Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, aims to understand the biology of other members of adenosine receptor family and identify novel mechanisms for targeting them, either through unconventional binding sites or by altering their signalling path. The current research in her lab at WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) is focused on understanding the structural basis of Wnt signalling that involves a different GPCR family that is a major target for cancer therapeutics.

Associate Professor Francine Marques, Monash University

Associate Professor Marques is an emerging global leader in cardiovascular research, who has shown how more dietary fibre will improve our blood pressure and lower chances of serious disease. Uncontrolled high blood pressure, also known as hypertension, can frequently lead to cardiovascular disease, and is the main risk factor for death globally. Yet in too many cases, hypertension is a direct result of our low-fibre, high-sodium Western diet. Through a series of influential and award-winning studies, Associate Professor Marques and her team have shown how gut microbes ferment fibre to create ‘cardio-protective’ molecules, which lower blood pressure and improve heart stiffness. 

These findings are important, because they mean we could treat or prevent cardiovascular disease through better diets and improved gut health.

Associate Professor Muireann Irish, University of Sydney

Dementia is one of the most pressing concerns for our aging society. Despite significant advances in dementia research, it remains challenging to accurately screen for subtle changes in behaviour and cognition at the earliest stages of the disease. 

Dr Muireann Irish’s research has systematically mapped how alterations in the brain’s grey and white matter contribute to memory dysfunction across different dementia syndromes. Her ground-breaking work has further uncovered that in parallel with loss of memory for the past, individuals with dementia have marked difficulties thinking about the future. 

Dr Irish is now developing novel approaches to screen for the earliest signs of underlying brain pathology, long before overt signs of dementia emerge. Her research vision is to advance early detection and swift intervention in dementia to improve quality of life for all affected.

Associate Professor Laura Mackay, Doherty Institute

Associate Professor Mackay’s work contributed to identifying a subset of immune cells, called tissue-resident memory T cells, which provide front-line defence for the body against repeated infection. Her work represented a paradigm shift in thinking about T cell immunity as these tissue-resident memory T cells reside permanently within body tissues and are distinct from the blood populations that are primed in lymphoid organs. Tissue-resident T cells have been found in a variety of tissues throughout the body and Associate Professor Mackay’s ongoing work has provided a new understanding of the body’s immune defences and their role in combating infectious disease. Associate Professor Mackay’s future research is directed toward harnessing these cells to create new therapies for infectious disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases.

Associate Professor Alex Fornito, Monash University

Associate Professor Alex Fornito’s research aims to understand what the extraordinarily complex network of nerve cells connected by trillions of fibres means for human brain function, and how disruptions of brain connectivity can lead to mental illness. His innovative research combines brain imaging with techniques from psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, genetics, physics and mathematics to map and model the brain as an interconnected system. The ultimate aim is to understand how brain network function supports behaviour and track how disruption to this process causes disease.

2017

Associate Professor Kathryn Elizabeth Holt, University of Melbourne

Associate Professor Holt’s current research tracks the evolution and spread of deadly infectious diseases and the development of antibiotic resistance in Australia and developing countries. Her in-depth studies on the evolution of specific pathogen populations use the most advanced DNA sequencing technologies that allow detailed comparisons of the genomes of hundreds of closely related isolates of the same pathogen. These have revealed how pathogens are evolving in response to exposure to antibiotics, vaccine-induced immunity, or natural host immunity. Her work has provided important advances in understanding disease transmission, control of infection and informs public health policy and practice.

2016

Professor Ostoja Steve Vucic, Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney

Professor Vucic is a translational researcher, whose pioneering research has uncovered novel mechanisms that underlie the development of neurodegeneration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). He has identified important processes that contribute to the triggering of ALS, leading to the identification of novel therapeutic targets and therapeutic approaches. In addition, Professor Vucic has invented a much needed diagnostic technique for ALS, enabling an earlier diagnosis of ALS at a point where the disease may be amenable to neuroprotective therapies, and this technique has also enabled an earlier recruitment of patients into clinical trials. Professor Vucic has also made significant research contributions in the understanding of molecular and genetic processes underlying relapsing and progressive forms of multiple sclerosis, leading to development of novel treatments for these chronic diseases.

2015

Dr Peter Czabotar, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research

Dr Czabotar’s research is delivering new insights into the molecular control of programmed cell death, an important biological defence mechanism that removes dangerous cells from the body including those involved in tumourigenesis. He has played a key role in the development of therapeutics that induce cell death in tumours and his recent work provides new strategies for developing agents to treat disorders characterised by excessive cell death such as neurodegeneration.

2014

Associate Professor Kieran F. Harvey, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre

Associate Professor Kieran Harvey’s research findings are important for understanding species diversity and development, and are directly relevant to human diseases such as cancer. Organ size-control is a fundamental aspect of biology and varies greatly among animals. Signalling networks that control organ size are only beginning to be unravelled. Foremost among them is the recently discovered Hippo pathway. Greater knowledge of size control will potentially have a huge impact on human cancer and degenerative diseases, and provide fertile ground for therapeutic interventions. Associate Professor Harvey was an integral member of the team that discovered the Hippo pathway. He was also was the first to show that the Hippo pathway is evolutionarily conserved, and that it is mutated in human cancer. More recently, Associate Professor Harvey' s laboratory discovered that the Hippo pathway controls organ regeneration.

2013

Dr Benjamin Kile, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research

Dr Benjamin Kile is a molecular geneticist workingon blood cell formation and function, particularly as it relates to haematopoietic stem cell development, leukaemogenesis and inflammation. His group has shed new light on the mechanism by which blood platelets are produced, how their life cycle is regulated, and the impact cancer chemotherapy has on these processes. They have also elucidated the critical role of the potent human oncogene ERG in stem cell function and the development of leukaemia. This work has paved the way to an understanding of how ERG promotes cancer growth, and ultimately, to the identification of new entry points for cancer therapies.

2012

Professor Katharina Gaus, University of New South Wales

Associate Professor Katharina Gaus is a leader in the field of cellular immunology and molecular microscopy. The main aim of her research has been to gain a mechanistic understanding of the organisation of the plasma membrane within cells. She has pioneered fluorescence microscopy approaches to examine and quantify T-cell signalling on a single molecule level (super-resolution microscopy) in living cells. Her research has provided the first evidence for lipids being linked to T-cell activation on a molecular and functional level, and may explain why immune function is compromised in obese people.

2011

Dr Stuart Tangye, Garvan Institute of Medical Research

The primary goal of Stuart Tangye’s research is to investigate the development of different classes of human immune cells, and determine how these processes are compromised in individuals with diseases such as immunodeficiencies that are caused by errors in single genes, and to understand how these gene errors result in catastrophic conditions. His findings have identified important roles of key genes in normal immune responses, and revealed pathways that could be targeted to modulate responses in immunodeficiency or autoimmunity.

2010

Professor James Whisstock, Monash University

James Whisstock studies how our bodies combat infection by bacteria and viruses. He has shown that an important family of human immunity proteins that eliminate cells infected with virus or pre-cancerous cells are related to toxins known to be used by bacteria to destroy human tissue. James’s work may one day help develop new ways to control the unwanted activity of immune proteins in transplant rejection and diabetes.

2009

Dr Carola Vinuesa, Australian National University

Carola Vinuesa’s research in the field of immunology has seen the discovery of key mechanisms controlling antibody formation and quality in germinal centres, revealing a previously unknown immune regulatory mechanism. This is a major conceptual advance in understanding the cause of autoimmune diseases, such as lupus and diabetes, and opens up new possibilities for treatments.

2008

Dr Gabrielle Belz, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research

Gabrielle Belz has made a series of ground-breaking discoveries on the response of the immune system to viruses. These include identifying subsets of dendritic cells that initiate the T-cell response, tracking T-cell proliferation and differentiation during an immune response, and delineating the requirements for T-cell reactivation upon secondary infection. Through this work she and her colleagues have altered the understanding of the role of dendritic cell subsets in ways that will assist the design of vaccines against viruses.

2007

Professor Jamie Rossjohn, Monash University, Melbourne

Jamie Rossjohn’s primary contribution is to provide a structural basis for events central to infection and cellular immunity. He has provided insight into the mechanism of action of the cholesterol-dependent pore-forming toxins and a toxin that inactivates an essential chaperone protein. Jamie has provided an understanding of receptor-recognition events at the immunological synapse. This includes providing insights into the basis of MHCrestricted antigen recognition, T-cell immunodominance, allorecognition and signalling, and also MHC polymorphism in the context of antigen presentation and viral evasion.

2006

Dr Joel Mackay, University of Sydney

Joel Mackay has a distinguished career in human physiology and health research that is focused at the molecular level. He discovered the mechanisms behind the vancomycin group of antibiotics, leading to improved derivatives. He has made valuable contributions to understanding the transcriptional regulation involved with forming red blood cells, tracing point mutations, and protein structures, advancing knowledge of inherited blood disorders such as thalassemia.

2005—R.W Johnstone
2004—M.H. Little
2003—L.M. Khachigian
2002—M. Crossley
2001—C.C. Goodnow
2000—D.L. Vaux
1999—M.W. Parker
1998—D.J. Hilton
1997—P.R. Schofield
1997—B.J. Wainwright
1996—D.I. Cook
1995—M.J. Smyth
1994—P.J. Goadsby
1993—A. Cowman
1992—P.M. Hogarth
1991—R.A. Cuthbertson
1990—N.M. Gough
1989—A.R. Hardham
1988—A. Cockburn
1987—J.J. Burdon
1986—N.A. Nicola
1985—R. Appels
1984—J.A. Angus
1983—G.D. Farquhar
1982—J. Shine
1981—A.W. Burgess
1980—M.B. Renfree
1979—C.R. Parish

Frederick White Medal

The Frederick White Medal recognises the achievements of scientists in Australia who are engaged in research of intrinsic scientific merit in the areas of physics, astronomy, chemistry, and the terrestrial and planetary sciences.
Closed Submission deadline:
White Medal
Image Description

Award highlights

  • The award recognises the achievements of scientists in Australia who are engaged in research of intrinsic scientific merit that has made an actual or potential contribution to community interests, to rural or industrial progress, or to the understanding of natural phenomena that have an impact on the lives of people.
  • Relevant areas of research are physics, astronomy, chemistry, and the terrestrial and planetary sciences.
  • This award honors the contributions to Australian science of the late Sir Frederick White KBE FAA FRS.

The Frederick White Medal honours the contributions to Australian science of the late Sir Frederick White KBE FAA FRS. It recognises the achievements of scientists in Australia who are engaged in research of intrinsic scientific merit that has made an actual or potential contribution to community interests, to rural or industrial progress, or to the understanding of natural phenomena that have an impact on the lives of people. Relevant areas of research are physics, astronomy, chemistry, and the terrestrial and planetary sciences. The Medal and an honorarium of up to $3000 (GST exempt) are awarded biennially to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD in the calendar year of nomination, except in the case of significant interruptions to a research career. Relevant research undertaken outside Australia may be considered, provided the researcher has conducted the majority of their research career—defined as periods of employment or study primarily involving research activities or research training—in Australia, and has been resident in Australia for at least the past two years.

This award is open to nominations for candidates from all genders. The Australian Academy of Science encourages nominations of female candidates and of candidates from a broad geographical distribution.

Candidates may be put forward for more than one award. If a proposed candidate is already the recipient of an Academy early-career honorific award, they will not be eligible for nomination for another early-career or mid-career honorific award. A mid-career honorific award recipient will also not be eligible for nomination for another mid-career honorific award. Fellows of the Academy are ineligible to be nominated for early and mid-career awards.

Key dates

Below are the key dates for the nomination process. While we aim to keep to this schedule, some dates may change depending on circumstances.

Nominations open

Nominations close

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and FAQs provide important information about eligibility, submission requirements, and assessment processes. Please review them carefully before submitting a nomination.

Please submit your nominations using the Nominate button found on the top right of this webpage when nominations are open.

Please note the Academy uses a nomination platform that is external to the main Academy site. Nominators will be required to create an account on the platform. Even if you are familiar with the nomination process, please allow extra time to familiarise yourself with the platform.

Early-career, mid-career and career medals

Can I nominate myself?

  • No – you must be nominated by someone else. Self-nominations are not accepted.

Can I submit a nomination on behalf of someone else?

  • Yes – you can submit a nomination on behalf of someone else if you are not the nominator. An example would be a university grants office or personal/executive assistant completing the online nomination form on behalf of a nominator. Once the form is submitted, the nominator will be sent an email confirming that the nomination has been completed. If a nominee submits a nomination for themselves on behalf of a nominator it will not be considered a self-nomination.

Residency requirements

  • Winners of all awards except the Haddon Forrester King Medal should be mainly resident in Australia and/or have a substantive position in Australia at the time of the nomination deadline. Unless explicitly stated in the awarding conditions, the research being put forward for the award should have been undertaken mainly in Australia. Some awards have more specific conditions that the relevant selection committee must apply and nominators are advised to read the conditions associated with each award very carefully.

Honorific career eligibility (more specific details found in the honorific awards nominator guidelines and the honorific award post PhD eligibility guidelines)

  • Career eligibility is calculated by calendar year.
  • Early career awards are open to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD.*
  • Mid-career awards are open to researchers between eight and 15 years post-PhD.*
  • Please note that the Awards Committee may consider nominees with post PhD dates outside of these ranges if a career exemption request is being submitted with the nomination, further guidelines on career exemption requests can be found in the nomination guidelines.
  • See the post-PhD eligibility guidelines document for relevant conferral dates.
  • * or equivalent first higher degree e.g. D.Phil., D.Psych., D.Sc.

Academy fellowship requirements in award nominations

  • Fellows and non-Fellows of the Academy can provide nominations for either Fellows or non-Fellows for all awards.

Women only awards

  • The Dorothy Hill, Nancy Millis and Ruby Payne-Scott Medals are for women only. These medals are open to nominees who self-identify as a woman in the award nomination form. The Academy does not require any statement beyond a nominee’s self-identification in the nomination form.
  • This practice is consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has recognised the non-binary nature of gender identity since 2013, and gives effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The Academy remains committed to the fundamental human rights principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and harassment, and privacy, as well as the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

PREVIOUS AWARDEES

Dr Adele Morrison, Australian National University

Dr Adele Morrison studies how our changing climate will affect the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. She uses her knowledge of ocean physics, combined with supercomputers, to develop models and make projections of this critically important region. Dr Morrison's work has involved predicting how ocean circulation will respond to climate change, including the consequences of oceanic changes for the global carbon cycle and Southern Ocean ecosystems.

She also studies how the coastal waters around Antarctica will be altered under future climate scenarios, which has implications for the future of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and the consequent rate of global sea level rise. Dr Morrison has made a substantial contribution to the development of Australia's capability to model Antarctic oceanography and is a leader of the Australian ocean-sea ice modelling community.

Dr Hamish Clarke, University of Melbourne

Wildfires are part of life. Not just in Australia, but all over the world. If we’re going to live with fire, we’d better get to know it. This is according to Dr Hamish Clarke, who studies climate change effects on bushfire risk: how a warming world changes the chances of fire-related threats being realised. His research ranges from the drivers of fire (think fuel, dryness, weather and ignitions), to impacts on people, property and the environment, to prescribed burning. For Dr Clarke, science is half the puzzle – the other half is working closely with fire managers and the community, to understand their values and work to get everyone on the same page. His research shows that the increasing fire weather conditions we currently see could be a prelude to something much worse without strong climate change action. It is also paving a path to quantitative, risk-based approaches to fire management.

Professor Kerrylee Rogers, University of Wollongong

Professor Kerrylee Rogers has made an internationally significant contribution to one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time: the impact of climate change on the world’s most threatened and ecologically important habitat, wetlands. Her work has demonstrated that coastal wetlands (mangrove and saltmarsh) respond dynamically to sea-level rise. By trapping sediment and building root systems, wetlands adapt to climate change but also help mitigate climate change by sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide. Professor Rogers has used these insights to show that the restoration of coastal wetlands is an effective climate change adaptation strategy that can yield financial benefits to landholders. Carbon captured through wetland restoration can be reported by governments as saved emissions and traded by landholders in emissions trading programs. These insights have been effectively communicated through management and policy-focused papers, presentations and expert advice.

Professor Madhu Bhaskaran, RMIT University

Professor Madhu Bhaskaran is transforming how we imagine, use, and interact with electronic devices. Professor Bhaskaran’s signature advance is in the field of stretchable electronics where she has developed techniques to stretch devices to an unprecedented level – allowing them to be worn on the skin. This has realised a range of visionary applications, such as skin-worn sensors that alert miners to dangerous gas levels, or warn civilians about harmful UV levels. Professor Bhaskaran is currently working with industry partners to bring these sensors out from the laboratory into everyday life. These are in the form of sensors in bedding products for aged care which would non-invasively track presence and biometrics of aged people during night.

Dr Alex Sen Gupta, The University of New South Wales Sydney

Dr Alex Sen Gupta is one of Australia’s foremost experts in large‐scale climate variability and change with a particular focus on the Southern Hemisphere ocean and atmosphere. His work spans a large array of areas and has led to a greater understanding of large‐scale climate variability and change. His world‐class research achievements have provided new insights into improving seasonal forecasts; identifying and correcting errors in modern climate models, improving climate projections, and improving our understanding of how physical changes to our oceans affect marine biology and important fisheries.

2016

Associate Professor Michael James Ireland, Australian National University

Associate Professor Ireland develops and applies the latest optical and infrared technologies to build innovative astronomical instruments to probe the lifecycles of stars and planets. A central aim of his research has been to develop instrumentation and techniques capable of finding out how planets form and evolve. One example of this research has been the discovery of the first planet orbiting another star to be caught in the process of formation. He has also shown, both from theory and from observations using innovative astronomical instruments, just how dying solar-type stars shed their outer layers in a wind of molecules and tiny transparent dust grains. He is currently building innovative astronomical instrumentation for detecting planets around other stars, both for Australian telescopes and the largest international telescopes.

2014

Professor Christian S M Turney, University of New South Wales

Professor Turney is an internationally recognised earth scientist and research leader in both climate and environmental change, from the tropics to the poles. By pioneering new ways of combining climate models with records of past climate change (spanning from hundreds to thousands of years), he has discovered new links between variability mechanisms in the Australian region and global climate change.

