I completely agree. It doesn't take an economist to see that the money saved in the short term will cost us much more in the long term with a greater burden on our hospital system. Politicians always talk about a shortage of beds in our hospitals, but they seem to forget that prevention, treatment and recovery from disease all requires medical research. All this decreases that demand on the health system resources.There is already a brain drain in Australia with many of the top researchers leaving our shores for USA and Europe. Many PhD graduates also head offshore, often to earn less than they would in Australia, simply because the total medical research funding is so much greater overseas.

Just a little afterthought, how much revenue would we raise if we taxed religious organizations who are currently tax-exempt? One could argue that the public benefit of medical research far outweighs that of religious activity.

"Some are arguing that a $400 million cut would spell disaster for health in Australia. But what about the reverse scenario? Would adding $400 million dramatically improve health? How about $4 billion? Or $40 billion?

For example, the US has long outspent every other country on medical research by any measure (e.g. raw total, per capita, % GDP, etc), yet it lags behind other developed countries in many important health outcomes, including life expectancy."

http://theconversation.edu.au/articles/get-real-medical-researchers-nobody-deserves-a-bottomless-pit-of-money-942

I would agree that spending more and more on health research does not necessarily give better health outcomes.

To bring about major improvements to health, I tend to think the following could be done:-

- Governments should make compulsory 0.0 blood alcohol content for all government workers, to bring government workers into line with workers in many industries.

- Selling of cigarettes only through specially licensed shops, where how to give up smoking courses are also available.

- Eradication of junk food from the market place.

- Major investigation into the state of children’s health in this country, with special parenting courses for parents of children with poor physical or mental health, or parents receiving taxpayer funding to raise children.

The above (and there are probably many other projects in preventitive medicine) would not cost the taxpayer $400 million, but would probably save the taxpayer many times that amount if implemented.

medical research is expensive.

So is being dependent on that of other countries.

In almost every field of human endeavour, a fair share of the collective efforts of others, a fair price, whatever, is partly secured by having the means of doing it yourself.

Lose the knack and nouse, close the factory, and see if prices do not go up for the products of such research.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter,
It is known what the main health problems are.

- Increasing rates of obesity and diabetes related to poor diet and lack of exercise.

- Diseases relating to smoking and heavy consumption of alcohol.

- High rates of suicide in certain age groups, and depression now spreading across most age groups.

- Deaths and injuries from road accidents, often due to alcohol or drug consumption.

Most of this seems to be staying the same or getting worse.

Normally I would support increased funding into research within Australia, but in the area of funding the National Health and Medical Research Council, the money spent previously has not been well spent.

Well done, Vanna.

Unfortunately, you are talking about the problems already solved. If people don't take advice, that is not the problem with medical research.

*if* someone wants to take the basic advice, what more can be done?

Now, for those healthy-eating exercisers who don't drink, don't smoke, drive minimally and carefully, obviously don't do drugs, what happens when they get intractable cancers, odd infections, or hell's bell's get old enough to display age-related difficulties they should have died to avoid?

I admit, I'd prefer intrusive police powers to prevent smoking, and no doubt classical-stereotyped phys-ed teachers would like similar powers for exercise. I'd like similar to punish stupidity, particularly amongst "creationists".

Medical research covers a lot of risks and exposures not so easily enforcible ("6079 Smith W! Bend lower please!), as well as newer treatments, improvements in practice, you name it.

The benefits are available to all, like the roads and the courts, despite some preferring not to take advantage.

If "research" shows people won't change lifestyle, what then? Good diagnostics, made cheaper by ongoing research, allow earlier and more effective interventions.

It is part of the common wealth.

Rusty