Prime Minister's Prizes for Science

Captured cycle: This page is retained for historical guidance. Confirm whether the program has reopened before planning an application.

Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science

Australia’s Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science are the country’s highest-profile, national awards for achievement in science, research-based innovation, science teaching, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems. They are not project grants. They are public recognition awards, with prize money attached, for contributions that are already done and can be evidenced.

This page is written for non-specialist readers who need to decide three things quickly:

1. Is this a realistic option for the person I care about?
2. What exactly is required and what is the effort?
3. Is it currently worth starting now, or should I wait for the next cycle?

The content below is intentionally practical, with plain language and explicit “do this now” guidance.

Overview in plain terms

The program recognises four kinds of excellence:

• Research and innovation achievements.
• The translation of science into practical solutions.
• Excellence in science teaching.
• Indigenous-led knowledge systems practice and stewardship.

It is run under the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and the competition is nomination-based. You generally cannot nominate yourself. A nomination is a statement from one or more people who know the nominee’s work well and can prove why it is nationally important.

The official program page is the current anchor page for the initiative. That page also explains that nominations for the 2026 cycle closed on 18 December 2025, with 2027 rounds expected to open later in 2026. The exact dates and status are best treated as changing by cycle, so if you are planning now, verify the latest status on the links in the official section before your team starts submission.

At-a-glance summary

What this opportunity is

This is a national prestige mechanism. It is meant to say, in practical terms, “this person or team should be visible as a national example.”

The key distinction: if you are looking for money to fund a new experiment, PhD, startup, curriculum pilot, or long-term research, this is not that program.

If you are asking for one-time recognition and validation of major existing outcomes, this is exactly the category of program that can deliver long-term profile benefit.

What this opportunity is not

• It is not a replacement for grant funding.
• It is not a project budget.
• It is not a scholarship.
• It is not a self-directed application.

It is, effectively, a national nomination process that may result in:

• A medal or symbolic recognition package.
• A publicly visible award.
• Award money in the ranges published on the official pages.

Who the program is for (fit check)

At a high level, this is for:

• Researchers and innovators whose work has durable impact in a scientific area.
• Teachers in primary or secondary settings showing sustained excellence in STEM teaching.
• Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander-led knowledge systems work with demonstrable community benefit.

The program is broad and includes many disciplines, but it is still selective. The right candidate is not “good” in a general sense; they are strong in the exact criteria for one category.

What exactly the categories are

Science prizes (5)

Science teaching prizes (2)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems prize (1)

Team and award recipient structure

The science prizes are frequently awardable to an individual or a team. Team entries are allowed in categories with practical guidance to split recipients equally across members.

For the knowledge systems category, recipients can be:

• An individual.
• A team of up to 4 Indigenous members.
• A community group with representatives.

For teaching prizes, the nomination is tied to a registered school teaching role.

What each category really asks for in English

Most applicants fail not because they lack achievements, but because they submit narratives too broad for the category lens.

Science categories: what reviewers usually look for

A strong nomination typically demonstrates:

• Specific scientific or innovation outputs (papers, products, deployments, policy shifts, commercial adoption, or equivalent evidence).
• A direct line from work to benefit.
• A credible and measurable impact story rather than abstract claims.

For these prizes, the official criteria pages require that the nominee’s achievement is not only excellent, but clearly influential in Australia and preferably beyond.

Innovation-specific filter

Innovation-related categories add a conversion step: not only the science quality, but proof that the work has been translated into practical use or impact.

New Innovators filter

This is not a “late-career lifetime achievement” award; it is explicitly for earlier-stage strong progress toward translation and impact.

Teaching categories: what makes a competitive nomination

Reviewers check evidence of sustained teaching excellence:

• The nominee’s classroom teaching role is current and active in STEM.
• The achievement aligns with state or territory curriculum responsibilities.
• Evidence links to student impact, equity, or long-term learning outcomes.

Indigenous knowledge systems category: what is non-negotiable

This is not a category for all Indigenous research generally. It is for Indigenous-led projects where the nominated person/group is practising and preserving Indigenous knowledge systems for community, place, and broader Australian benefit.

Eligibility in detail

The eligibility rules are category-specific. Read this as a practical checklist before investing time.

Common eligibility principles

Across all categories, nominations must meet all of these:

• The nominee should be an Australian citizen or permanent resident.
• The nominee should not nominate themselves.
• The nominee should not be in multiple categories at once; where this happens, the department asks for one category to be selected.
• The nominee must provide eligibility and evidence support.

Nominator rules

Nominators must have first-hand knowledge of the nominee’s work.