2012

Dr Andrew Hogg, Australian National University

Dr Andrew Hogg uses models of ocean circulation to understand the role of oceans in climate. He has discovered new ways in which the ocean can generate low frequency climate variability, and has applied this knowledge to the prediction of the ocean’s response to climate change. He has demonstrated the importance of resolving small-scale circulation features, particularly in the Southern Ocean region, pointing the way forward for the next generation of climate models.

2010

Dr Amanda Barnard, CSIRO Materials Science and Engineering

Using Australia’s largest supercomputer, Amanda Barnard studies the possible toxicology and environmental impact of nanoparticles, only millionths of a millimetre in size, by predicting how nanoscale materials could react in different environments. This enables the selection of nanomaterials from the large number currently being produced that are likely to be safest, both for people and the environment, and mitigating the risk of harmful combinations.

2008

Dr Ronald Smernik, The University of Adelaide

Ronald Smernik has made a significant impact on the chemistry of organic materials in soils and sediments. His work focuses on the development and application of innovative and sophisticated nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) techniques to characterise soil properties. His research has increased understanding of soil processes and their significance in global carbon cycling, and has important applications in soil management for sustainable agriculture.

2006

Dr James Tickner, CSIRO

James Tickner has made impressive scientific contributions in innovation and has secured six patents. He developed nuclear instrumentation for the mineral industry and invented a new type of camera for finding buried landmines. He co-invented the concept of fast-neutron/gamma ray radiography for rapidly screening bulk cargo. He has made important advances in the fields of nuclear simulation and solving challenging measurement or imaging problems.

2004—M. H. England
2002—L. D. Rotstayn
2000—P. J. Scales
1998—G. I. McFadden
1996—I. E. Woodrow
1994—R.T. Kingsford
1992—M.B. Singh
1990—D.J. Evans
1988—T.J. McDougall
1986—L.R. White
1984—P.M. Colman

Fenner Medal

The Fenner Medal recognises outstanding contribution to research in biology (excluding the biomedical sciences).
Closed Submission deadline:
Fenner Medal
Image Description

Award highlights

  • The award recognises outstanding research in biology (excluding the biomedical sciences) by researchers up to 10 years post-PhD in the calendar year of nomination.
  • This award recognises the contributions to science by the late Professor Frank J Fenner AC MBE FAA FRS.

The Fenner Medal recognises outstanding contributions to science by the late Professor Frank J Fenner AC MBE FAA FRS. Its purpose is to recognise outstanding research in biology (excluding the biomedical sciences) by researchers up to 10 years post-PhD in the calendar year of nomination, except in the case of significant interruptions to a research career. 

The award is made annually and is restricted to candidates who are normally resident in Australia. Relevant research undertaken outside Australia may be considered, provided the researcher has conducted the majority of their research career—defined as periods of employment or study primarily involving research activities or research training—in Australia, and has been resident in Australia for at least the past two years.

This award is open to nominations for candidates from all genders. The Australian Academy of Science encourages nominations of female candidates and of candidates from a broad geographical distribution.

Candidates may be put forward for more than one award. If a proposed candidate is already the recipient of an Academy early-career honorific award, they will not be eligible for nomination for another early-career or mid-career honorific award. A mid-career honorific award recipient will also not be eligible for nomination for another mid-career honorific award. Fellows of the Academy are ineligible to be nominated for early and mid-career awards.

Key dates

Below are the key dates for the nomination process. While we aim to keep to this schedule, some dates may change depending on circumstances.

Nominations open

Nominations close

Referee letter deadline

Notification of outcome

Public announcement of outcome

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and FAQs provide important information about eligibility, submission requirements, and assessment processes. Please review them carefully before submitting a nomination.
 

Please submit your nominations using the Nominate button found on the top right of this webpage when nominations are open.

Please note the Academy uses a nomination platform that is external to the main Academy site. Nominators will be required to create an account on the platform. Even if you are familiar with the nomination process, please allow extra time to familiarise yourself with the platform.

Early-career, mid-career and career medals

Can I nominate myself?

  • No – you must be nominated by someone else. Self-nominations are not accepted.

Can I submit a nomination on behalf of someone else?

  • Yes – you can submit a nomination on behalf of someone else if you are not the nominator. An example would be a university grants office or personal/executive assistant completing the online nomination form on behalf of a nominator. Once the form is submitted, the nominator will be sent an email confirming that the nomination has been completed. If a nominee submits a nomination for themselves on behalf of a nominator it will not be considered a self-nomination.

Residency requirements

  • Winners of all awards except the Haddon Forrester King Medal should be mainly resident in Australia and/or have a substantive position in Australia at the time of the nomination deadline. Unless explicitly stated in the awarding conditions, the research being put forward for the award should have been undertaken mainly in Australia. Some awards have more specific conditions that the relevant selection committee must apply and nominators are advised to read the conditions associated with each award very carefully.

Honorific career eligibility (more specific details found in the honorific awards nominator guidelines and the honorific award post PhD eligibility guidelines)

  • Career eligibility is calculated by calendar year.
  • Early career awards are open to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD.*
  • Mid-career awards are open to researchers between eight and 15 years post-PhD.*
  • Please note that the Awards Committee may consider nominees with post PhD dates outside of these ranges if a career exemption request is being submitted with the nomination, further guidelines on career exemption requests can be found in the nomination guidelines.
  • See the post-PhD eligibility guidelines document for relevant conferral dates.
  • * or equivalent first higher degree e.g. D.Phil., D.Psych., D.Sc.

Academy fellowship requirements in award nominations

  • Fellows and non-Fellows of the Academy can provide nominations for either Fellows or non-Fellows for all awards.

Women only awards

  • The Dorothy Hill, Nancy Millis and Ruby Payne-Scott Medals are for women only. These medals are open to nominees who self-identify as a woman in the award nomination form. The Academy does not require any statement beyond a nominee’s self-identification in the nomination form.
  • This practice is consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has recognised the non-binary nature of gender identity since 2013, and gives effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The Academy remains committed to the fundamental human rights principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and harassment, and privacy, as well as the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

PREVIOUS AWARDEES

Dr Kai Xun Chan, Australian National University

Dr Chan has led breakthroughs in our understanding of plant cellular communication during environmental stresses such as drought and intense sunlight. He identified how a sensor protein perceives stress in chloroplasts to produce a chemical signal. He then co-led a series of breakthroughs demonstrating how this chloroplast signalling pathway intersects with plant hormones and other cellular signals to fine-tune stomatal closure and water preservation in all land plants.

His team further showed that this chloroplast signalling pathway has its genesis in aquatic algae, and its function in water preservation could have facilitated the transition of plants from water to land. Furthermore, this chloroplast signal has adopted specialised functions in different leaf cell types, including in plants that have evolved heat-resilient photosynthesis. These findings have significantly advanced fundamental chloroplast biology beyond photosynthesis, providing a novel pathway for engineering future climate-resilient crops.

Associate Professor Katherine Moseby, University New South Wales

Associate Professor Katherine Moseby is a conservation biologist who specialises in desert ecology. She researches ecosystem restoration and threatened species reintroductions. She is passionate about conducting research and applying the results to improve conservation outcomes. Her work includes co-founding four conservation research initiatives, and she partners with government, NGOs and industry groups to ensure her research is relevant, timely and has impact.

Associate Professor Daniel Noble, Australian National University

Research findings are rapidly accumulating across science. This has caused a revolution in data synthesis (meta-analysis) driving evidence-based advancement of fundamental science, applied research and policy. Ecological data is especially challenging to handle because studies are highly variable (such as different species, ecosystems), but synthesis is essential to predict how climate change, invasive species and human activities affect biodiversity. Associate Professor Daniel Noble is spearheading global initiatives to improve biostatistical analyses of ecological and evolutionary studies. He has developed analytical approaches to deal with existing data; methods to estimate missing data; and user-friendly software for data extraction. His new tools are invaluable to biologists but are also used globally by scientists in fields as diverse as psychology and genetics. Associate Professor Noble is also an effective advocate for open and transparent science, reflected in his collaborative approach to research and his altruist service to the scientific community. This includes curating preprint archives, providing free software, and organising conferences and workshops.

Associate Professor Ana Martins Sequeira, Australian National University

Associate Professor Ana Martins Sequeira is a world-class researcher in marine ecology, focused on the development and application of innovative analytical methods to assist conservation of marine megafauna species such as whales, sharks and turtles. She is interested in understanding patterns of marine biodiversity across the entire planet, particularly those with relevance to assist conservation management. She pioneered the development of statistical models to predict the global occurrence of highly migratory species, and provided the first global assessment of potential human impacts on marine megafauna. She also built large international teams to promote data collection on the global movement of marine megafauna, which has ensured better evidence-based policy to conserve these threatened, charismatic species. Associate Professor Martins Sequeira’s research has helped to change the conservation status of vulnerable species, driven international efforts that shaped the discipline of marine biologging, and championed data sharing of marine megafauna tracks. Her ability to translate academic science to practical outcomes has deep implications for how we sustain biodiversity in our oceans.

Associate Professor Emily Wong, Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute

Associate Professor Emily Wong’s work contributes to our understanding of an overarching question in genetics – how does the genome specify animal form and function. This is a complex problem because, unlike genes that encode proteins, gene regulatory elements cannot be easily defined based on comparative analysis of their DNA sequence alone. The elements that make up these regions remain unclear despite our ability to sequence genomes and map active regions that control gene expression. Associate Professor Wong has used systems biology approaches combining evolutionary, computational and molecular biology skills to interrogate how the non-coding genome determines cell identity. Her work has provided detailed understanding of the complex relationships between the genome and gene activity, including insights into how cis-regulatory elements evolve, and the non-linear relationship between genetic variations and their impact on chromatin structure and gene expression.

Associate Professor Chris Greening, Monash University

Associate Professor Chris Greening’s remarkable discovery that bacteria can live on air has redefined what constitutes life. When bacteria exhaust organic energy sources, they can survive indefinitely by scavenging the unlimited supply of hydrogen and carbon monoxide gas present in the atmosphere. This survival mechanism has broad-reaching consequences for global biodiversity, infectious disease, climate change and public health research. Chris has revealed it supports the biodiversity of life’s soils and oceans, regulates greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and enhances agricultural productivity. He has also shown that these gas-eating bacteria provide a basis for life in continental Antarctica, where conditions are too extreme for plants to prosper. Yet similar survival mechanisms are also used by devastating human pathogens, including causative agents of tuberculosis and dysentery. By integrating his One Health microbiology laboratory with large-scale applied programs, Professor Greening is translating these fundamental insights into applied interventions that improve environmental and human health.

Associate Professor Eve McDonald-Madden, University of Queensland

Associate Professor Eve McDonald-Madden aims to improve sustainable policy decisions in the face of inherent complexity in environmental problems – numerous, diverse interacting species, lack of knowledge about how systems work, the impacts of climate change and competing demands for energy, food, water, health, money and nature. The foundation of her work is to maximise the effectiveness of scarce resources while dealing with deep uncertainties. Associate Professor McDonald-Madden has pioneered new approaches to decision-making for key environmental concerns – deciding how to act under uncertainty about climate change, accounting for the reliability of predictions, evaluating the trade-offs in global land use planning to achieve sustainability goals and knowing when spending money to monitor or to learn about ecological systems is not helpful. Her work has far reaching implications for governments, NGO’s and others who manage the environment.

Associate Professor Michael Bode, Queensland University of Technology

Associate Professor Michael Bode develops new mathematical theory and tools to better understand the Earth’s threatened ecosystems to more effectively conserve them into the future. His work has repeatedly overturned established beliefs about the best solution to common conservation problems and has used mathematical logic to convince scientists and managers to re-think conservation dogma and decision-making approaches to conservation across the world, especially of coral reef ecosystems. His marine science work has focused on developing new statistical tools to measure dispersal patterns, and new mathematical theories to understand the implications of these patterns. These new mathematical tools have given coastal marine science the first solid empirical understanding of how larval dispersal varies across space and species and have been highlighted in critical reviews of the field.

Dr Daniel Falster, UNSW Sydney

Walking through any forest, one is struck by the variety of plant forms coexisting. Given that all plants compete for the same basic resources, why is there not a single winner? Through explicit modelling of community assembly, driven by physiological trade-offs and competition for light, Falster’s work shows how particular trade-offs in the functioning of leaves and allocation of energy to reproduction enable distinct species to coexist, even while competing for a single resource. Combining multiple trade-offs predicts correctly the proliferation of shade-tolerant species and enables forests of considerably greater diversity than was previously thought possible. By adding selection into vegetation models, Dr Falster is pioneering a framework that makes first-principles predictions for the combination of traits favoured under any given environment. Combined with the large-scale datasets he has compiled, this work promises to transform community ecology into a predictive and data-oriented science, underpinning effective ecosystem management and restoration.

Dr Ceridwen Fraser, Australian National University

Dr Ceridwen Fraser’s research combines genetic with environmental and ecological data to discover the processes that drive biodiversity patterns. She has contributed extensively to our understanding of how plants and animals can travel long distances to colonise new lands, and to our knowledge of how species responded to past climate change. For example, her work has revealed evidence that, during past ice ages, many shallow-water marine species were scoured from sub-Antarctic shores by sea ice, while land-based Antarctic species sheltered near warm volcanoes. Her research has also helped us to understand how established populations can block immigrants, and how large-scale disturbances (such as earthquakes) that wipe out communities can thus create opportunities for immigration and change. Her research is grounded in assessment of how past processes have influenced contemporary biodiversity patterns, but has important implications for management of biodiversity into the future, particularly in the face of rapid environmental change.

2017

Professor Simon Ho, University of Sydney

Professor Ho has transformed the use of ‘molecular clocks’ in biology – a way of estimating evolutionary rates and timescales from DNA sequences using statistical models. Professor Ho’s most important and influential work has been on models of evolutionary rate variation through time. His research has critically changed the way in which biologists use molecular clocks, especially when studying the timescales of recent events in evolution and human prehistory. This has had important impacts on a broad range of studies in conservation genetics, speciation and diversification, domestication of animals and plants, and the population dynamics of pathogens.

2016

Associate Professor Jane Elith, University of Melbourne

Associate Professor Elith specialises in developing and evaluating species distribution models, statistical models that describe relationships between the occurrence and abundance of species and the environment. These models are used to predict where species occur in the landscape, or where they might occur in the future. Associate Professor Jane Elith has rapidly become one of the world’s most influential researchers in applied ecology. In addition to her major academic impacts, her guides and novel tools for modelling species and ecological communities have been used by government and environmental management agencies in Australia and internationally. The interface between environmental management and science makes extensive use of her research to plan management of invasive species, improve conservation of biodiversity, and contribute to strategic land-use planning. In this way, Associate Professor Elith has substantially influenced academic research, but also impacted environmental management nationally and internationally.

2015

Dr Ian Wright, Macquarie University

Plants grow by investing in leaves, which return revenue by photosynthesis. In Australian field studies and also through international collaborations, Dr Wright has elucidated major patterns governing investment in leaves. He has found there is an economic spectrum for leaves running from cheap to expensive leaf construction, with returns correspondingly running from quick to slow. On low nutrient soils, there is more expensive construction which confers a longer leaf lifespan. In dry environments, there is more nitrogen invested in leaves which economises on water use.

2014

Professor Katherine Belov, The University of Sydney

Professor Belov's research on immunity in marsupials and monotremes provides new understanding of mammalian immune systems and has great potential for managing wildlife diseases. She overturned the paradigm that Australian mammals have primitive immune systems and demonstrated they have immune gene complements similar to our own. She discovered that it is low diversity in the major histocompatibility complex that allows the spread of Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease, and has identified novel antimicrobial and venom peptides of potential biomedical relevance.

2013

Dr Ulrike Mathesius, Australian National University

Ulrike Mathesius is investigating how soil microbes shape the plant. She developed and applied techniques at a molecular, cellular and whole plant level to define mechanisms that symbiotic and pathogenic organisms use to manipulate plant development. A central idea of her work is that microbes have ‘hijacked’ plant signalling pathways for their own purposes. This has implications for utilising microbes to alter crop plant performance and for trying to develop nitrogen-fixing symbioses in non-legumes.

2012

Professor A Harvey Millar, University of Western Australia

Professor Harvey Millar’s research focuses on energy production in plants and how the process of respiration is affected by harsh climates. His work has shown how respiration can be protected in plant cells during environmental stress, how production of the antioxidant vitamin C is controlled in plants, and how the complex links between respiration and plant growth can alter plant yields. His discoveries underpin our understanding of respiratory damage in cell ageing and disease, relevant to both plants and animals.

2011

Dr Bryan Fry, University of Melbourne

Bryan Fry's multidisciplinary research examines the molecular evolution of protein toxins across the full geographical and taxonomical range of venomous animals, from the baking heat of the desert habitat of Australia's inland taipan (the world's most venomous snake) to the deep-sea giant octopus from Antarctica. His research has enabled formulation of a general theory of venom evolution and it has the potential to contribute substantially towards the area of drug development based on peptides from venomous animals.

2010

Professor Robert Brooks, University of New South Wales

Robert Brooks has combined insights from the fields of evolution, genetics, ecology and behaviour to understand the evolution of sex differences. He has achieved insights into the evolution of sex chromosomes, the biology of ageing and longevity, risks of extinction and the genetic benefits of mate choice. He has fundamentally changed the way scientists and the public think about the relationships between sex, death and diet.

2009

Associate Professor Sean Connolly, James Cook University

Sean Connolly’s research pioneers new approaches to understanding the generation and maintenance of biodiversity. He incorporates physiological and biomechanical processes that influence population dynamics, ecological interactions and their effects on the maintenance of biodiversity, and the global dynamics of biodiversity in the fossil record. He produced a modelling framework that has led to the identification of an important aspect of the future effects of ocean acidification – storm-induced dislodgement of coral colonies.

2008

Dr Michael McCarthy, The University of Melbourne

Michael McCarthy is an international leader in theoretical ecology having substantially contributed to risk models for threatened species, disturbance ecology, environmental decision-making and Bayesian methods in ecology. He has developed risk measures, approaches to model testing and validation, and numerical techniques to solve some long standing problems in ecology. He recently produced a book on Bayesian methods in ecology and has been researching decision-making models examining the mathematical structure of decisions.

