ACM revealed the Canberra campaign on March 4, with national public health bodies, ACT senator David Pocock and the ANU joining the ACT government to pressure federal Labor to headquarter the new centre in the nation's capital.

The ACDC would play a similar role to the US Centres for Disease Control, providing a central preparation and response hub for major public health emergencies.

Canberra backers have cited the proximity to government and the federal public service as key assets, as well as the advantage of "neutral ground" compared with a site in Melbourne. The ANU said the new centre could form part of the world-leading national health precinct it was planning.

But the Victorian government said Australia already had a world-leading health and medical research precinct in the nation's former capital, Melbourne.

"Victoria is the medical research centre of Australia and is among the world's best, and our investment has positioned us alongside places like Boston and London," a government spokesperson said.

"Victoria will soon be home to the largest centre of infectious disease expertise in the Southern Hemisphere - the Australian Institute for Infectious Disease - in addition to the new Cumming Global Centre for Pandemic Therapeutics."

Victoria's medical research sector brings about $21 billion to the state economy, supporting 30,000 jobs.

Melbourne's Parkville precinct contains top research organisations like the Doherty Institute, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and The Florey Institute, as well as the University of Melbourne and the Royal Melbourne, Royal Women's, and Royal Children's hospitals.

The spokesperson said the government couldn't comment further on ongoing negotiations between the state and federal government, but said Victoria's significant long-term investments in public health and disease research gave Melbourne's scientists "everything they need to tackle infectious diseases".

"We are encouraging the Commonwealth to leverage this expertise as they establish their Centre for Disease Control."

ANU microbiologist Professor Peter Collignon said the Victorian government's stance was predictable but misguided.

"There's a surprise, Victorian people think it should be in Victoria," Prof Collignon said.

"It may be true [Melbourne has a world-class research precinct], but this is supposed to be an Australia-wide institution not monopolised by any state.

"I think if you look at Victoria their institutions are very Victorian and Melbourne focused, and that would be a big worry about putting it in Melbourne."

Purely because of that parochial history, Prof Collignon said, Melbourne and Sydney would be the worst places to set up an ACDC.

"Because they're such big, dominant states, it would be seen by the rest of Australia that they're just taking over the running of this," he said.

"To some degree this is reminiscent of the whole issue of Australia setting up in 1901 and both Melbourne and Sydney wanting to be the dominant place."

Many Melbourne-based experts were wary of sticking their heads above the parapet.

"I will keep out of this turf war. Thanks," said one.

Another - who couldn't comment publicly because they were part of the inquiry guiding the establishment of the new centre - said the final location may not matter.

"That debate over the head office is really more political than functional," they said.

"We'll interact virtually. There'll be a bit of a linkage to existing institutions, so the headquarters location might be a bit less important.

"They've spoken about a spoke and hub model, which would [also] mean the location of the head office matters less."

Senator Pocock has backed a hub and spoke model, similar to the US structure, under which Melbourne could be a major "spoke", but Canberra would be the coordinating "hub".

The expert said they understood "why Victoria feels it should have it", but said Melbourne's expertise meant it would have a strong contribution even if it missed out on the headquarters.

"People will want to own it, but I suspect there will be connections with people right across the country," they said.

"The risk if it goes to a particular state or existing entity is in some people's minds it might seem more biased to a particular area.

"The ultimate decision should be about where it can be most effective."