They must not be a close family member.

The nominator generally needs supporters and, for some categories, independent referees.

Science prizes eligibility details

Based on the published guidance:

• Australian citizen or permanent resident.
• Not self-nominated.
• Not simultaneously in multiple categories.
• Must meet specific criteria for the nominated prize.
• Prior awards or professional membership are not compulsory.
• For Science and Innovation categories, nominees are expected to provide strong evidence for criteria that usually include significance, novelty, and impact.

Teaching prizes eligibility details

Published requirements include:

• Australian citizen or permanent resident.
• Undertaken nomination achievement in Australia.
• Registered primary or secondary teacher on the Australian Schools List.
• Active in STEM classroom teaching at nomination time (parental leave is generally accommodated where return is planned).
• The nomination support requires either the nominator or one of the supporters to be the current principal/head of school where the achievement occurred.

Knowledge systems eligibility details

From official guidance:

• Nominee must be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.
• Can be an individual, a team of up to 4 Indigenous members, or community group representatives.
• Must be practising Indigenous knowledge systems in a project with demonstrable benefit to Indigenous peoples, communities or place.
• Must show authentic connection and respectful community engagement.
• Self-nomination is not allowed.

How to decide if this is worth your time

A practical decision framework:

1. Does the nominee have outcome evidence that is specific, auditable, and beyond generic claims?
2. Is there a person available who can nominate with authority and produce required support materials?
3. Can your team produce a clear Stage 1 response within strict character limits?
4. Is the nominee comfortable with public recognition and additional reporting at award time?

If you cannot answer “yes” to most of these now, the nomination is likely to stall.

A good rule: this opportunity rewards preparation quality, not volume.

Two-stage application process in practice

You do not submit a full narrative pack once. You submit in stages.

Stage 1 (eligibility and evidence framing)

The process across all tracks is the same structure:

• Confirm nominee willingness.
• Prepare category-specific CV/background material (template is usually required).
• Build criteria-aligned text with strict character limits.
• Name supporters.
• For some science categories, name independent referees.
• Complete the Stage 1 online nomination form and submit it before close.

Stage 1 character limits and file rules

Officially published limits vary by category:

• Science prizes: around 3,000 characters for the criterion response (officially stated on the science nominations page).
• Teaching and knowledge systems pages: around 4,500 characters in Stage 1.
• CVs are often constrained to templates and page length (commonly 2-page caps).

Stage 2 (shortlist invitation)

Only shortlisted nominations progress.

The typical Stage 2 tasks are:

• A much more detailed criterion response.
• Higher total character budget per criterion and total pack.
• Supporter statements with character limits.
• Optional media submissions (including audio/video in some tracks).
• Additional attachments as specified in the formal guidelines.

Reviewers assess shortlisted nominations through an independent process using referees and criteria scoring.

Why category and stage rules matter

Several categories use category-specific structures that can quietly reduce success chances if ignored.

Science and innovation categories

There is usually a mix of:

• Achievement summary.
• Evidence list tied to impact.
• Clear criteria mapping in both Stage 1 and Stage 2.

Teaching categories

In addition to criteria responses, there is often stronger expectation for classroom context. A teaching nomination should not be an “achievement list” only; it must show teaching environment and student learning impact.

Knowledge systems category

For this category, eligibility and identity conditions are tightly coupled to Indigenous leadership and community legitimacy. Failing to explain this clearly at Stage 1 can invalidate an otherwise strong submission.

Practical materials checklist by category

Keep everything in a structured folder and label files to match category.

Shared pack for all categories

• Nominee declaration / consent that the nominee is willing.
• Nominator confirmation with knowledge statement.
• Category-specific form responses.
• Contact details for nominees, supporters, and referees.
• Publication, deployment, or evidence index.
• Clear timeline map of where each document was sourced.

Science Prizes pack

• CV using the required template.
• Stage 1 response with criterion mapping.
• Supporter and independent referee contacts (with consent).
• Stage 2 materials if shortlisted (or if your internal confidence threshold is high). The official process can include:
  • Extended criterion responses.
  • Supporter statements.
  • Attachments as required.

Teaching prizes pack

• CV template in required format.
• Stage 1 statement aligned to criteria.
• Confirmed supporters (with one from school leadership as required).
• Proof of active role and teaching context.
• Stage 2 statement and optional short video if requested by category and you want stronger evidence.

Knowledge systems pack

• 2-page background/experience statement in template format.
• 4,500-character Stage 1 response per official guidance.
• Two supporters (at least one Indigenous and able to confirm cultural links as appropriate).
• Two independent referees.
• Stage 2 evidence plan including optional media to demonstrate project context.