2007

Dr Peter Dodds, CSIRO 

Peter Dodds is an exceptional and highly creative young researcher in the area of the molecular biology of host-pathogen interactions, specifically the interaction between the flax plant and its flax rust pathogen. He has isolated several genes from flax related to resistance to rust, providing insights into the evolution of these genes and the molecular basis for the specificity of plant-pathogen interaction. He has also isolated the first rust pathogen avirulence genes and developed a general method for isolating and recognising these genes. These discoveries have provided a route towards engineering new rust resistance genes for use in agriculture.

2006

Dr Barry Brook,  Charles Darwin University

Barry Brook is internationally recognised for excellence and innovation in conservation biology. His work has raised awareness of the relevance of past extinctions for present biodiversity loss. His research using analytical and computer simulation modelling has contributed to the modern understanding of species extinction dynamics. He gained his PhD from Macquarie University, Sydney on the subject of population viability analysis.

2005—B.A. Neilan
2004—G.D. Edgecombe
2003—A.G. Young
2002—S. Orgeig
2001—B.J. Pogson
2000—H. Possingham

Dorothy Hill Medal

The Dorothy Hill Medal recognises outstanding research in the Earth sciences, by women researchers who have the potential to further contribute to a better understanding of Australian Earth science.
Closed Submission deadline:
Hill Medal
Image Description

Award highlights

  • The award supports research in the Earth sciences, by women researchers up to 10 years post PhD in the calendar year of nomination.
  • This award honours the contributions of the late Professor Dorothy Hill AC CBE FAA FRS.
  • The Academy acknowledges the generous sponsorship provided by the Geological Society of Australia, the University of Queensland, the Brisbane Girls' Grammar School, the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, Rio Tinto and Woodside Energy.

The Dorothy Hill Medal honours the contributions of the late Professor Dorothy Hill AC CBE FAA FRS to Australian Earth science and her work in opening up tertiary science education to women. 

The award supports research in the Earth sciences, by women researchers up to 10 years post PhD in the calendar year of nomination, except in the case of significant interruptions to a research career. An honorarium of $3000 is offered.

The award may be made annually, for research carried out mainly in Australia. It is restricted to candidates who are normally resident in Australia and who have the potential to further contribute to a better understanding of Australian Earth science.

Candidates may be put forward for more than one award. If a proposed candidate is already the recipient of an Academy early-career honorific award, they will not be eligible for nomination for another early-career or mid-career honorific award. A mid-career honorific award recipient will also not be eligible for nomination for another mid-career honorific award. Fellows of the Academy are ineligible to be nominated for early and mid-career awards

Key dates

Below are the key dates for the nomination process. While we aim to keep to this schedule, some dates may change depending on circumstances.

Nominations open

Nominations close

Assessment period

Outcomes notified to nominators

Public announcement of awardee

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and FAQs provide important information about eligibility, submission requirements, and assessment processes. Please review them carefully before submitting a nomination.

Please submit your nominations using the Nominate button found on the top right of this webpage when nominations are open.

Please note the Academy uses a nomination platform that is external to the main Academy site. Nominators will be required to create an account on the platform. Even if you are familiar with the nomination process, please allow extra time to familiarise yourself with the platform.

Early-career, mid-career and career medals

Can I nominate myself?

  • No – you must be nominated by someone else. Self-nominations are not accepted.

Can I submit a nomination on behalf of someone else?

  • Yes – you can submit a nomination on behalf of someone else if you are not the nominator. An example would be a university grants office or personal/executive assistant completing the online nomination form on behalf of a nominator. Once the form is submitted, the nominator will be sent an email confirming that the nomination has been completed. If a nominee submits a nomination for themselves on behalf of a nominator it will not be considered a self-nomination.

Residency requirements

  • Winners of all awards except the Haddon Forrester King Medal should be mainly resident in Australia and/or have a substantive position in Australia at the time of the nomination deadline. Unless explicitly stated in the awarding conditions, the research being put forward for the award should have been undertaken mainly in Australia. Some awards have more specific conditions that the relevant selection committee must apply and nominators are advised to read the conditions associated with each award very carefully.

Honorific career eligibility (more specific details found in the honorific awards nominator guidelines and the honorific award post PhD eligibility guidelines)

  • Career eligibility is calculated by calendar year.
  • Early career awards are open to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD.*
  • Mid-career awards are open to researchers between eight and 15 years post-PhD.*
  • Please note that the Awards Committee may consider nominees with post PhD dates outside of these ranges if a career exemption request is being submitted with the nomination, further guidelines on career exemption requests can be found in the nomination guidelines.
  • See the post-PhD eligibility guidelines document for relevant conferral dates.
  • * or equivalent first higher degree e.g. D.Phil., D.Psych., D.Sc.

Academy fellowship requirements in award nominations

  • Fellows and non-Fellows of the Academy can provide nominations for either Fellows or non-Fellows for all awards.

Women only awards

  • The Dorothy Hill, Nancy Millis and Ruby Payne-Scott Medals are for women only. These medals are open to nominees who self-identify as a woman in the award nomination form. The Academy does not require any statement beyond a nominee’s self-identification in the nomination form.
  • This practice is consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has recognised the non-binary nature of gender identity since 2013, and gives effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The Academy remains committed to the fundamental human rights principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and harassment, and privacy, as well as the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

PREVIOUS AWARDEES

Dr Caroline Eakin, Australian National University

Plate tectonics is responsible for the most devasting earthquakes and explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth. This movement of the tectonic plates at the surface is tied to convection within the planet’s deep interior, but which we cannot directly observe. Dr Caroline Eakin’s research in seismology uses seismic waves generated by earthquakes to ‘see’ inside the Earth like an X-ray, allowing her to connect the dynamics of the deep interior to surface processes.

By installing seismometers in geologically significant places, from the top of the Andes to the bottom of the ocean, or the central deserts of Australia, Dr Eakin and her team have advanced our understanding of elusive tectonic processes. This includes revealing how tectonic plates deform when they sink into the Earth, discovering evidence for pervasive upwelling beneath oceanic transform faults worldwide, and uncovering the Australian continent, revealing how its tectonic history is preserved deeper than we ever thought before.

Dr Linda Armbrecht, University of Tasmania

Dr Linda Armbrecht is a detective who uses fragments of ancient DNA preserved in the seafloor in the polar regions to determine what organisms lived in the oceans in the past. She has pioneered new techniques to minimise contamination and maximise the quantities of ancient DNA fragments that can be recovered from marine sediments. She uses the ancient DNA data to uncover how climate change has impacted Antarctic ecosystems over the last 1 million years. Dr Armbrecht’s work is helping to solve ancient mysteries about the evolution and adaptation of keystone species, such as plankton and krill, in response to past climate change. These species make up the base of the polar food webs and are an indicator of ocean health. This research provides important clues as to how the unique polar ecosystem and food web around the icy southern continent might respond to future climate change.

Associate Professor Ailie Gallant, Monash University

Swings between seasons and years of high and low precipitation are ubiquitous in Australia, leading to our reputation as a land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’. But characterising these precipitation see-saws, and understanding the underlying causes of this variability, remains somewhat elusive. To this end, Associate Professor Ailie Gallant’s work has focused on trying to understand how bad Australian droughts can get using multiple lines of evidence, and by working to understand the underlying causes of precipitation variability and drought. Her work has examined observations to understand how the characteristics of drought vary and have changed, and how these characteristics covary with other climate extremes such as extreme heat and rainfall. She has worked on methodologies to define droughts; from rapidly-onsetting ‘flash droughts’ through to multi-year droughts. She has worked on extending hydroclimatic records using proxies like tree rings and corals to find where modern droughts fit relative to longer-term estimates of climate variability. More recently, Associate Professor Gallant’s team has focused attention on understanding how precipitation is regulated by both large-scale drivers, like El Niño, right down to the weather-scale. Specifically, her team has identified a strong role for heavy rainfall, which may consist of only around a week or so’s worth of rainfall, in ‘making’ or ‘breaking’ droughts; with an absence of significant rainfall during drought conditions, and a return or enhancement following drought conditions. In an era of global warming, understanding the causes and nature of drought is essential to determine any effect of climate change.

Associate Professor Raffaella Demichelis, Curtin University

Discovering what makes a mineral, investigating how minerals form in systems as diverse as coral reefs and the human body, and how they interact with various chemicals, is the focus of Associate Professor Raffaella Demichelis’s research. Her team’s work involves using supercomputers to model the atomic structure, crystal growth and chemical reactivity of different types of minerals. She has led landmark research that opened new perspectives in the fields of chemistry, geochemistry and mineralogy, providing quantitative evidence in favour of non-classical nucleation theory and a solution for numerous debated mineral structures. Harnessing and mimicking the rich chemistry observed in nature offers insights into, among other things, the mechanics of carbon-dioxide sequestration and coral reef preservation, how kidney stones form, and how to control scale formation in industry. Associate Professor Demichelis also contributes to the development of computational tools that are now used in academic and non-academic laboratories conducting research in the fields of chemistry and Earth science worldwide. She also volunteers a considerable amount of her time to inclusion and diversity causes, advocating for accessible and sustainable research careers, and to science outreach.

Dr Samintha Perera, University of Melbourne

Australia’s per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are among the world’s highest and the recent drought and bushfire crises clearly illustrate our vulnerability to increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Although carbon dioxide geo-storage in deep coal seams can play a vital role in emission reduction, conversion of CO2 into a highly chemically reactive “supercritical CO2 (scCO2)” at such deep depths causes unpredictable CO2 flow behaviours in coal seams while modifying its flow and mechanical properties. Dr Samintha Perera discovered the unique interaction between the coal mass and scCO2 and the resulting impacts on underground applications. According to her findings, all these unique scCO2 behaviours in coal seams are caused by the significant coal matrix swelling resulted from the coal-scCO2 interaction. Regardless of that, she found the effectiveness of scCO2 as a fracking fluid for coal reservoirs, which gave a great value to this problematic scCO2 as a reservoir stimulation agent.

Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, UNSW Canberra

Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick is a world-renowned expert on heatwaves. She has dedicated her career to studying key features of these high-impact events, including their definition, their observed trends, future changes, underpinning physical drivers, and the role of anthropogenic influence behind observed events. She has also been at the forefront of the emerging field of marine heatwaves.

He has translated many of his successes from his laboratory to scale, with his inventions adopted in various industry sectors globally, to enable a circular economy, including (petro) chemical re-processing of (plastic) waste, utilisation of renewable chemicals and energy storage through his emerging battery technology.

Dr Rebecca Carey, University of Tasmania

Dr Rebecca Carey is internationally recognised for her research in volcanology. She has contributed significantly to the understanding of eruption and hydrothermal processes on land and on the sea-floor. Her achievements in the field of submarine silicic volcanism include demonstration of the influence of confining pressure provided by overlying ocean in modifying the style of volcanic eruption on the seafloor, and pioneering quantification of volatile fluxes through the magma into the surrounding seafloor. Parallel work on basaltic volcanism has identified a previously unrecognised mechanism for explosive basaltic eruptions involving volatile supersaturation, bubble nucleation and explosive fragmentation, triggered by a compression-decompression wave within a shallow magma conduit, and the first quantification of the duration of magma convection using the microtextures of erupted clasts.

Dr Laurie Menviel, UNSW Sydney

Dr Menviel is an exceptional early career researcher who has made major contributions to our understanding of the oceanic circulation, its variability and its impact on global climate, the carbon cycle and the cryosphere. Widely considered as a leader in our understanding of abrupt climate change, Dr Menviel has made a series of ground-breaking discoveries in several topical areas of earth science: detecting past changes in oceanic circulation; understanding the role of ocean circulation in past and future abrupt climate change; evaluation of the impact of changes in oceanic circulation on the carbon cycle; and constraining the stability and variability of the Antarctic ice sheet.

Associate Professor Tracy Ainsworth, University of New South Wales Sydney

Associate Professor Tracy Ainsworth’s research aims to determine the impact of environmental stress on reef-building corals, their host-microbe interactions, symbioses and disease outbreaks. Her studies on the bacterial associates of corals have led to an improved understanding of how coral diseases occur and progress. She has also identified a variety of novel intracellular bacteria that appear to play a key role in the success of corals. She has found that the same bacteria can be found within the tissues of corals in Hawaii and Australia, from the shallows to depths of over 100 metres. She has also extensively researched how increased temperatures affect coral now and will into the future. She has discovered that while small increases in sea temperatures can negatively impact the health of corals, under the right circumstances some corals appear to be able to acclimate to higher temperatures.

2017

Dr Joanne Whittaker, University of Tasmania

Dr Whittaker has made several fundamental contributions to understanding the structure and evolution of the Earth by examining the relationships between deep and surface processes. Her work has provided a new framework for understanding the history of the planet after the breakup of supercontinent Pangaea, particularly the evolution of the ocean basins surrounding Australia.

2016

Dr Andréa Sardinha Taschetto, UNSW

Dr Taschetto is internationally recognised as a leader in the field of climate systems science. She has made major contributions to our understanding of large‐scale oceanographic/atmospheric phenomena in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans, and their subsequent impact on regional climate. In particular, based upon her research findings, Dr Taschetto is widely considered as a leader in the development of our understanding about regional climate dynamics and global modes of climate variability, including the El Niño Modoki phenomenon. Her research has significantly and substantially advanced our understanding of the role of the oceans on regional climate variability from seasonal to multi‐decadal timescales and future projections. For these and other high-impact achievements, Dr Taschetto has made a major contribution both within and beyond her field.

2015

Dr Nerilie Abram, Australian National University

Dr Abram’s pioneering research addresses the past behaviour of the Earth’s climate system, and implications for anthropogenic climate change. Her outstanding research portfolio has generated unique new records of past climate and environmental impacts from regions spanning the tropics to Antarctica, and assessing these alongside state-of-the-art climate models. Her high- impact work has led to groundbreaking advances in understanding how climate change is impacting Southern Ocean winds, Antarctic temperatures and Australian rainfall patterns.

2014

Dr Maria Seton, The University of Sydney

Dr Seton has made significant contributions to the areas of global plate tectonics, longterm sea-level change, global geodynamics and back-arc basin formation. Her work on global tectonics has redefined the way that traditional plate reconstructions are achieved, through the development of an innovative workflow that treats plates as dynamically evolving features rather than the previous paradigm, which modelled the motion of discrete tectonic blocks. She has been part of ground breaking studies on the effect ocean basin changes have had on global long-term sea-level and ocean chemistry.

2013

Dr Lisa Alexander, The University of New South Wales

Dr Lisa Alexander's research has focused on our understanding of how climate extremes are changing globally and over Australia. Her key contributions, with marked policy relevance, include providing convincing evidence that future changes in the frequency and intensity of heatwaves in Australia will be strongly dependent on the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

2012

Dr Karen Black, University of New South Wales

Dr Karen Black is a vertebrate palaeontologist and author of many new fossil species including koalas, possums, marsupial moles, wombat-like diprotodontids and trunked palorchestids. Her internationally acclaimed study of cranial development in a bizarre sun bear like diprotodontid is the first for a fossil marsupial. She spearheads continent-wide research focused on the evolution of Australia’s extraordinary mammals, correlating changes over time with global palaeoclimatic events to provide new evidence-based understanding about current and probable future climate-driven changes in Australian biodiversity.

2011

Dr Kirsten Benkendorff, Southern Cross University

Kirsten Benkendorff is an acclaimed Australian malacologist whose research contributions span from the molecular to the ecosystem scales of marine biology and ecology. Her research approach involves applying sound experimental design, along with the tools of immunology and natural products chemistry to investigate molluscan evolutionary adaptations, thus providing new leads for the development of novel bioresources. Through this approach, she has made significant advances across a range of research disciplines that can be grouped under the themes of environmental, aquaculture and human health.

2010

Dr Nicole Webster, Australian Institute of Marine Science

Nicole Webster has researched many aspects of reef bacterial symbioses, including the specificity of symbiotic relationships and the impact of environmental stressors on these sensitive partnerships. Recent work describes the highest bacterial diversity ever reported for an invertebrate host – over 3000 different bacteria living in one type of sponge. Her discovery of a response of spawning corals to bacterial biofilms could help us to understand and predict how coral communities will recover from disturbance.

2009

Dr Daniela Rubatto, Australian National University

Daniela Rubatto works in the field of high-grade metamorphic petrology and implications for crustal growth and mountain building. Daniela discovered a key relationship that exists in high grade metamorphic rocks between the timing of mineral growth, and the geochemical signature in Ubearing accessory minerals. This geochemical link allows a full characterisation of the pressure–temperature–time path that the rocks have experienced and thus the depth to which the rock suite has travelled.

2008

Dr Sandra McLaren, The University of Melbourne

Sandra McLaren has made contributions to our understanding of diverse areas of Earth sciences, including continental tectonics, thermochronology, microstructural and basin analysis. She has tackled inter-disciplinary many-scale research problems reflecting her broad interests and motivation. Her early research affected a significant paradigm shift in understanding thermal and tectonic processes in the Proterozoic period, including high-temperature, low-pressure metamorphism, crustal anatexis and mineralisation.

2007

Dr Léanne Armand, Laboratory of Oceanography and Marine Biogeochemistry, Marseille

Léanne Armand is the recipient of the 2005–07 European Union Marie Curie Fellowship for her comprehensive taxonomic treatment of Southern Ocean diatoms. She has added rigour to the study of diatoms by applying statistical analysis, increasing the degree of confidence in the reconstruction of sea water temperatures of the past. This has particularly enhanced the value in reconstructing environments during the late Quaternary. The relevance of this type of work is increasing as questions of evolution of our modern environment become more important.

2006

Dr Adriana Dutkiewicz, University of Sydney

Adriana Dutkiewicz has made exceptional contributions in the field of early Precambrian petroleum geology. She was the first to discover oil inclusions preserved in Archaean and early Precambrian rocks and to demonstrate that primordial biomass was sufficiently abundant to generate hydrocarbons. She has shown that eukaryotes survived extreme climatic events including higher temperatures than previously accepted. Adriana has contributed valuable insights relating to the early evolution of life and petroleum exploration.

2005—M.J.H. van Oppen
2004—S.E.A. Wijffels
2003—K.M. Trinajstic
2002—A.D. George

Principal partner

University of Queensland logo

David Craig Medal and Lecture

The David Craig Medal and Lecture recognises outstanding contributions to research of any branch of chemistry by active researchers.
Closed Submission deadline:
Craig Medal
Image Description

Award highlights

  • The Medal recognises contributions of a high order to any branch of chemistry by active researchers.
  • The awardee is expected to present several public lectures in cities across Australia.
  • This is a career award made in honour of the outstanding contribution to chemical research of the late Emeritus Professor David Craig AO FAA FRS.

The David Craig Medal and Lecture is a career award made in honour of the outstanding contribution to chemical research of the late Emeritus Professor David Craig AO FAA FRS. Its purpose is to recognise contributions of a high order to any branch of chemistry by active researchers. The awardee is expected to present several public lectures in cities across Australia. The award is made annually and is given to candidates who are normally resident in Australia, with the majority of the relevant research having been conducted in Australia.

Career awards recognise achievement over a career of whatever length.

This award is open to nominations for candidates from all genders. The Australian Academy of Science encourages nominations of female candidates and of candidates from a broad geographical distribution.

Candidates may be put forward for more than one award. If a proposed candidate is already the recipient of an Academy award, the second award must be for a distinct, additional, body of work undertaken since the first award, and/or work in a different field.

Key dates

Below are the key dates for the nomination process. While we aim to keep to this schedule, some dates may change depending on circumstances.

Nominations open

Nominations close

Referee letter deadline

Notification of outcome

Public announcement of outcome

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and FAQs provide important information about eligibility, submission requirements, and assessment processes. Please review them carefully before submitting a nomination.

Please submit your nominations using the Nominate button found on the top right of this webpage when nominations are open.

Please note the Academy uses a nomination platform that is external to the main Academy site. Nominators will be required to create an account on the platform. Even if you are familiar with the nomination process, please allow extra time to familiarise yourself with the platform.

Early-career, mid-career and career medals

Can I nominate myself?

  • No – you must be nominated by someone else. Self-nominations are not accepted.

Can I submit a nomination on behalf of someone else?

  • Yes – you can submit a nomination on behalf of someone else if you are not the nominator. An example would be a university grants office or personal/executive assistant completing the online nomination form on behalf of a nominator. Once the form is submitted, the nominator will be sent an email confirming that the nomination has been completed. If a nominee submits a nomination for themselves on behalf of a nominator it will not be considered a self-nomination.

Residency requirements

  • Winners of all awards except the Haddon Forrester King Medal should be mainly resident in Australia and/or have a substantive position in Australia at the time of the nomination deadline. Unless explicitly stated in the awarding conditions, the research being put forward for the award should have been undertaken mainly in Australia. Some awards have more specific conditions that the relevant selection committee must apply and nominators are advised to read the conditions associated with each award very carefully.

Honorific career eligibility (more specific details found in the honorific awards nominator guidelines and the honorific award post PhD eligibility guidelines)

  • Career eligibility is calculated by calendar year.
  • Early career awards are open to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD.*
  • Mid-career awards are open to researchers between eight and 15 years post-PhD.*
  • * or equivalent first higher degree e.g. D.Phil., D.Psych., D.Sc.
  • Please note that the Awards Committee may consider nominees with post PhD dates outside of these ranges if a career exemption request is being submitted with the nomination, further guidelines on career exemption requests can be found in the nomination guidelines.
  • See the post-PhD eligibility guidelines document for relevant conferral dates.

Academy fellowship requirements in award nominations

  • Fellows and non-Fellows of the Academy can provide nominations for either Fellows or non-Fellows for all awards.

Women only awards

  • The Dorothy Hill, Nancy Millis and Ruby Payne-Scott Medals are for women only. These medals are open to nominees who self-identify as a woman in the award nomination form. The Academy does not require any statement beyond a nominee’s self-identification in the nomination form.
  • This practice is consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has recognised the non-binary nature of gender identity since 2013, and gives effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The Academy remains committed to the fundamental human rights principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and harassment, and privacy, as well as the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

PREVIOUS AWARDEES

Professor Philip Gale

Professor Philip Gale, University of Technology Sydney

Membranes in cells consist of a bilayer formed from lipid molecules. The interior of this bilayer is ‘oily’ and ions and molecules that are charged including species with a negative charge (known as anions) are only able to pass through special channel molecules present in the membrane. Professor Philip Gale is developing small molecules that wrap around anions giving them an ‘oily’ coat and allowing them to pass through the membrane.

These molecules have potential future applications treating diseases where the channel molecules in the membrane are faulty (such as cystic fibrosis) or where perturbing the anion concentrations within the cell triggers cell death (useful in compounds designed to treat cancer). Professor Gale is developing ways to switch on the transport properties of these molecules in the environments found within cancer cells allowing them to be targeted to tissue requiring treatment so providing a potential new approach to the treatment of disease.

Professor Alison Rodger FAA, Australian National University

Scientific advances invariably depend on the quality and diversity of available techniques and instrumentation and on the ability of researchers to understand the data that are produced. Professor Alison Rodger has spent her career inventing new spectroscopic techniques to advance understanding of the molecular world. She uses polarised light to give data about helical structures and molecular assemblies. She complements the experimental work by developing the theoretical frameworks required to enable use of the data in applications such as characterising the structure of biopharmaceutical products and understanding the basic biology of cell division. Professor Rodger’s most recent invention is that of linearly polarised luminescence where the intensity of polarised light emitted is used to characterise biomolecular assemblies such as DNA-drug complexes. She is passionate about working to ensure equality of opportunity and has benefited from working with a wide range of people from all over the world.

Professor Justin Gooding FAA FTSE, University of New South Wales

Professor Justin Gooding is an international leader in the field of surface chemistry; in particular, he is renowned as a leading authority in the modification of surfaces for the development of better sensing devices. Characterised by using molecular to nanoscale control, his science systematically addresses fundamental questions in electrochemistry and biology, as well as general challenges facing many sensors and analytical devices. He has made outstanding contributions to fundamental and applied research using self-assembled monolayers to fabricate molecular scale constructs on surfaces that provided new measurement tools. Professor Gooding’s work has shown not only how to design and fabricate sophisticated surface architecture for sensing, but he has also changed thinking on both the level of control that is possible and the types of information that can be acquired using that control.

Professor David Craik FAA FRS, University of Queensland

Professor David Craik discovered a family of plant peptides called cyclotides and is a world leader in defining their structures, functions and applications as ecofriendly pesticides and molecular scaffolds in drug design. He has shown how their unique structure makes them exceptionally stable and resistant to enzymes that would normally degrade peptide-based drugs. The work is significant because peptides are widely regarded as exciting drug leads, potentially safer and more effective than existing classes of drugs. However, previous peptide-based drugs are prone to instability and need to be injected (like insulin) rather than orally ingested. Professor Craik’s work on cyclotides shows how peptides can be stabilised and made more drug-like, thereby unleashing their potential in drug design. The natural function of cyclotides is to protect plants from insects and Professor Craik’s work has led to companies exploring cyclotides as pesticides. A cyclotide-based product, Sero-X, is now an approved eco-friendly pesticide for cotton and vegetable crops. 

Professor Christopher Barner-Kowollik FAA, Queensland University of Technology

Professor Christopher Barner-Kowollik’s work fuses the in-depth understanding of chemical processes that are induced by light with their use to prepare soft matter materials, with applications from 3D printing inks to photodynamic materials. His main body of work – based on an esteemed career in physical-organic chemistry – exploits light as a ‘molecular surgical tool’, where its colour and intensity are finely adjustable gates to ‘operate’ on the molecular structure of materials with unprecedented precision. This precision gives rise to materials whose mechanical strength and chemical composition can be readily adjusted without bringing them in contact with chemicals or heat. Professor Barner-Kowollik’s work has enabled new materials concepts, for example a material that is solely stabilised by light, so-called ‘light stabilised dynamic materials’.

Professor Thomas Maschmeyer FAA FTSE, University of Sydney

Professor Thomas Maschmeyer’s research vision is driven by a strong desire to help address the many urgent physical challenges we face due to climate change and global resource limitations in combination with a growing world population. In this context, he sees catalysis as a key science and technology and has made seminal contributions to catalytic research that have transformed how we design, interrogate (under operating conditions) and use catalysts in (petro) chemical processing as well as photo- and electrocatalysis.

His work has led to fundamental breakthroughs in catalytic materials, in-situ characterisation, green chemistry, hydrothermal processing, ionic liquids and energy materials.

He has translated many of his successes from his laboratory to scale, with his inventions adopted in various industry sectors globally, to enable a circular economy, including (petro) chemical re-processing of (plastic) waste, utilisation of renewable chemicals and energy storage through his emerging battery technology.

Dr Graeme Moad FAA, CSIRO

Dr Graeme Moad is recognised as a world leader in the field of polymer chemistry. His achievements range from fundamental chemistry, in the areas of polymer design and synthesis, and polymerisation kinetics and mechanism, to new materials for industrial uses, nanotechnology, organic electronics and bioapplications. His research has contributed substantially to the development of new synthetic methods for the controlled synthesis of polymers with defined architecture and composition that have revolutionised the field and resulted in highly cited publications and patent applications.

Professor Peter Gill FAA, Australian National University

Professor Gill has made both fundamental and applied contributions to the progress of quantum chemistry. His models for three-electron bonding and dication dissociation have been widely adopted by experimentalists. His developments in efficient two-electron integral algorithms, perturbation analysis, linear-scaling methodology, DFT functionals, the theory of excited states, and Coulomb-splitting techniques have all become mainstream tools in his community and, by implementing many of his ideas within his Q-Chem software package, he has ensured that his advances are rapidly translated to other areas of computational science, including pharmaceutical research and the design of new materials. His recent insights into electron correlation and the nature of the uniform electron gas are changing the underlying paradigms of density functional theory (DFT).

Professor Douglas MacFarlane FAA FTSE, Monash University

Professor Doug MacFarlane’s research has focused on the discovery and development of novel liquid salt compounds that offer unique properties as media and solvents for a wide range of applications. Research into these ‘ionic liquids’ has experienced major expansion over the last 25 years. The discoveries of Professor MacFarlane’s group have contributed to the study and use of ionic liquids, helping to establish the area as a major field of chemistry. His group has explored application of ionic liquids in sustainable energy technologies, producing major advances in energy storage in advanced batteries, as chemical energy storage as hydrogen and ammonia, and as thermal energy storage materials for domestic use. The intellectual property arising from some of these developments has been spun out into several start-up companies. His group has also pioneered the use of biocompatible families of these liquid salts as media for therapeutic proteins and as novel pharmaceuticals. These developments have opened up new treatment modalities, including as a topical treatment for skin cancer.

2017

Professor David St Clair Black AO FAA, UNSW Australia 

Professor Black is recognised as one of the world's leading heterocyclic chemists, having made major contributions to organic chemistry in the general fields of heterocyclic chemistry, coordination chemistry and natural products. His research has focused on the deliberate design and synthesis of new structural types of organic molecules and the discovery of new synthetic methodologies, especially in heterocyclic chemistry, which is the field responsible for the generation of the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical agents and drugs in use today. While many of these new structures have a link to important natural products, especially in the area of indole chemistry, they are designed to display deliberate reactivity variations that are not found in nature.

2016

Professor Jeffrey Reimers FAA, University of Technology, Sydney and International Centre for Quantum and Molecular Structure Shanghai University

Professor Reimers pioneered the application of the chemical quantum theory of coupled electronic and nuclear motions to large systems of biochemical and technological relevance. His work explains how during photosynthesis the protein structure manipulates the complex light-matter interaction around the ‘special-pair’ solar-to-electrical conversion apparatus to control energy harvesting. He has also developed ways of interpreting the chemical signatures manifested when single organic molecules conduct electricity, and he has evaluated the role of chemical quantum effects in manifesting consciousness.

2015

Professor Denis J Evans FAA, Australian National University

Professor Evans has made outstanding contributions to extending classical statistical mechanics to modern systems. He is regarded internationally as the originator of the Fluctuation Theorems, which extend our understanding of the thermodynamics of small systems observed over short time. His work resolves unsettled foundations in thermodynamics that persisted over 100 years, unifies the field of thermodynamics, and provides rigorous simulation methods that are widely used today.

2014

Emeritus Professor Curt Wentrup FAA, The University of Queensland

Numerous chemical reactions take place via so-called ‘reactive intermediates’, i.e. short-lived molecules that are undetectable under ordinary reaction conditions. In order to understand chemical reactions, it is necessary to understand the role of these reactive intermediates. Curt Wentrup has pioneered methods to study them and observe them directly by combining the technique of flash vacuum thermolysis with low temperature spectroscopy. The resulting knowledge is of fundamental importance for theoretical chemistry as well as practical applications in the synthesis of new types of compounds.

2013

Professor Peter Andrew Lay FAA, The University of Sydney

Professor Lay uses various chemical, spectroscopic, biochemical and cell biology techniques to understand the mode of action and toxicities of metal-containing anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, and anti-diabetic drugs and supplements; and to provide fundamental insights into understanding the biochemistry of cardiovascular diseases, cerebral malaria, and meningitis.

2012

Professor Maxwell J Crossley FAA, University of Sydney

Professor Maxwell Crossley is a world leader in research on porphyrins, a class of compounds of great importance to life and for which many new uses are emerging in nanosciences. Haem, the red coloured oxygen carrier in blood, and chlorophylls, green pigments responsible for photosynthesis in plants, are important porphyrins. Professor Crossley designs and constructs new functional porphyrin systems for use in solar energy devices, in mimicry of photosynthesis and also in the burgeoning field of molecular-scale electronics. He has been responsible for many seminal advances in the field.

2011

Professor Ian Dance FAA, The University of New South Wales

Ian Dance has led international research in four areas of fundamental chemistry. He pioneered the preparation and understanding of compounds containing metals and sulphur, he revealed the existence of a large number of basic inorganic compounds in gaseous form, he developed an understanding of the ways in which many molecules recognise and organise their surroundings, and he developed a chemical understanding of the long-elusive mechanism by which plants chemically convert unreactive nitrogen in the atmosphere to the forms required for life.

2010

Professor Robert Gilbert FAA, University of Queensland

Robert Gilbert’s research covers three fields not normally considered to be related: the dynamics of chemical reactions, mechanisms of polymerisation, and the relationship between structure and property of biopolymers. This has led to new types of experiments on complex chemical systems, such as emulsions and paints. His work on starch polymer provides the basis of research to develop plants with improved nutritional characteristics, which is important for people with diabetes and obesity.

2009

Emeritus Professor Leonard Lindoy FAA, The University of Sydney

Leonard Lindoy has made significant contributions to the area of macrocyclic chemistry, molecular and ionic recognition, and metallo-supramolecular chemistry. He has had a long and successful interaction with industry, especially with the design of ligands for the selective extraction of metal ions from mixtures. His work has been acknowledged by many national and international awards, and by invitations to lecture at major conferences. Lindoy has also been an exceptional educator and promoter of science in general, and chemistry in particular.

2008

Professor Leo Radom, University of Sydney

Leo Radom has made major contributions to the use of theory in areas of chemistry. His research covers the application of computational quantum chemistry to the study of chemical structures and reactions. He has contributed to areas such as gas-phase ion chemistry, substituent effects in cations, radicals and anions, free radical chemistry, 'designer chemistry', and transition-metal-free hydrogenation. His early papers provided a template for benchmarking and applying theoretical methods to chemistry.

2007

Professor Hans Freeman, University of Sydney

Hans Freeman has made distinguished contributions to science through the study of the crystal structures of biological coordination compounds including metal-peptide complexes and metalloproteins. He introduced the use of computers for crystallographic calculations to Australia, and his laboratory was the first in the southern hemisphere to determine the crystal structure of a protein, plastocyanin. He has been a selfless advocate for macromolecular crystallography; a recent example is his membership of the Policy and Review Board of the Australian Synchrotron Research Program. He was the Foundation President of the Society of Crystallographers in Australia.

2006

Professor Barry Ninham, Australian National University

Barry Ninham is a talented theoretical physical chemist and one of the world’s leading theoreticians in colloid science. He has specific expertise in molecular self-assembly and non-electrostatic interactions between atoms and molecules. He has pioneered the measurement of surface forces and introduced the ground-breaking concept of well-defined microstructures in substances such as emulsions. He completed his undergraduate and Masters at the University of Western Australia and a PhD at the University of Maryland. He is Founder and Head of the Applied Mathematics Department.

2005—JW. White
2004—AM. Bond
2003—MI. Bruce
2002—LN. Mander
2001—MN. Paddon-Row
2000—NS. Hush

Christopher Heyde Medal

The Christopher Heyde Medal recognises outstanding research in the mathematical sciences.
Closed Submission deadline:
Heyde Medal
Image Description

Award highlights

  • The award recognises outstanding research in the mathematical sciences by researchers up to 10 years post PhD in the calendar year of nomination. It is offered in different fields of mathematics on a rotating basis.
  • The 2027 medal is for pure mathematics, applied, computational and financial mathematics.
  • This award honours the contributions to mathematics by the late Professor Christopher Charles Heyde AM FAA FASSA.

In recognition of Professor Heyde’s broad interests in the mathematical sciences the award is offered in one of the following fields on a rotating basis:

  • 2027 - Pure mathematics, applied, computational and financial mathematics
  • 2028 - Probability theory, statistical methodology and their applications
  • 2029 - Pure mathematics, applied, computational and financial mathematics

The award’s purpose is to recognise outstanding research in the mathematical sciences by researchers up to 10 years post PhD in the calendar year of nomination, except in the case of significant interruptions to a research career. The award may be made annually, with a prize of $6,000, and is restricted to candidates who are normally resident in Australia.

This award is open to nominations for candidates from all genders. The Australian Academy of Science encourages nominations of female candidates and of candidates from a broad geographical distribution.

Candidates may be put forward for more than one award. If a proposed candidate is already the recipient of an Academy early-career honorific award, they will not be eligible for nomination for another early-career or mid-career honorific award. A mid-career honorific award recipient will also not be eligible for nomination for another mid-career honorific award. Fellows of the Academy are ineligible to be nominated for early and mid-career awards.

Key dates

Below are the key dates for the nomination process. While we aim to keep to this schedule, some dates may change depending on circumstances.