Timeline and decision points

Below is the schedule from official information published for the 2026 round. Always check before submission.

Practical implication

The official pages are currently not an open continuous intake. If your nominee is aligned but dates are closed, start preparation now and queue for next cycle. The effort is mostly documentation quality, so waiting still means forward progress.

Why teams should start before an open window

A strong nomination is not produced in a weekend.

Preparation during closed periods typically improves your odds because you:

• Clarify category fit early.
• Gather consent from referees and supporters before deadlines.
• Capture evidence before it is “lost in old emails.”
• Build stronger writing around official criteria words.

Readiness scorecard

Before pressing submit, answer these with a plain Yes/No:

1. Can the nomination be explained in one paragraph that names what changed because of the nominee?
2. Can each criterion be evidenced by at least 2 concrete examples?
3. Are all nominators and supporters independent and not close family?
4. Are stage-required contacts confirmed and available before deadline?
5. Does the nominee understand public obligations and profile implications?
6. Can the narrative answer stay within character limits?

If you score below 4, reduce scope and focus on evidence first.

Common mistakes that cost nominations

1) Submitting broad narratives

This looks fluent, but judges reward criterion-linked evidence and concrete outcomes.

Fix: map each paragraph to one criterion and include concrete measures.

2) Waiting until the last days

Last-minute assembly causes missing supporter details, weak evidence, and rushed writing.

Fix: build a submission calendar by day, not by mood.

3) Confusing who should do what

People sometimes conflate nominator, supporter, and referee roles.

Fix: assign roles in writing:

• Nominator: builds and submits.
• Supporters: provide independent support statements.
• Referees: external expert assessment.

4) Ignoring character limits

Even excellent content fails if over-limit.

Fix: draft outside the portal first, then trim to exact limits.

5) Misreading category scope

For example, an education-focused practitioner can still qualify in teaching only if the evidence aligns to active classroom impact and current registered role.

Fix: choose one category and force all evidence to match it.

6) Underestimating community validation in knowledge systems nominations

Knowledge systems categories generally require culturally anchored, community-grounded support.

Fix: include supporters who can credibly speak to Indigenous leadership, legitimacy, and benefits.

What most people miss in a strong nomination

• They show impact without context (who benefited and how).
• They list outputs but do not connect outcomes to criteria.
• They assume “quality” is enough; the program needs “quality, relevance, and proof.”

A stronger submission explains:

• What changed.
• Why it matters now.
• Who benefits.
• Why this achievement is still active and durable.

Frequently asked practical questions

Is this funding?

No. This is a recognition prize with award money but not a funding stream for new project operations.

Is self-nomination allowed?

No.

Can the nominee be from outside Australia?

Nominee rules usually require Australian citizenship or permanent residency.

Can there be a team nomination?

Yes, where the category and rules allow it. Team-based awards usually divide money equally.

Are international collaborators allowed?

Usually in research and innovation contexts, collaborators can be acknowledged. Whether they can be nominated depends on category structure, and the nominee still needs to satisfy official eligibility.

Can this be used strategically for career advancement?

Yes, but only if the package is done to judgment quality standards. A weak submission harms nothing except time. A high-quality submission increases visibility and review-readiness.

How can I tell if this is worthwhile for this year?

If the current cycle is open, submit only if Stage 1 evidence is complete and consented. If not, prepare now and wait.

What to do next (7-step action plan)

1. Pick one category and confirm the nominee matches the category definition exactly.
2. Confirm nominee willingness in writing.
3. Build a source list of evidence.
4. Recruit and brief a nominator plus supporters early.
5. Draft Stage 1 response against every criterion and check character limits.
6. Run a peer review with one reviewer outside the nomination circle.
7. Submit through the business.gov.au portal and keep all confirmation references.

Official links (priority)

• Official program page (general): Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science
• Science Prizes (nominate on this track): Prime Ministers Prizes for Science – Science Prizes
• Science Teaching Prizes: Prime Ministers Prizes for Science – Science Teaching Prizes
• Knowledge Systems Prize: Prime Ministers Prizes for Science – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Knowledge Systems
• Contact channel (official): [email protected]
• Phone support: 13 28 46

Final practical note before you start

Do not start with “let’s write a beautiful story.” Start with criteria mapping. If your evidence does not map cleanly and convincingly, the story will not pass review. The strongest nominations do three things consistently:

• Make claims that can be verified.
• Keep to the category.
• Use clear language for non-specialist judges while preserving technical validity.

That is the difference between polite praise and an award-worthy nomination.