Nominations open

Nominations close

Referee letter deadline

Notification of outcome

Public announcement of outcome

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and FAQs provide important information about eligibility, submission requirements, and assessment processes. Please review them carefully before submitting a nomination.

Please submit your nominations using the Nominate button found on the top right of this webpage when nominations are open.

Please note the Academy uses a nomination platform that is external to the main Academy site. Nominators will be required to create an account on the platform. Even if you are familiar with the nomination process, please allow extra time to familiarise yourself with the platform.

Early-career, mid-career and career medals

Can I nominate myself?

  • No – you must be nominated by someone else. Self-nominations are not accepted.

Can I submit a nomination on behalf of someone else?

  • Yes – you can submit a nomination on behalf of someone else if you are not the nominator. An example would be a university grants office or personal/executive assistant completing the online nomination form on behalf of a nominator. Once the form is submitted, the nominator will be sent an email confirming that the nomination has been completed. If a nominee submits a nomination for themselves on behalf of a nominator it will not be considered a self-nomination.

Residency requirements

  • Winners of all awards except the Haddon Forrester King Medal should be mainly resident in Australia and/or have a substantive position in Australia at the time of the nomination deadline. Unless explicitly stated in the awarding conditions, the research being put forward for the award should have been undertaken mainly in Australia. Some awards have more specific conditions that the relevant selection committee must apply and nominators are advised to read the conditions associated with each award very carefully.

Honorific career eligibility (more specific details found in the honorific awards nominator guidelines and the honorific award post PhD eligibility guidelines)

  • Career eligibility is calculated by calendar year.
  • Early career awards are open to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD.*
  • Mid-career awards are open to researchers between eight and 15 years post-PhD.*
  • Please note that the Awards Committee may consider nominees with post PhD dates outside of these ranges if a career exemption request is being submitted with the nomination, further guidelines on career exemption requests can be found in the nomination guidelines.
  • See the post-PhD eligibility guidelines document for relevant conferral dates.
  • * or equivalent first higher degree e.g. D.Phil., D.Psych., D.Sc.

Academy fellowship requirements in award nominations

  • Fellows and non-Fellows of the Academy can provide nominations for either Fellows or non-Fellows for all awards.

Women only awards

  • The Dorothy Hill, Nancy Millis and Ruby Payne-Scott Medals are for women only. These medals are open to nominees who self-identify as a woman in the award nomination form. The Academy does not require any statement beyond a nominee’s self-identification in the nomination form.
  • This practice is consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has recognised the non-binary nature of gender identity since 2013, and gives effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The Academy remains committed to the fundamental human rights principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and harassment, and privacy, as well as the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

PREVIOUS AWARDEES

Dr Belinda Phipson, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (WEHI)

Medical research is becoming increasingly quantitative as new technologies emerge that can capture thousands of measurements at increasingly higher resolution. Over the last decade, the field has progressed from profiling genomic information of whole samples to profiling individual cells. In order to translate these complex large datasets into medical discoveries, robust statistical methods and software are needed. 

Dr Belinda Phipson is an internationally recognised early-career statistician working in bioinformatics and medical research. She has consistently leveraged advanced statistical ideas to develop novel methods for the analysis of genomic data. She has made these methods available to the global research community through the development of high-quality open-source software. In collaborations, she has used these tools to understand biological processes and to make discoveries of medical significance in cancer therapy, kidney development and disease, heart development, and stem cell biology.

 

Dr Stephen Muirhead, Monash University

Dr Stephen Muirhead is an outstanding researcher in probability theory who has made important contributions to percolation theory (the study of how global connectivity in a material or network arises out of microscopic properties), stochastic geometry, and random field theory. His work has resolved long-standing conjectures in the physics literature and pioneered a set of new techniques which are having a tremendous impact on the development of these fields.

Associate Professor Anita Liebenau, University of New South Wales

Associate Professor Anita Liebenau is recognised internationally as a leading expert in extremal and probabilistic combinatorics. She has worked on enumeration problems of large discrete structures such as regular graphs, problems in Ramsey theory and combinatorial games played on graphs. Among her many achievements, she developed a breakthrough method for enumerating regular graphs, leading to the first progress since 1989. She has also proved important results on thresholds for games on graphs, and has made major contributions towards resolving the Erdős–Hajnal conjecture.

Professor Serena Dipierro, University of Western Australia

After moving to Australia, first to the University of Melbourne and then to the University of Western Australia, Professor Serena Dipierro has significantly contributed to several fields in mathematical analysis, partial differential equations, nonlocal equations and free boundary problems. A characteristic treat in Professor Dipierro’s research consists in the fine analysis of the special patterns created by the interplay between nonlinear and nonlocal structures, also in light of motivations coming from biology and physics. Her works established the regularity properties and the geometric features of the interfaces arising from phase transitions, with special attention to the brand-new, and often very surprising, phenomena produced by far-away particle interactions and by the energy contributions ‘coming from infinity’. Her findings comprise the solution to challenging problems and the opening of brand-new lines of research, which will remain as a solid source of inspiration for future investigations on a number of emerging topics.

Dr Christopher Lustri, University of Sydney

It is often impossible to write down exact mathematical expressions to perfectly describe extremely complex natural systems such as the collective behaviour of a colony of ants, gravitational waves generated by orbiting black holes, or the flow of air over an aircraft’s wing. Asymptotic approximation theory can accurately predict how these complicated systems will change and evolve, even when they are far too complicated to solve exactly. Dr Christopher Lustri is an expert in developing new asymptotic approximation methods that capture important behaviour which is hidden from widely-used classical approximation techniques. Using these new methods, he has resolved open mathematical problems arising in practical scientific settings, such as explaining the shape of waves that form behind submerged obstacles, or the energy loss experienced by pulses in laboratory particle chains. He discovered that complex discrete systems contain important ‘tipping points’ that were previously unknown. If subtle changes are made to how the system is set up when the system is near one of these points, its behaviour can change dramatically. Dr Lustri’s methods make it possible to accurately capture how systems behave when they are near these tipping points.

Dr Valentina Wheeler, University of Wollongong

Dr Valentina Wheeler is a geometric analyst who has made major contributions to the field of elliptic and parabolic partial differential equations. In particular, her work focusses on geometric flows called curvature flows. These describe the movement and/or evolution of a curve or surface through space and time via continuous geometric deformation determined by curvature. Valentina’s contributions include resolutions of open conjectures regarding partition problems and existence of minimal hypersurfaces; completely novel types of singularities for curvature flows; the first global analysis of the Helfrich functional; and a powerful new Harnack convergence argument for fully nonlinear curvature flows with non-smooth speed. Her results include direct applications to real-world problems including modelling for the blood disease spherocytosis, behaviour of other biological membranes, and motion and evolution of merging fire fronts.

Dr Francis Hui, Australian National University

Dr Francis Hui’s research focuses on the development of innovative, fast approaches for the statistical analysis of big data, particularly when many correlated variables are collected in space and/or time to produce richly correlated data. He has made substantial contributions to the literature on efficient approximate methods for fitting multi-level models, techniques for data visualisation of many variables and scalable tools for flexibly fitting non-linear models and for selecting which predictors to include in complex correlated data settings. Dr Hui works at the interface between methodological and applied statistics, ensuring that his research has an immediate and substantial impact on the wider scientific community. His research has been particularly impactful in ecology, where his methods and software are applied by practitioners to project spatio-temporal change of species assemblages under climate change scenarios and for enhancing the understanding of terrestrial and marine ecosystems both across Australia and internationally.

Dr Kevin Coulembier, University of Sydney

Dr Coulembier’s research is in the field of mathematics known as representation theory, which studies how abstract algebraic structures are manifested as the solutions to concrete systems of linear equations. This field retains a strong connection to its origin as the study of geometric symmetry both discrete and continuous, but more recently has developed far beyond this in tackling curved and infinite-dimensional spaces and arbitrary number systems. One of Dr Coulembier’s most important discoveries was of a way to detect the presence of the classical type of symmetry known as an affine group scheme in a more exotic setting known as a tensor category; this problem had defied the efforts of some of the world’s top mathematicians for almost thirty years. He has also solved several other important problems in infinite-dimensional representation theory, and has discovered new unified proofs of major theorems concerning the invariants of groups and supergroups.

Dr Vera Roshchina, UNSW Sydney

Dr Roshchina is an exceptional mathematician and emerging international leader in the field of non-smooth optimization. Her main interest lies in finite dimensional geometry, more specifically, open problems that originate from continuous optimization and related fields. Some significant problems of this kind are in the geometry of polytopes, for example the polynomial Hirsch and Durer conjectures, critical point problems (Fekete problem, Sendov's conjecture) and convex variational problems, such as asymmetric Newton's aerodynamic problem. Resolution of these challenges is critical for making progress with numerous applications, from engineering and economics to medical research and data analytics.

Dr Jennifer Flegg, University of Melbourne

Drug resistance is a growing issue for malaria control. Dr Jennifer Flegg develops predictive statistical models in space and time for the level of drug resistance. These predictive models fill in the gaps where no information is available on drug resistance and have been used by health agencies to develop new polices about where and when certain drugs are appropriate to use.

Dr Flegg also develops mathematical models to describe and help understand the ways that cells and chemicals interact with each other during the healing of a skin wound. By building models that simulate the successful healing of a wound, she provides biological insight into the underlying healing mechanisms. In the case when a wound would not heal without intervention, she uses her models to predict how treatments can help the wound to heal.

Professor Ryan Loxton, Curtin University

Professor Ryan Loxton is pioneering new mathematical algorithms for optimising complex systems in a wide range of applications such as mining, robotics, agriculture, and industrial process control. Such systems are typically of enormous scale in practice, with hundreds of thousands of inter-related variables and constraints, multiple conflicting objectives, and numerous candidate solutions that can easily exceed the total number of atoms in the solar system, overwhelming even the fastest computers. Professor Loxton’s research provides new mathematical advances for overcoming this complexity and deriving fast algorithms for real-world use. He has collaborated with many companies with his work leading to innovative mathematical techniques for solving real-world problems such as providing algorithms for an award-winning Quantum technology platform that optimises the sequence and timing of maintenance activities in mine plant shutdowns.

Professor Geordie Williamson FAA FRS, University of Sydney

Professor Williamson is a world leader in the field of geometric representation theory. Among his many breakthrough contributions are his proof, together with Ben Elias, of Soergel's conjecture—resulting in a proof of the Kazhdan-Lusztig positivity conjecture from 1979; his entirely unexpected discovery of counter-examples to the Lusztig and James conjectures; and his new algebraic proof of the Jantzen conjectures.

Dr Zdravko Botev, University of New South Wales Sydney

Dr Zdravko Botev has developed innovative methodologies that aim to understand the probability structures underlying the occurrence of high-cost, hard-to-predict events. The novel rare-event simulation algorithms he has derived have not only advanced the fields of computational statistics and applied probability, but have been applied in multiple domains, including communication and computer network design, digital watermarking, safety assessment of debris collision in space and chemical geology. His well-cited research further demonstrates the significant influence of his work in his field of applied probability, as well as applications in many areas. His work has also had significant influence in the field of computational statistics, where his methods have been used in innovative ways to develop very fast algorithms for fitting flexible, smooth models to noisy data.

Dr Luke Bennetts, University of Adelaide

Dr Bennetts is an applied mathematician who models how waves of various kinds, e.g. acoustic waves, electromagnetic waves and waves at the surface of the ocean, are affected by solitary objects or assemblages of objects in their path. A major focus is on how ocean waves interact with ice floes in the polar seas, as this phenomenon appears to be a key contributor to the changes the Earth is experiencing in the Arctic Basin and the Southern Ocean due to the onset and furtherance of global climate warming. Because the polar regions are so important to the world’s atmosphere and oceans, the methodology that Dr Bennetts has created is also immediately applicable to the refinement of hemispheric-scale, coupled, operational climate forecasting, as well as contemporary research schema. His fusion of analytical technical mathematics with sophisticated computational methods allows real world problems, including nonlinear modes of behaviour, to be tackled and solved. 

Associate Professor Catherine Greenhill, University of New South Wales

Associate Professor Greenhill is internationally recognised as a leading expert in asymptotic, probablilistic and algorithmic combinatorics, undertaking research at the interface between combinatorics, probability and theoretical computer science. By studying fundamental combinatorial objects, such as graphs, she tackles problems of major significance to pure mathematics. Her highly-cited research achievements include new formulae and algorithms that have found broad application in many areas, from statistics to computer science, physics and cryptography.

Dr Scott Morrison, Australian National University

The interaction of quantum particles or quasi-particles in two dimensions involves a so-called “fusion category” which describes the possible outcomes of collision between the quasi-particles. Diagrams describing the fusion category are analogous to the Feynmann diagrams well known in quantum field theory. Dr Morrison has made remarkable discoveries especially in this diagrammatic description of such low-dimensional processes. In particular he has classified the least complicated such theories that mathematics permits.

Associate Professor David Warton, University of New South Wales

Associate Professor David Warton has made a series of highly significant contributions to data analysis in ecology - new methods for studying size variation, ecological communities and their climatic response, and the spatial distribution of species. Associate Professor Warton's contributions have had substantial influence on statistical practice across disciplines - used in a very large number of articles, in statistics, ecology, other areas of biology, the Earth sciences, agriculture, medicine, chemistry, psychology, engineering, and physics.

Dr Josef Dick, University of New South Wales

Dr Josef Dick is an outstanding young researcher who has undertaken pioneering research in the area of numerical analysis. His main research achievements relate to numerical integration and, in particular, quasi‐Monte Carlo rules. The importance of Dr Dick’s research derives from his ability to obtain practical constructions of well distributed point sets for use in applications from finance, statistics, physics, geoscience and other areas, as well as through rigorous mathematical convergence bounds using advanced mathematical tools.

Dr Anthony Henderson, The University of Sydney

Anthony Henderson has made fundamental contributions in representation theory, an area which concerns the algebraic patterns underlying collections of geometric transformations. He has invented geometric spaces which give new information about common symmetry types, and has introduced new methods for performing calculations in existing geometric spaces which take their symmetry into account. His work combines ideas from different areas of mathematics, and provides explicit formulas for use in a wide range of problems which involve observations on spaces with symmetry.

Anton Hales Medal

The Anton Hales Medal recognises outstanding contributions to research in the Earth sciences.
Closed Submission deadline:
Hales Medal
Image Description

Award highlights

  • Awarded for outstanding contributions to research in the Earth sciences for researchers up to 10 years post-PhD in the calendar year of nomination.
  • Recognises research in the Earth sciences and honours the contributions to the Earth sciences by the late Professor Anton L Hales FAA.

The Anton Hales Medal recognises research in the Earth sciences and honours the contributions to the Earth sciences by the late Professor Anton L Hales FAA. Professor Hales was the founding director of the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University.

Its purpose is to recognise outstanding contributions to research in the Earth sciences. It will be awarded to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD in the calendar year of nomination, except in the case of significant interruptions to a research career. The award may be made annually and is restricted to candidates who are normally resident in Australia. Relevant research undertaken outside Australia may be considered, provided the researcher has conducted the majority of their research career—defined as periods of employment or study primarily involving research activities or research training—in Australia, and has been resident in Australia for at least the past two years.

This award is open to nominations for candidates from all genders. The Australian Academy of Science encourages nominations of female candidates and of candidates from a broad geographical distribution.

Candidates may be put forward for more than one award. If a proposed candidate is already the recipient of an Academy early-career honorific award, they will not be eligible for nomination for another early-career or mid-career honorific award. A mid-career honorific award recipient will also not be eligible for nomination for another mid-career honorific award. Fellows of the Academy are ineligible to be nominated for early and mid-career awards.

Background on Professor Anton Hales can be found through the related links below and his biographical memoir at Historical Records of Australian Science.

Key dates

Below are the key dates for the nomination process. While we aim to keep to this schedule, some dates may change depending on circumstances.

Nominations open

Nominations close

Referee letter deadline

Notification of outcome

Public announcement of outcome

GUIDELINES

The following guidelines and FAQs provide important information about eligibility, submission requirements, and assessment processes. Please review them carefully before submitting a nomination.

Please submit your nominations using the Nominate button found on the top right of this webpage when nominations are open.

Please note the Academy uses a nomination platform that is external to the main Academy site. Nominators will be required to create an account on the platform. Even if you are familiar with the nomination process, please allow extra time to familiarise yourself with the platform.

Early-career, mid-career and career medals

Can I nominate myself?

  • No – you must be nominated by someone else. Self-nominations are not accepted.

Can I submit a nomination on behalf of someone else?

  • Yes – you can submit a nomination on behalf of someone else if you are not the nominator. An example would be a university grants office or personal/executive assistant completing the online nomination form on behalf of a nominator. Once the form is submitted, the nominator will be sent an email confirming that the nomination has been completed. If a nominee submits a nomination for themselves on behalf of a nominator it will not be considered a self-nomination.

Residency requirements

  • Winners of all awards except the Haddon Forrester King Medal should be mainly resident in Australia and/or have a substantive position in Australia at the time of the nomination deadline. Unless explicitly stated in the awarding conditions, the research being put forward for the award should have been undertaken mainly in Australia. Some awards have more specific conditions that the relevant selection committee must apply and nominators are advised to read the conditions associated with each award very carefully.

Honorific career eligibility (more specific details found in the honorific awards nominator guidelines and the honorific award post PhD eligibility guidelines)

  • Career eligibility is calculated by calendar year.
  • Early career awards are open to researchers up to 10 years post-PhD.*
  • Mid-career awards are open to researchers between eight and 15 years post-PhD.*
  • Please note that the Awards Committee may consider nominees with post PhD dates outside of these ranges if a career exemption request is being submitted with the nomination, further guidelines on career exemption requests can be found in the nomination guidelines.
  • See the post-PhD eligibility guidelines document for relevant conferral dates.
  • *Or equivalent first higher degree e.g. D.Phil., D.Psych., D.Sc.

Academy fellowship requirements in award nominations

  • Fellows and non-Fellows of the Academy can provide nominations for either Fellows or non-Fellows for all awards.

Women only awards

  • The Dorothy Hill, Nancy Millis and Ruby Payne-Scott Medals are for women only. These medals are open to nominees who self-identify as a woman in the award nomination form. The Academy does not require any statement beyond a nominee’s self-identification in the nomination form.
  • This practice is consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which has recognised the non-binary nature of gender identity since 2013, and gives effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations. The Academy remains committed to the fundamental human rights principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and harassment, and privacy, as well as the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity.

PREVIOUS AWARDEES

Dr Mark Hoggard, Australian National University

Dr Mark Hoggard is an observational geodynamicist whose research links evolution of Earth's surface to dynamic processes within its interior. He is passionate about working on fundamental Earth science problems that are of societal and economic importance. Examples include forecasting sea-level change, identifying mineral resources, and distinguishing underground nuclear tests from naturally occurring earthquakes.

What sets Dr Hoggard apart is his willingness to cross traditional discipline boundaries, integrating field observations and inverse modelling frameworks from diverse fields that include seismology, geochemistry, rock physics, geomorphology and paleoclimate. Dr Hoggard is embedded within an extensive network of academic and government collaborators that has produced several foundational contributions to geodynamics. He has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed publications, been recognised through international awards, and takes pride in a research record that has demonstrated practical impacts across government and industry.

Associate Professor Stijn Glorie, University of Adelaide

Associate Professor Stijn Glorie studies the interplay between the thermal history of Earth’s crust and large-scale tectonic processes that drive plate deformation and mountain building. Associate Professor Glorie employs novel mineral-based geochronometers to unravel the cryptic records of ancient geologic events, including the formation of metalliferous mineral deposits, which in turn can assist mineral exploration efforts. His research has focused on the protracted crustal deformation in Central Asia, and vast areas of central Australia, thereby filling crucial gaps in our knowledge of the geological evolution of our continent. At the University of Adelaide, he is currently leading ground-breaking method development work to determine the age of a vast range of minerals that were previously considered undatable. This revolutionary geochronology work now allows for unlocking of records of Earth’s ancient history at unprecedented rates and scales.

Dr Andrew King, University of Melbourne

Dr Andrew King is an outstanding early-career researcher with an extensive body of high-impact work focused on climate extremes and climate risk. He has a prolific record of significant first-authored publications, including landmark studies on climate change projections in high-impact journals. He has been very active in the public discourse on climate change through frequent opinion pieces based on his research and interviews in newspapers, TV and radio. The significance and impact of his research and engagement have been recognised in a number of ways. He received an ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award in 2018. He was the only early-career climate scientist on the author team for the Academy of Science’s report ‘The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world’ in 2021. He was the inaugural winner of the Science Outreach Award of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society in 2018. Dr King was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2021.

Dr Teresa Ubide, University of Queensland

Dr Teresa Ubide studies volcanoes by looking at the crystals in previously erupted volcanic rocks. Using the chemistry of the tiny crystals she can decipher the inner workings of volcano plumbing systems and what triggers volcanic eruptions. The aim of this research is to ultimately forecast future eruptions. The research is of utmost importance to millions of people living close to, or visiting, active volcanoes around the world. Her research also explores the link between volcanoes and critical metals that are essential for the development of renewable energy technology, such as wind and solar energy. Dr Ubide loves to communicate her science and was part of the Superstars of STEM program, and has given national and international talks and media interviews about her work on volcanoes.

Associate Professor Jenny Fisher, University of Wollongong

Understanding of the sources, transport and fate of trace atmospheric species is crucial for the development of evidence-based policies for the management of air pollution and to evaluate their contribution to future climate scenarios. Associate Professor Jenny Fisher’s research leads international efforts to model the atmospheric concentrations and transport of these species and to predict their response to future emissions and environmental change, and to quantitatively evaluate impacts of Australian and global environmental policies. The species include mercury, a neurotoxin that is distributed globally through the atmosphere. In recognition of its adverse effects, mercury is now regulated by the UN Minamata Convention on Mercury. Her work also provides new and crucial information on biogenic emissions and atmospheric chemistry of trace species from vegetation which play important roles in air pollutant formation.

Dr Nicolas Flament, University of Wollongong

Dr Flament works at the interface between geodynamics and geology by novel 4D mathematical modelling of flow deep in Earth’s interior. He makes significant contributions to understanding our planet by connecting the evolution of the deep Earth with the evolution of its surface. He shows Earth was largely a water world for the first half of its history with little emerged land, with important implications for the oxidation of the atmosphere and the evolution of early life. He linked the evolution of Earth’s topography, including the Australian landscape and the formation of the Great Dividing Range, to the motion of tectonic plates over Earth’s dynamic interior. He also recently used an innovative synthesis of global geodynamic models with geophysical data to show how the evolution of the deep Earth is dynamic and linked to past configurations of tectonic plates, which is of fundamental importance to understanding the evolution of our planet.

Dr Jan Zika, University of UNSW Sydney

Dr Jan Zika is an outstanding young physical oceanographer with a clear view of the role and importance of the ocean in the global climate system. He’s revolutionised the quantitative approach to determining the ocean’s circulation and mixing by reformulating the problem in water mass properties (rather than in fixed geographical coordinates). This resulted in improved understanding and more accurate estimates of the ocean’s storage and transport of heat and freshwater. Dr Zika’s ideas have found direct application in understanding changes in global-scale atmospheric processes and in using ocean observations to more accurately quantify increases in the global hydrological cycle. The combination of Dr Zika’s deep insight, record of innovation, leadership and collegial approach is being recognised globally.

Professor Isaac Santos, Southern Cross University

Professor Santos works at the interface between coastal oceanography, hydrology and geochemistry. He is a world leader in groundwater-surface water connectivity research, and has developed innovative analytical approaches that put him at the forefront of the field. He has created disciplinary bridges to reveal that submarine groundwater discharge is a major hidden water pathway driving water quality and significant carbon fluxes in iconic Australian estuaries, mangroves, beaches, and coral reefs. His research linked water worlds that are often investigated separately but require integration for optimal management. His influential contributions and extensive engagement with research end users have real world applications, resulting in more effective management of coastal water quality. Isaac is not only a highly regarded Earth scientist, but also an outstanding mentor of students and a candid advocate on environmental issues of major public interest including water quality, carbon sequestration and draining of wetlands.

Dr Rhodri Davies, Australian National University

Dr Rhodri Davies has made outstanding contributions to understanding solid Earth structure and evolution through the development and implementation of powerful computational tools for simulating geodynamical processes. His work builds on a multi-disciplinary base, combining a keen geological insight with a clear understanding of geophysical processes and exploitation of advances in mineral physics under conditions of high temperature and pressure. He has made fundamental contributions by testing controversial hypotheses relating to the nature of the variations in material properties in the Earth's mantle and the way in which these interact with the patterns of flow, showing that purely temperature effects can explain more of the behaviour than hitherto recognised. His recent work on intra-plate volcanism in eastern Australia and the evolution of Pacific hot-spot chains has achieved a very high profile around the world, by its innovative synthesis of careful geodynamic modelling with geophysical and geochemical input.

Associate Professor Juan Carlos Afonso, Macquarie University

Associate Professor Afonso is at the forefront of revolutionising the way that geoscientists interpret the signals they obtain from deep in the Earth by geophysical methods. Up until now, each individual method was treated separately and the results were often incompatible with each other. His approach follows a long-term interdisciplinary program to develop a rigorous computational model that unifies diverse sub-disciplines of the solid earth sciences. This method irons out anomalies that may occur in the individual sub-disciplines, producing a self-consistent whole picture of the physical and chemical state deep in the Earth.

Professor John Paterson, University of New England

Professor Paterson is a world-leading researcher on the earliest animals in the fossil record, using exceptionally preserved Australian fossils to answer major questions relating to evolution, biogeography and palaeoecology during the two greatest radiations in the history of animal life – the Cambrian explosion and the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event. He has made major contributions to the relative dating and correlation of strata around the globe in order to refine the geologic timescale for the Cambrian Period. He has published innovative research on how exceptional fossils come to be preserved. His rigorous field-based investigations of Cambrian rocks on Kangaroo Island and in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia, have brought Australian fossils to the forefront of understanding the evolutionary significance of Burgess Shale-type fossil assemblages and “small shelly” fossils, two of the most informative toolkits for identifying the roots of modern animal diversity in the Cambrian.

Dr Yingjie Yang, Macquarie University

Dr Yang is responsible for a major breakthrough in the treatment and interpretation of seismic data, which has opened up the use of ambient noise signals to decipher structures in Earth’s crust and upper mantle. Up to now, earthquakes or explosions had been necessary to generate seismic data; with Dr Yang’s method the background creaks and groans of Earth can be used to make images of the internal structure of Earth.

Dr Julie Michelle Arblaster, Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Julie Arblaster has been involved in, and initiated, distinguished research in the Earth sciences. Her research focuses on many aspects of the workings of the global climate system and its sensitivity to changes. The importance of her research lies in, amongst other things, how it serves to explain many of the causes of climate variability and change. Much of her research pertains directly to the climate of the Australian region, particularly with respect to the ozone hole, El Niño, the monsoon, and Australian rainfall variability.

Associate Professor Wouter Schellart, Monash University

Associate Professor Wouter Schellart has provided fundamental understanding on the evolution and dynamics of the solid Earth. His research breakthroughs have resulted in the development of a new global theory of Earth Dynamics, describing how the size of subduction zones affects the Earth's evolution and geodynamics. The theory explains several fundamental geological observations including the variety in velocity of the tectonic plates and their boundaries, the curvature of deep-sea trenches and volcanic island chains, and the formation of backarc basins and Cordilleran mountains. His work has quantified energy dissipation and flow patterns in the mantle, has identified a Global Terrestrial Reference frame for plate tectonics and provides new understanding for the geological evolution of the Southwest Pacific, Western North America and East Asia.

Dr Todd Lane, University of Melbourne

Dr Todd Lane is an atmospheric scientist at the University of Melbourne. Using state-of-the-art computer models he examines processes such as thunderstorms, airflow over mountains, heavy precipitation events, and bushfire weather. He has also conducted extensive research on turbulence near thunderstorms and the hazards they pose to commercial aircraft, and is currently working on improving methods for turbulence avoidance. He is currently supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship.

Professor Craig Simmons, Flinders University

Craig Simmons is an international expert in hydrogeology recognised for his contributions to variable density groundwater flow phenomena. He has greatly advanced our understanding of computer modelling used to solve variable density flow problems, was involved in pioneering work which first detected density driven convection in a field based groundwater system, has developed innovative laboratory equipment for the visualisation of dense plume migration, and has contributed major theoretical advances on how geologic heterogeneity controls dense plume migration. His work continues to transform the discipline of hydrogeology.

Professor David White, University of Western Australia

David White has developed models for the behaviour of the weak and mobile seabed sediments on which the pipelines and infrastructure required to develop Australia’s oil and gas resources must be built. He has led the design and deployment of new instruments to characterise the shifting sands and liquefiable muds found offshore Australia, and his design methods for pipelines and foundations have been rapidly adopted by industry.

Associate Professor Jeffrey Walker, University of Melbourne

Jeffrey Walker is an expert on remote sensing of soil moisture and data assimilation. He did the first study for guidelines on the key requirements for remote sensing of soil moisture by satellite – accuracy, repeat time and spatial resolution. Jeffrey has developed airborne passive microwave remote sensing capability in Australia, and is developing the only imaging active–passive simulator world-wide for use in a satellite scheduled for launch in 2012.

Awards and opportunities

Central to the purpose of the Academy is the recognition and support of outstanding contributions to the advancement of science. The honorific awards recognise outstanding contributions to the advancement of science at the early, mid and career level and career awards recognise life-long achievement. The Academy also supports scientists to undertake research projects, travel and deliver lectures at a national and international level.
Image Description
Academy medal

Awards, grants and programs

Our awards and funding programs recognise excellence across all career stages and support researchers to advance their work and impact. Alongside these initiatives, we deliver a range of programs and projects that broaden scientific knowledge, strengthen participation, and inspire engagement across the research community and wider public.
Image Description
Shine Dome aerial with city background

Sir Gustav Nossal, immunologist (1987 interview)

Gustav Nossal interviewed by Dr Max Blythe in 1987. Gustav Nossal studied medicine at the University of Sydney from where he earned a BSc (Med) in 1953 and a B Medicine and Surgery in 1955. After a two-year residency at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, in Sydney, he moved to Melbourne to work as a Research Fellow at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (the Hall Institute) leading to his PhD from the University of Melbourne in 1960.
Image Description
Sir Gustav Nossal

Sir Gustav Nossal

First interview, 1987

Gustav Nossal studied medicine at the University of Sydney from where he earned a BSc (Med) in 1953 and a B Medicine and Surgery in 1955. After a two-year residency at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, in Sydney, he moved to Melbourne to work as a Research Fellow at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (the Hall Institute) leading to his PhD from the University of Melbourne in 1960. From 1959 to 1961 he was Assistant Professor of Genetics at Stanford University. In 1968 he spent one year at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and in 1976 he was a Special Consultant to the World Health Organisation. Apart from these exceptions, Nossal's research career has all been at the Hall Institute. During his time there he concurrently served as Professor of Medical Biology at the University of Melbourne. He was Director of the Hall Institute from 1965 to 1996.

Interviewed by Dr Max Blythe in 1987.

A later interview with Sir Gustav Nossal was conducted by Dr Max Blythe in 1998.

Contents


An ambition to be a doctor

Gus, I’d like to start by asking just why you chose a career in medicine.

Well, I’ve got a pretty precise answer to that. I was born in 1931 in Austria, where a Jewish medical man, a professor of paediatrics called Professor Knöpfelmacher, was paraded to us children as a hero, the model of what a person should be. So from as long ago as I can remember I wanted to be a doctor too.

Very unusually for those times, I had a father of Jewish extraction and a mother who, like most Austrians, was a true-blue Catholic. That created quite a dilemma for them at Anschluss in 1938. They did not realise that in the crazy logic of Hitler’s Austria, Mischlinge like me – children of partly non-Jewish parentage – conferred a degree of protection on the parents. Instead, it seemed imperative for them to migrate, and we came to Australia.

I then had nine very happy years being trained by the Jesuits in primary and secondary school in Sydney. (It’s interesting how often a child’s religion follows the mother’s.) The Jesuits were extremely supportive of me, perhaps because I was seen as a bright kid. Anyway, eventually the classical interview came, as I subsequently found it so often did with the bright kids, ‘Well, my son, do you want to be a priest? Would you too like to be a Jesuit?’ But they backed off when I revealed that no, it was my ambition to be a doctor.

Back to top

Refining the ambition: medical research, not in biochemistry but in virology

How did you set about becoming a doctor?

At the ridiculously young age of 16 I went to medical school at the University of Sydney. And at about that time my elder brother moved to Adelaide as a lecturer in biochemistry, so I suppose a bit of hero-worship came into the situation. In fact, he did his PhD in Sheffield with Hans Krebs, who was famous at Oxford and a Nobel Laureate. What glamour to this 16-year-old lad: ‘My brother actually knows a Nobel Laureate!’ No-one had ever thought in those terms from Australia before. It seemed to me I might become very interested in biochemistry.

When I did my third-year med, the possibility arose of doing a Bachelor of Medical Science: taking a year off, working in a lab and getting some faint taste of what research life might be like. When I went up to see the Dean of the medical school, Professor Dewar, to ask what he would think if I took a year off to do biochemistry, this wise old man – who had seen so much more of the world than I had – said, ‘Plenty of good science students will be doing PhDs in biochemistry, and yes, it is an important discipline. But you really should do something that harnesses your medical knowledge a bit more.’

‘I have this colleague who is a virologist,’ he said, referring to Pat de Burgh, who was at that time a senior lecturer in microbiology. ‘Viruses are the simplest forms of life. Knowing about their reproduction will teach you a lot of biochemistry. Why not do that instead? Why not complete your fourth year, learn your pathology, learn your bacteriology, get into the wards a little bit? If you still want to do it, take your year then and do virology with de Burgh.’

That one conversation was, in a sense, the great moment – the beginning and the end in choosing my professional life, because the rest rolled forward very simply indeed. I had the good fortune of studying under this brilliant man Pat de Burgh, who became Professor of Bacteriology while I was finishing my time of working with him. I had this very wonderful entry point – at the low, low level of being a student for a year – into the world of medical research.

For any Australian working in virology and thinking back to the very early ’50s, only one name would spring to the foreground of your mind: Sir Macfarlane Burnet. And Pat de Burgh had this really smart idea. Each year he trotted his two or three students down to Melbourne for a week, to spend a few days with Burnet and one or two days at a couple of other institutions. So, as a 21-year-old, I had the good fortune of meeting this famous figure and actually joining him. You know, people are very impressionable at that age, and the ambition to work in virology at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute was born at that moment.

Back to top

How to work best with Sir Macfarlane Burnet

Macfarlane Burnet seems to have been an incredible man. Was that your impression?

Yes. In fact, my first impression of Burnet stays with me to this day. He came to Sydney towards the end of my fourth year, in 1951, and gave us a lecture on the poliomyelitis virus vaccine. (He had just been overseas and spoken to John Enders.) Here were we, each summer, frightened to death that we might catch polio, yet this man was telling us about a vaccine – and what’s more, one that was about to exist. In faraway Australia we’d never met anyone that had been an eyewitness to something as historic as that. It really fired my imagination, that someone could actually tell you about a discovery that was about to happen. And the impression grew in 1952, when I had those much more personal meetings with him!

Let me tell you about Burnet as a person. He was a very shy man, who in his autobiography actually described himself – with considerable exaggeration, I think – as a bit ‘autistic’. He was awkward with his fellow human beings, and he expressed that awkwardness by a certain sternness. So he was actually quite a stern boss, bordering on formidable. But I very soon realised that if you met this sternness by a respectful address, almost a respectful veneer, you could quickly access his mind. Supposing Burnet said something that I thought was nonsense, whereas another person might say, ‘Sir Mac, this is nonsense,’ I would say, ‘Sir Mac, what a very interesting idea. But do you happen to have read this recent paper by So-and-So, and have you considered the vague possibility of such-and-such and such-and-such, and if you look at it in that light, might not the conclusion be slightly different?’ You might almost think this is a bit hypocritical, but he responded to that form of intellectual interaction. It didn’t threaten his acknowledged primacy, which in some curious way needed constant reinforcing.

Was that one of the keys to your collaboration and your long-term friendship?

Absolutely. Do you know, to the day of his death we always called him Sir Mac; he never once asked me to call him Mac. He and I were comfortable and were good friends – as much as anyone could be with such an aloof and introverted person – and had a great deal of respect for each other. But it was a relationship based on the continued protection of his primacy.

Back to top

Learning how to deal with patients

What did you do about that ambition to work in virology?

Well, after my Bachelor of Medical Science year I went back to medical school like a good little boy and did my two years as a resident at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. That was very good for me, because I learnt how to deal with patients. I love medicine – I always think of myself as a doctor first – and I like people. I loved all of the work with the patients in a predominantly rather poor area of Sydney, where you were in fact the interface between that impersonal hospital system and the ‘honorary’, the visiting specialist. He was far too busy to talk to the relatives. If someone died, it was my job to explain to the relatives why, and if someone got better, it was my job to say, ‘Just watch them do this and that over the next little period.’ I loved that.

But when the second year of that was over, I came to a decision fork: I could either go ahead and complete my ‘membership’ of the College of Physicians, my MRACP as it then was – we’ve since changed to a longer degree, for a ‘Fellowship’ – which would have taken me a further two years, or I could embark on what all of my colleagues thought was a stupid dream, to become a virologist. Apart from anything else, where would a virologist get a job? One lectureship might come vacant every now and then, but there weren’t jobs for virologists growing on trees in the 1950s. It seemed to me that I would have to move down to Melbourne for a while.

Back to top

New directions: not virology, but immunology

By that time you were married, weren’t you? Tell me about your wife, Lyn, and what she thought about moving.

I got married in my year of being an intern. Interestingly enough, I always prided myself in the fact that while most of my colleagues married nurses, I married a speech therapist – but I didn’t meet my wife through the Royal Children’s Hospital, where she worked. I met her because we lived in adjoining suburbs and we had mutual friends. We were, oh, a happy, up-and-coming young couple. I suppose it would be fair to say that in a sense we had Sydney at our feet: she was (and is) very beautiful, and for better or for worse I was the dux of my medical school class and president of the medical students’ society, that sort of thing. You might say that we were what would be called in today’s world medical ‘yuppies’.

When I said to my wife, ‘Well look, this is what I want to do, but it’ll mean moving down to Melbourne,’ she said, ‘Give it a go. What have we got to lose for two years?’ You see, our thought in moving down to Melbourne in 1957, after my senior residency year, was that we would do a two-year stint with Burnet and then I would just trot back to Sydney and maybe Pat de Burgh, my mentor, could have organised a senior lectureship for me by then. And I would have been happy as a bird, to have that kind of a career. So although we weren’t too pleased in one sense about going down to Melbourne where we knew no-one, this two-year compact idea sustained us: we’d get back to all our friends and the lovely life we knew in Sydney before too much time was over.

But that was not to be.

That was not to be. First, there was a big disappointment in store for me. I wrote in late 1956 explaining my wishes and my hopes. I said, ‘Dear Sir Macfarlane, You will remember meeting me on the such-and-such, and I now want to become your student,’ and he said, ‘Nossal, we’ll fit you in somewhere. We’ll find you a fellowship’ – I think he mentioned the sum of £700 a year – but I have one thing to tell you: I am switching my whole interest from virology to immunology.’ And for a moment the bottom dropped out of my world.

We had had a few lectures in immunology, but (difficult as it must be for today’s student to believe, 30 years on) really immunology was a dead subject. It was a thing that Pasteur had invented and a few odd Germans had done something with, and then these here Yanks called Cabot and Heidelberger had turned it into something biochemical. I wondered what in the hell Burnet was on about. But this man had actually seen a wave that was about to crest and break, the immunology boom that really hasn’t yet receded. And so – by happenchance, by the sheerest accident, because I wanted to work with Burnet – I had the incredible experience of joining that wave before it had crested and of being brought along by it, like an inept surfer that can’t do anything other than be there in the foam. I consider that very good fortune.

Back to top

Immunology concepts, from Pasteur to the direct template hypothesis

Is that why you didn’t go back to Sydney after two years?

Yes. And now I’ll explain to you how I have been doubly blessed and doubly fortunate in my early life in the lab – which is why it’s my abiding desire to create the same kind of opportunity, the same kind of chance, for all of my lovely students and postdocs as Burnet prepared for me at the Hall Institute.

Burnet’s passion was to understand how cells made antibodies. I ascribe the discovery of our immune system to Louis Pasteur because even though Edward Jenner had vaccinated his milkmaids – they had told him that cowpox would be a good vaccine for smallpox – that was really entirely empirical. It was Pasteur who understood the microbial nature of infectious disease, and the process of attenuation. He didn’t know it was due to mutation, but he understood that if you attenuated germs they could still make you specifically immune. And in 1901 Emil von Behring discovered that this immunity was due to substances called ‘antibodies’. That began the great saga of the puzzle of antibodies.

How could a human being, or an experimental animal, make antibodies against virtually everything in that microbial world – even, as the great Karl Landsteiner discovered, against substances manufactured in the test tube, that had never existed in nature before? And how many bugs are there? Would there be a million different bacteria? I don’t know how many would exist, but each of those bacteria has many foreign substances on its surface, many ‘antigens’, which unfailingly cause antibody formation unless a person has an immunodeficiency of some sort. That was the puzzle that Burnet set himself to solve.

It was believed that the antibody fitted so beautifully, so precisely, into the antibody combining site – antigen and antibody like a hand in a glove – that the antigen had to act as a sort of a template. Although Landsteiner’s discoveries guided this belief, he didn’t actually coin the term ‘template’; that distinction belongs to Felix Haurowitz (a scientist still living today), who with Mudd and more or less also with Linus Pauling created the ‘direct template hypothesis’ of antibody formation. The concept was very simple: when antigen comes into the body, protein synthetic machinery sees something interesting and new, and begins to create a protein on the template of the antigen. So, in fact, rather than a hand in a glove it is like a plastic being moulded against a template, or a piece of hot metal being forged against a hot template. And that theory of antibody formation held sway for many decades.

Back to top

Burnet's insight into clonal selection

Burnet, however, had read the beginnings of what is now called the Crick dogma. He had realised something big was going on in molecular biology, but didn’t have it absolutely straight. But then he also read a paper by Niels K Jerne, who was subsequently to win a Nobel Prize for immunology, in which Jerne had put together a totally different, shocking view of antibody formation. He said, ‘In our total blood we have 1017 molecules of antibody per millilitre. We could afford to have in existence 1011 different sorts of antibody, and there’d still be a million of each. You would have a million molecules of 1011 species – a very, very big number – and that surely should be enough to recognise any antigen that could exist in nature or could be synthesised.’ Jerne didn’t specify at all how these antibodies would be made, or why there should be 1011 different antibodies, but he did introduce the incredibly important notion that the immune response was not going to be ‘instructive’, with an antigen instructing the body how to make these antibodies; it was going to be a ‘selective’ immune response. The antigen would fossick around in the body and find those rare molecules which would attach to it, and then, he said – but this is where his theory went a bit wrong – macrophages or scavenger cells would eat up this complex that was formed and somehow the antibody molecule would perpetuate itself, would act as a template for its own production. That turns out to be incorrect. It contravenes every rule of the Crick dogma.

But in 1957 Burnet twisted it around to say, ‘The selection notion is going to be right; there are going to be a large number of antibody molecules. But they’ve got to be seen as receptors on lymphocyte cells, so that the role of the antigen is to select a lymphocyte with a receptor molecule on it that fits the antigen, and then to cause that lymphocyte (but no other) to multiply, to differentiate, and perhaps’ to mutate further, to give better and better antibodies as more and more antigenic molecules hit that cell.’ And that turned out to be essentially correct.

What impact did that great insight by Burnet have on your research?

I must admit that at first, halfway into my first year in the lab, I thought it was pretty crazy. Burnet had shown me Jerne’s paper and asked what I thought about it, but let’s be frank, he’d also showed me many, many other papers. Perhaps as a reflection of my lack of imagination, I didn’t warm to this Jerne thing at all. I didn’t hear any more for a few weeks, but then one weekend Burnet wrote his ‘clonal selection theory’ and said, ‘What do you think of that?’ I took it away and read it, and a few days later I came back and said, ‘Well, Sir Mac, I can’t really tell you what I think of the theory. I’d like to think about that some more. But, with respect, I think I have a way that I could disprove it.’

I happened to have been reading the virus literature – some part of my mind still wanted to be a virologist – and so I explained, ‘Well, viruses can be grown in single cells, and there are very tricky ways now of culturing single cells in little capillary tubes and having one virus turn into 100 viruses by living inside a single cell. I don’t see why we couldn’t immunise an animal with three or four different vaccines, and then take out the single cells. We know that the animal as a whole would be making three or four different antibodies. Would one cell always be making one antibody, or would it be making two or three? Why shouldn’t we do such an experiment?’ I was so steeped in this direct template business that I was pretty confident we would find the cell was making two or three. Why shouldn’t I drop what I’m doing – which was good, steady, beginning work in immunology, nothing very fancy – and instead do this? ‘Why not?’ he replied. ‘Furthermore, I know who can help you.’

Back to top

Working with Lederberg for a golden three months

So now comes the second really big event in my life. Through the Fulbright Scheme, which brought visiting professors to Australia from the United States – and which still exists, as the Fogarty International Center Fellowship – Burnet was expecting the three-month visit in his lab of a truly fine geneticist, Joshua Lederberg. As a student of Beadle and Tatum’s he had worked on the genetics of the yeast Neurospora. But because bacteria multiply even faster than Neurospora he set out to develop bacterial genetics, and he and his wife Esther more or less created this science. Josh had become a very famous man in 10 years as the father of bacterial genetics, winning the Nobel Prize at the amazing age of 33. And this was the great man who Burnet was saying could help teach me micromanipulation.

What happened was that Lederberg – having come to work with Burnet on influenza virus genetics, in which Burnet was now no longer interested – totally changed his mini-sabbatical of three months to teach this 26-year-old upstart from Sydney, who was wanting to do something with single cells and antibody formation, how to micromanipulate cells. One of the little sadnesses of this very happy story, however, is that just when it looked as though the first results might be coming in, it was time for Lederberg to leave. He never did participate in the critical experiments which I did in late ’57 and early ’58, proving that, after all, one cell always did make only one antibody.

But the association with Lederberg was to continue and to be quite important to you.

Indeed it was. You see, as far as I was concerned, Burnet and Lederberg were quite different people. Burnet was 32 years older than I was, and when I first met him he had a monumental record of achievement already. Lederberg was only about six years older than I was, and from that point of view it was much easier to identify with him, even though he was far more achieved in science than I was. And secondly, I suppose I would describe myself as a fairly verbal person. I love debating; I think on my feet reasonably quickly. Burnet wasn’t at all like that, but Lederberg is the most brilliant person in the thrust and parry of scientific debate that I have ever known. He has an extraordinarily verbal, lightning-fast brain. Altogether, he made a massive impression on me.

You mentioned my wife. I can remember us sitting with Esther Lederberg and Josh on the floor of our little flat in Melbourne, getting stuck into debates that were mainly about science, but ranged over just everything in the world. Then they would go home to their rather ritzier flat (the visiting professor could afford it, you see) and I’d say to Lyn, ‘What an extraordinary thing that this chap has befriended me in the way that he has. I really think I’d like to go and work for him when we’re finished here.’

Back to top

The Stanford years: opportunity, challenges and inspiration

The next phase of this association was for me quite pivotal, centrally important. Lederberg was in the process of moving from a good but somewhat low-key university in Madison, Wisconsin, to a brand-new medical school in Palo Alto, California, the Stanford University Medical School – which previously had been a small annex to Stanford University based in San Francisco, in the city. The importance of this for me was, firstly, that Lederberg asked me to come and be a young assistant professor in his department. Secondly, Stanford University set out to create, in this wonderful and brilliantly designed new medical school, an absolute paragon of excellence in medical education, with a panoply of foundation professors who were historic figures. Think, for example, of the Department of Biochemistry, headed by Arthur Kornberg and containing Paul Berg, Dave Hogness, Dale Kaiser, Buzz Baldwin, Bob Lehmann – all figures to reach the US National Academy of Science in their own right, and both Paul Berg and Kornberg winning Nobel Prizes. A wonderful department. Think of the Department of Radiology, with Henry Kaplan (dead now) and George Klein, probably the world’s best-known cancer researchers. A magnificent opportunity for a young man. And as an assistant professor only 27 or 28 years old, I had to teach the freshman medical students: 64 selected out of 6000. So, a tremendous challenge, a wonderful thing to happen in a young life.

During those Stanford years, unfortunately, Lederberg was so preoccupied with the building up of his department and of the medical school that we never collaborated again. Those golden three months in Melbourne, I now recognise in hindsight, had been golden for him too, because he could work in the lab eight or nine hours a day. What chairman of a department can do that? I missed very much that closer, more personal contact with him, but as well as being always wonderful to debate things with, he gave me that opportunity and those years 1959 to 1961 were absolutely crucial to my formation.

In what way?

It predominantly has to do with the inadequacy that many people from Australia feel when they contemplate the international scene. The Australian community of scholars is very small, and before you’ve moved out you don’t know whether you can stack up. You may be the brightest medical student in your class, but do you really believe that you can mix it with those people in the US, the UK, the Scandinavian countries and so forth who write the textbooks, who win the Nobel Prizes and who, essentially, make world medical science? The answer is, ‘Of course you can.’ But you have to find that out. One of the happiest things in my life is now to see student after student, postdoc after postdoc, go through the same heady experience. We train our people well at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, and they go off to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or to Oxford or wherever, they succeed and they see that they can compete. But you know, you have to live through that. There’s no way anyone can explain it to you.

Your pioneering presence there must have conferred something on Australian scholars of this generation.

Indeed it did, because it would be fair to say, I think, that Lyn and I were very popular at Stanford. A lot of that I ascribe to her. People liked to ask us to dinner parties, and we met all of these great and famous people – and they became my colleagues. I was only an assistant professor but in California that doesn’t matter. It was refreshing to learn that whereas here in Melbourne things were rather hierarchical (they’re a bit less so now) you were on first-name terms quite quickly with all of these people. In some ways we think of those two and a half years as the happiest of our lives, because there’s something wonderful about being so free. You know that nothing that goes on in the politics will ever really touch you, so you can get stuck into the political debates and it doesn’t go as close to the heart as if someone is taking Australia to pieces. And you’re beginning to put the little planks in the career platform you’re building. You’re in that lovely stage of just being young.

Back to top

The dawn of a new age in immunology

I suppose you took with you to Stanford the Burnet problem that you had said that you would handle. If so, then apart from this being the happiest period of a lifetime, it must have been one of the most fruitful.

Yes, it was. We built on the one-cell one-antibody proposition, saw that it was absolutely correct, and began to apply it in various situations, such as considering its implications for immunological tolerance – this very big puzzle of how the body knows not to form antibodies against itself. We developed certain ideas about how that might work.

This is an excellent point at which to introduce a second major topic: what was happening to immunology generally at about that time. I mentioned a wave that was cresting, but Burnet was far from being the total wave. I was a happy and conscious eye-witness to a very drastic change in a discipline, the birth of what some have called a second golden age of immunology.

There are two parts to that change, a fundamental science part and a slightly more applied part. Since I’m a doctor first and a scientist only second, I will deal first with the applied, medical part. Three areas of medical science that don’t have much to do with vaccines were beginning to burgeon out at that time: the fields of auto-immune disease, organ transplantation and cancer.

I’m speaking now about the late 1950s, early 1960s, when people in various parts of the world – Melbourne, yes, but also London and New York and Stockholm – were just beginning to ask very deep questions about the involvement of this immune system which heretofore had been thought of only as a defence against infectious diseases. They were beginning to ask themselves, ‘Might this system be the total answer to some of the great problems of auto-immunity, organ transplantation and cancer?’ Do we have time for me to say a little bit about each of these three in turn?

Yes, please, if you would.

Back to top

The deep problem of auto-immunity

First, the deep problem of auto-immunity. If you, Max Blythe, were to donate a pint of your blood to me, Gus Nossal, something very bad might or might not happen. But if you were to donate your kidney to me, something very bad would certainly happen unless we did something about it, because my immune system has a vigorous capacity to react to, and reject, your kidney. It was beginning to be found out at that time, especially by people like Medawar and Gorer and James Gowans, in Oxford, that the rejection of foreign tissue is an immunological event. Medawar won the Nobel Prize for this insight that the cells which have the task of making antibodies, of guarding us through inflammatory responses against tuberculosis – a more cell-mediated style of immunity – are the same cells that will possibly reject the blood, if the blood groups are wrong. They will most certainly reject the kidney, because there is a thousand million to one chance that your kidney is identical to my constitution in all its blood groupings, all its tissue–histocompatibility types. And that leads to problems in transplantation, to which I will return.

Auto-immunity presents another puzzle. Why don’t we form antibodies to ourselves? Unprotected, Gus will form antibodies to Max. Why doesn’t Gus form antibodies to Gus? And then we have nature’s experiments. Robert Goode has termed disease ‘the great experiment of nature’. Diseases tell us so much about the normal. In some diseases we make antibodies, for example, to the red cells. Let’s ponder for a second what happens when I make antibodies to my own red blood cells. Instead of having their normal life span of 100 days, pumping the oxygen around the body to allow me to live, those antibody-coated red cells now live two or three days. I’ll have a vicious, haemolytic anaemia, where the red cells in my blood are dissolving inside my body. It’s very simple: with an untreated haemolytic anaemia, I’ll die.

So we have a progressive recognition of these auto-immune diseases, of which systemic lupus erythematosus and acquired haemolytic anaemia were like prototypes – one organ-specific, one more generalised – coming into the orbit of immunology. And lo and behold, everything that you learn by studying antibody formation, by studying organ transplants, suddenly fertilises, in a very particular way, this new area of medicine. We were, with Ian Mackay in the Hall Institute and Mac Burnet, amongst the very first to popularise this concept of the auto-immune diseases. At about the same time, in the late 1950s, Henry Kunkel was doing the same in New York and so was Peter Miesche (who was briefly at New York University but then went back to Switzerland). So a few hardy souls were daring to say that what we had in these diseases was auto-immunity.

In 1987, of course, that is now commonplace, even trite. But it was very unpopular at that time to say a disease might actually be due to antibodies gone wrong. In the intervening decades, diseases as common and as important as insulin-dependent diabetes and multiple sclerosis, possibly also rheumatoid arthritis, have somehow fallen into this auto-immune camp. It has been wonderful to see that evolve.

Back to top

Persuading the immune system to tolerate organ transplantation

You foreshadowed that the second developing area was organ transplantation.

Yes, the fact that the aggression of my lymphocytes against your kidney has to be combatted. I can remember, as if it were yesterday, a surgical professor of nephrology at Stanford University called Roy Cohn coming to me and saying, ‘Gus, you’re supposed to be an immunologist. Please explain to me why I can’t just wrap this kidney in plastic and prevent those lymphocyte cells that you speak about from getting in. Why doesn’t such a kidney graft work?’ You see, that is how primitive the understanding in 1959 was of how the immune system worked. I remember Norman Shumway, a wonderful man, doing heart transplants in dogs and brilliantly succeeding in allowing the heart to pump, until the total rejection by the lymphocyte cells of the body. And I remember Rose Payne working on the histocompatibility system, because Gorer and Snell had found that there were certain antigens that we call histocompatibility antigens, tissue type antigens, that you could match for. She was one of the real pioneers of that matching. All of that was happening there at Stanford University.

Of course, we now know that Norman Shumway stuck with it, and we do have heart transplants now. Sure, they work better because of cyclosporin, but he was able to make them work reasonably well with less elaborate immunosuppressant treatment.

Back to top

Search and/or destroy? The immune system’s role against cancer

And cancer?

That’s more controversial, and has been less spectacularly successful. But I must say that in my time at Stanford, to my great good fortune, my colleagues included George Klein, one of the great fathers of tumour immunology. He spent a six-month mini-sabbatical with Lederberg, who had the power to draw these great people to him. (Avrion Mitchison, one of Britain’s most famous immunologists, also came and spent time in the lab while I was there.)

Why is the cancer side of it more controversial? There is no doubt at all that lymphocytes and macrophages, the intelligent cells and the scavenger cells, have the potential to kill cancer cells. There is the potential of the immune system to kill cells that are cancerous – under some circumstances. Where there is grave doubt is whether the potential exists to kill the very last cancer cell. Debulking of a tumour we can achieve already; through radiation, cytotoxic chemotherapy and, for that matter, surgery, we can remove the great mass of tumorous tissue. The trick in cancer treatment is to remove that last malignant cell. And as we sit here it is still not given, with a few exceptional situations like chorionic carcinoma, that the immune system really has the potential to remove that last cancer cell. But the field has not gone away. It has progressed: there are still people such as Stephen Rosenberg, of the NIH, who are acting on the belief that the lymphocyte cells, if properly trained, properly schooled, properly helped by soluble molecules like interleukin-2, can do the job.

Is it possible, in fact, that they would do the job on certain slow-developing cancers?

That is exactly what I was coming to next. During those years I also met the wonderful Lewis Thomas, who was then at New York University as the Chairman of the Department of Medicine. He was keen on the immunological surveillance notion. He asked how we knew that this immune system didn’t actually evolve to constantly patrol the body, find cells that were a bit aberrant, and knock ’em off. Perhaps we were only seeing the organ transplantation/nuisance value of the immune system as a side function of the cancers that have got away, the few that remain after the immune surveillance has done a good job polishing off most of the precancerous centres.

Burnet took up this view of immunological surveillance very actively and wrote some brilliant papers about it, but I believe the primacy of the notion is Lewis Thomas’s. It hasn’t quite survived as a clear-cut notion, however. For example, we now know that immunosuppressed people who have had too much therapy for their kidney or liver grafts don’t really come down with a bewildering variety of cancers. They do get an excessive number of lymphoid malignancies – lymphomas and leukaemias – but in point of fact it would be pretty doubtful as to whether cancer of the stomach, of the cervix/uterus, of the lung, has much to do with immunological surveillance.

In any event, those were the three big disease areas that came into the orbit of immunology as I was a young man growing up, and it has been very heady to watch their separate, parallel, strong evolutions as subdisciplines.

Back to top

Developments in the underlying science

You would find the changes in the basic science quite exciting too, I imagine.

Well, don’t forget that in 1957, when I started, really all we knew about antibodies was that they were proteins that could be separated electrophoretically, and then we used to talk about big antibodies, the 19S, with the macroglobulins and small antibodies being 7S. All of the beautiful work on the structure of the antibody molecule – which we can now, with X-ray crystallographic precision, see at 1.5-Ǻngstrom resolution – was still in the future. And even further in the future was the knowledge of the genetics of the immunoglobulin genes, this extraordinary system that indeed allows us to create inside our own bodies, through genetic translocations, genes for millions and millions of antibodies.

True, I have never, despite my ambitions as a 16-year-old, done any biochemistry myself. Yet as a cellular immunologist (of, shall we say, some note) I have had a box seat to watch people like Rodney Porter, Gerald Edelmann, Lee Hood progressively uncover the secrets of the structure of the antibody molecule. And then I have been able to gain a still better perspective, as it were, as the director of a large immunology research institute, to watch the likes of Tonegawa and Phil Leaver come in and dissect for me, display for me the genetics of the immune system. I’ve been terribly lucky, Max, in the colleagues that I’ve had over the years.

Back to top

The future in vaccinology

You’ve talked of a seemingly golden period of immunology, and of three massive areas of change, from that early defence and immunisation field to one that is much more ambitious in terms of wider body defences. Let’s look now at the next 10 years. Where’s the future?

Well yes, I will speculate with you on the future, but as a real disciple of Louis Pasteur I’ll go right back and start with him. Pasteur saw no discrepancy between pure science and applied science. In fact, the man who did these wonderful pure science things – discovering the true nature of microbial life, the fundamental principles of immunology – was also a consultant to the wine industry of France, and (though many people don’t know it) an expert on the restoration of Old Master paintings through applied chemistry. There’s still a laboratory in the Louvre where he did that work. So he was both a pure and an applied scientist.

In the applied science of immunology in the Pasteurian sense, I see a great future for the development of new and improved vaccines. We do not yet have a vaccine for any parasitic disease of man, including malaria. And the only vaccines we have for the great diarrhoeal-disease producers like cholera and typhoid are still unsatisfactory. We do not have a vaccine for AIDS or for hepatitis A, some of these very important diseases. I see a great future – impelled, I believe, by the genetic engineering revolution and by the fact that we can now manipulate these microbes so much more cleverly than Pasteur could – for vaccine development, not only molecular vaccines created through recombinant DNA but also live attenuated vaccines through the more planned attenuation of microbes than Pasteur could do.

So the vaccinology is where I’d like to begin. I have a very great interest in the diseases of the Third World, which desperately needs new vaccines and improved vaccines. That’s not terribly glamorous, you know. It might be more glamorous to think about cures for cancer, but there’s an enormous field here.

Back to top

The continuing fight against cancer

We’re facing an extremely interesting future in regard to the cancer problem too, because we are learning more about the lymphoid and scavenger cells, and how to make them dance to our tunes. I’m thinking very particularly of a new research area, lymphokine research. We have a lot still to learn about the pure molecules, again made available through recombinant DNA technology, that act as ‘whips’ for the immune system: they act as strong triggers for the individual cells. There are quite a few of them, perhaps as many as nine or 10 different molecules. Some affect the scavenger cells, some affect the lymphocyte cells, some affect the so-called B cells more than the T cells and so forth. As we learn all about all of that, I believe, with the intelligent harnessing of these cells in the fight against cancer we will find there are particular cancers which immunotherapy will cure.

The big question is whether this will include the common cancers. Most of the triumphs in cancer therapy in the recent past have been in malignancies like leukaemia, lymphoma, chorionic carcinoma, seminoma of the testis – rather unusual tumours. Will we be able to cure metastatic cancers of the breast, the colon, the lung, by immunotherapy? The jury isn’t yet in on this one, I think, but I would look more to a future which combines cellular therapy with monoclonal antibodies, the targeted missiles homing in on the cancer through an antibody vehicle acting as a magic bullet, and which builds on our knowledge of these lymphokine factors. By the way, I’m not telling you anything very new here, because in fact the DNA ‘industry’ – the Genentechs and the Thetises of this world – is investing many millions of dollars into the search for the various factors I have mentioned, in the hope that, inter alia, a cancer therapy modality will come forward.

Everything we’ve learnt about cancer in these last 50 years of very frontal study points to the need for a multipronged attack. The cancer cell is not really just like the parasite or the influenza virus, which mutates away exclusively to avoid the immune system. This cell does indeed have a fantastic capacity to mutate and change and foil the immune attack, because it can easily spare a few antigens and change its spots, but it is also mutating and changing to avoid every other defence of the body – and it has been a successful parasite too, because of its adaptability. It’s amazing to look down the microscope at a cancer cell that has gone completely wild. You and I have 46 chromosomes, but this cancer cell can have any number of chromosomes, up to twice as many as the normal cell or even more, and it chucks out chromosomes willy-nilly. Please have great respect for the cancer cell’s capacity to foil what human intelligence can do.

I’m not pessimistic in the long run, but society is going to have to give us time.

Back to top

Moving inevitably towards medical–political science

You mentioned diseases in the Third World as long-lasting problems that might be solved in the next decade or so. Would you say you have an opportunity now, from a high-ranking position in science, to influence future developments?

Once again I can really thank fate and fortune, in that I’ve had a very lucky association with what might be called the political and the international-political aspect of medical science. Of course you would want to change a lot of things if you could rerun the tape of your life. And then there are other things which you say you would change, but in your heart of hearts you wouldn’t.

If I kid myself and listen to the part of my mind that says, ‘Nossal, you really could have done better in the lab if you’d had a longer time exclusively for lab work,’ I may think that I’d have been much better off being made the director of an institute at the age of 44, not 34. Part of my mind does believe that. It says, ‘Gosh, on top of the relatively short time of only eight years of full-time lab work, wouldn’t it have been lovely to have another 10 with no administration and no other thoughts?’

But that didn’t happen. I became Burnet’s successor in 1965, some three years or so after returning from the Stanford years. And so another part of me says, ‘Because you were indoctrinated into the wider world of medical research at 34 and could make a lot of your mistakes and do a lot of your learning while you were still very young, you’ve had a bigger window and a longer and, in some ways, deeper perspective onto the wider thing than if you’d only become a senior professor in your late 40s.’

Becoming the Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute meant fairly naturally that you were fed bumph from the World Health Organization and things like that. And because I began so early in my life, by about 1970 I was already – probably as no great surprise for anyone – being regarded as a fairly senior adviser to WHO. Indeed, in 1973 I was asked to join WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Medical Research, its central policy committee for such matters. I served on it for eight years.

Back to top

True partnerships to promote tropical disease research

My interest in Third World diseases began even earlier, though. In about 1970, essentially through my friendship with Howard Goodman, an immunologist who had given up his career in research to work full time with the World Health Organization, I became closely involved as an informal adviser to WHO in the planning of research aimed at Third World diseases. And I have had two sabbaticals in my period as Director of the Hall Institute: one in 1968 as a scientific experience at the Pasteur Institute, and one in 1976 which I chose to devote entirely to thinking about and planning for a bigger research thrust on Third World diseases.

At that time I had very great good fortune in being associated first with Howard Goodman and then with a Nigerian, Adetokunbo Lucas, who came as Howard Goodman’s successor to head what we were calling by the end of the year the Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases – which has become a $25 million to $30 million a year research program, targeted against six of the major tropical parasitic diseases, with malaria at their head. I spent the year planning, thinking, proselytising, travelling, promoting the view (which Joshua Lederberg, by the way, also forcefully shared) that more of Western science should be devoted towards these tropical problems. This could be seen as a little bit of the ‘white man’s burden’, a little bit of the Albert Schweitzer coming out, but we were absolutely determined that it wouldn’t fail for the same reasons as Schweitzerism.

Schweitzerism failed because it was paternalistic. It was the ‘white man’ telling the ‘black man’ what to do and how to lead his life. We were determined from the beginning to make it a true partnership, with responsibility and planning truly shared between developed and developing countries. And that is indeed how this WHO program has evolved.

As a direct result of this program we have many new drugs already in place for the treatment of parasitic disease. Mefloquine is one example, for malaria. Ivermectin is a new treatment for African sleeping sickness. In the short time since 1976, great things have already happened. And we are well down the track of experimental vaccines for diseases such as malaria. But these things too have to be construed in the long term.

How well has the malaria vaccine program gone?

Frankly, had you asked me that question six months ago I would have said, ‘Very well.’ Over these last six months we’ve become more aware of some of the roadblocks. For example, we have to do some of this research in monkeys, but monkey availability is a very big roadblock. We are gaining a great respect for applied research and developmental research as, in some ways, even more difficult than basic research. So I would now answer your question by saying, ‘Fairly well, and as well as it is going anywhere in the world.’ But no-one in the world has yet produced a malaria vaccine, I regret to say. I hope that a decade from now you and I will be able to reconsider this interview and say, ‘Gosh, they did it!’ – whether at New York University or at the Hall Institute or in Stockholm at the Karolinska Institute doesn’t really matter very much, so long as someone does it.

Back to top

Worldwide endeavours for Third World health

Don’t think that WHO was the only organ beginning to think about more first-class, high-powered research for tropical diseases. Some of the foundations, in parallel, were thinking similarly – the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation in schistosomiasis, the Rockefeller Foundation with its charismatic director of medical science, Dr Ken Warren, in the parasitic disease area, and most recently the MacArthur Foundation in Chicago ploughing $20 million a year into this style of very important research.

So we’ve been lucky at the Hall Institute. Having come in on the ground floor, we now have a very big position in tropical diseases – first-class science, and great younger scientists like Graham Mitchell, Dave Kemp, Robin Anders standing shoulder to shoulder with me pursuing these goals right here in Melbourne, even though we don’t have any tropical problems. But that was my first blooding, you might say, in medical–political science. And it’s ongoing: in just a few days I am off to one of WHO’s big committee meetings about this tropical disease research program.

Back to top

Shedding light on society’s questions

Having looked at the minutiae of the biochemical spectrum and at immunological mechanisms, and at ways in which they might help to rid a very wide section of the world of the suffering it has endured for so long, through your publishing you have also helped other people to look at these things. This is an enormous breakaway from all your other responsibilities. How did it come about?

Well, I do fancy that I have a certain role to play in communication with the layman – the lay person. (I’m trying very hard, as an old-style ‘male chauvinist pig’, to get with this nonsexist language. It is important, actually.) So why am I so interested in such communication?

I was very interested in debating at school: one of the things that the Jesuits did for me was that they spotted what I suppose you might call my verbal skill, and one of my big turn-ons at school was being captain of the debating team. On becoming a medical student, then, I parlayed this skill into quite an activity in student politics, and after some years I ended up as president of the medical students’ society.

When I got into science, however, other than giving technical lectures – which obviously every lecturer and professor had to do – I wasn’t using these skills very much, until one fine day in about 1963 or ’64 Scientific American asked me to write an article on how cells make antibodies. (That would have been when the work I was doing on antibody formation by single cells reached its flowering.) I enjoyed doing that article, and immediately after its successful publication someone wrote to me saying, ‘There’s enough in this for a book.’ So Antibodies and Immunity was my first book. It gave me great pleasure to put together words from which regular students and maybe school-leavers and maybe even – with a very big effort – an unbiological lay person could get some glimmering of an answer to questions such as: What’s this immune system all about? How do the cells make antibodies? Why it is important? Over the years I’ve had a chance to do five books of that general ilk, all probing some different aspect of popular science or of the science–society interface.

Back to top

Scientific credibility and communication

Here I’d like to bring in another angle. As the director of a medical research institute these days you can’t just lead your life with other scientists. That’s still the most important part: you’ve still got to have scientific credibility, to try to exercise scientific leadership, to have the respect of your own colleagues in our own discipline, otherwise you certainly won’t be a successful director. Ask Sir Walter Bodmer, for example, how he leads ICRF, in London – one of those two great cancer institutes. Ask Robin Weiss, who runs the Chester Beatty. They’ll both tell you that they’ve got to have their credibility in science.

But you’ve also got to be a communicator. You must understand the political sector and the private donors that make it possible to continue your work. You must welcome into the laboratories all kinds of people – those interested in animal ethics or in the ethics of medical research, community leaders of a wide variety of types. I think that having a prior interest in communication, with the debating and that quasi-political-animal side of me that got into student politics, has made it much easier for me to do that part of the job, let’s say, moderately well.

Similarly, the types of things that allowed me when I was 20 to influence other medical students in the arrangement of the medical students’ ball, or in the production of the yearbook at the end of the year, now allow me – having been director under conservative and Labor governments – to count as dear friends and valued colleagues Cabinet ministers from both sides of the political fence and to have some small role in advising them about Australian science and technology and this biotechnology revolution that we’re in the midst of. I have tremendously enjoyed that. I’ve rather valued the fact that if I take off, temporarily, my hat of thinking about antibodies and B cell growth factors and immunological tolerance and the immune system and cancer, I can put on another hat and say, ‘Well, how does Australia build a biotechnology industry, from a standing start?’ – not an easy thing to do, but very worthwhile to ponder. I suppose I spend now 10 or 20 per cent of my time on this really quite political-style consideration of ‘science in society’, ‘science in politics’, ‘science in business’.

Back to top

So much still to be done

Gus, I am indescribably grateful for this talk about a career that has spanned so much and has broadcast such enlightenment. Are there any particular thoughts you’d like to leave with us this afternoon?

Just this: I’ve been very happy and fortunate in my life, and I suppose some would say I have been successful to a degree. But I am so much more impressed with what remains to be done, with the ineffable challenges and joys of a life in medical research. I often say that the happiest thing that happens to me is when one of my students is so much brighter than I am (and believe me, the good ones mainly are) and becomes my teacher within six months.

There is so much to be done in this wider world of medical research, so much good to be done for humanity, so many challenges, such a rich way of leading a life with many facets, that if this interview influences even one person towards thinking about medical research as a career for their life, then the work that you and I have done here today, Max, will have been worth while.

And I hope that in 10 years’ time we can extend the range of this interview by talking about 10 more years of work on your part.

Absolutely fabulous, because believe me, by then I’ll be retired. And although I can’t really have any more grey hairs, you will certainly have a few more.

Probably lost altogether! I look forward to our next talk, and thank you again.

Back to top