Protect medical research in the May budget!

Please print out the petition from the Discoveries Need Dollars website and get as many signatures as you can!

Then mail the petition with signatures to arrive no later than Friday 29 April to:

Alice Robinson
c/o Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
1G Royal Parade
Parkville
VIC 3052

The Honourable Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt will table the petition in parliament.

Thanks,
James

James W.
I'm all for medical research. What I don't agree with is the high pays some of these researchers receive without ever making any break-throughs. How much does the average medical researcher get paid & what percentage is the pay for the researchers in the overall budget ?

How much do ya reckon years at Uni is worth is regards to pay, individual? Because they 'haven't' - another story - found the cure to cancer, individual, should they stop being paid till they do?

StG,
No-one's saying they shouldn't get paid till they do find solutions. I wish people would stop making such stupid replies. What I am saying & have done so for a very many years is, pay them a wage & when they do make a discovery then reward them via commission or royalty.
I believe if that were the way research was done then far more useful discoveries would result. To get handsome pay for just being in a position in research & dawdling along 8 hours a day & hopefully, one day, discover something, is an inefficient system. Look at corporate system. No result no reward. Only Government agencies use systems of inefficiency. If anyone wants my tax dollar than produce something useful for it because at the end of it all I still have to pay for medication anyway.

Stupid? Nice.

You don't reckon the labs vying for funding don't patent discoveries? What the grants do IS provide them with an income until they 'prove their worth' and make a profit. Tax on profits repays you your precious percentage of your pay to the government. Most labs almost 'cage fight' for funding.

Who are 'you' - Caveat: not meaning you, directly. Meaning 'you', that doesn't see the big picture - to decide what research might have long term benefit for commercial uses WAY down the track? What inventions that have had a MASSIVE impact on our society that were 'stupid' and 'wasteful' at their inception?

Where would you like Doctors of Science to learn their craft if not for research labs?

Individual,

Most scientists work very hard for LESS salary than the average Australian - PhD students are typically on a scholarship of $20,000 per annum for 3-4 years! Scientists also have less long-term job security due to short-term funding cycles.

Please forgive the sloppiness of this rushed back-of-the envelope calculation. But Australia has a population of 22 million, so to at least maintain the NHMRC budget of approximately $700 million, we are only asking for around $40 from each tax payer. This will be invested in the development of new treatments to save lives.

Medical research is a public good, like defense. Of course we don't know when the next amazing medical breakthrough will arrive, just as we don't know if/when Australia will come under attack from a another country. If the latter happens, I'll be glad that some of my tax dollars are being spent on defense. How many of your tax dollars do you think should be spent on medical research?

Cheers,
James

The fact that we don't know where the next medical research breakthrough will come from, is not any kind of reason for research to be government-funded. It is no more valid to average the amount paid per taxpayer, than to account for it by saying that a certain number of taxpayers will be paying for nothing but that. If it's not justified in the first place, it doesn't matter how little it is per person.

You haven't given any reason for thinking that voluntarily funded research would not produce better results on a dollar for dollar basis; or that people, if free to choose, would not fund medical research to the same amount; or that if they chose not to, that the alternative employments to which they would put their funds would not be more socially beneficial than your preferred and imposed schemes; or how you would know any of these things. Mere airy conjecture? - not good enough.

The first thing we should do is to take the funding away from climate astrologers and give it to real scientist. If we stopped this bad joke we would not only help the environment but might achieve more in medical breakthrough.

Quite frankly I am perfectly satisfied to pay both wages and a very substantial amount towards resources for research in this country- certainly that's money better spent than on religious chaplains at public schools.

Here you go individual,

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/about/jobs/reference/enterprise_agreement_2010-11_final.pdf

Salary tables begin on page 38.

I really would not want medical research to be cut either, but I have seen this game played before. The powers that be will want their pound of flesh from somewhere, so they may just increase planned cuts in other areas of research. I know people like runner are entirely comfortable with that, but I'm not.

What an excellent cause. Some of the comments here exemplify the current trend towards devaluation, if not outright war against, science. Unsurprisingly, those who are on record here as being most ignorant about science are those who question the value of medical research, along with those who don't think governments should fund anything except big business.

For those in Brisbane this coming Tuesday 19 April, there will be a rally in King George Square at 12 noon.

http://www.discoveriesneeddollars.org/home/

I do get a bit sick of academics who believe we owe then a comfortable living.

Here's an example.

I ran into a bloke I was quite friendly with at Uni. After a while he must have thought I'd be sympathetic.

He had stayed on & become an academic, & was complaining that his lifestyle had been stuffed up, when they had refused to continue financing his research project.

He had organised his project so he could fulfill his teaching duties & his research by attending only on Tuesday, & Wednesday. Very comfortable I would think.

With this organisation he had sold his Sydney home, & moved to his retirement to be home, in Batemans Bay. He stayed with his daughter in Sydney on Tuesday night. It worked beautifully.

This was now ruined. When I asked him where he expected to get with his research, he admitted he had realised that it was a blind alley a year ago, but had expected to still get funding.

He stated, "hell, I've only got 3 years to go, they could have let me muddle on for that long, couldn't they". "It is so difficult living in the bay, & having to travel up more often".

He was genuinely surprised that I did not offer any sympathy for his predicament.

I wonder how many are doing something similar. After all they are the elite, & should receive special treatment, from the peasent tax payers.

Oh yeah, Hasbeen, they're ALL doing it didn't you know? That's why the funding is getting cut.

Oh and BTW, NHMRC doesn't pay for principal or associate investigator salaries. That means in order to apply for a grant you already have to have a job. Salaries from grant awards go to pay research scientists and technicians, often on short-term contracts.

To all those who have ventured into bagging the "silver tail" researchers, please do feel free to keel over, in your own time from a malady that could have been cured had there been ongoing funding.

That the simple and sensible request from the thread poster has moved focus from petitioning the government to degrading the integrity of the researchers is no surprise to me as common sense seems to have fled from our shores over the past thirty years.

Gillard and Swan will spend $40 Billion plus on NBN, but want to strip a couple of Billion from the easy target of medical R&D to balance their budget. When talking money last year Gillard told her cabinet colleagues that she would not give the PENSIONERS a further crust to choke on given that their demographic is predominantly right wing voting, the ideological whore actually said "they don't vote for us anyway".

Anyone who finds credence or credibility in this post graduate ideologically driven Lawyers Labor government or in their policies and the application/management of anything they undertake are certainly spin prone imbeciles. The only ones I exclude from this statement are old time Labor hacks whose oncoming dementia coupled with the memory of what the Party used to be no longer finds them in Aussie but in Oz

True SonofGloin and Bugsy:

I only wonder if any of the people complaining about this funding would also -in the event they fell sick or injured- would be so kind as to turn down any treatments or cures that were the result of public-funded research within the past 20 years either.

All for the sake of saving a dollar a year, or ensuring that we can keep paying 'silvertail' chaplains to provide theological counseling instead.

Hasbeen:>> I do get a bit sick of academics who believe we owe then a comfortable living.<<

Hasbeen, I am a hydrologist by "trade", and it is a trade as we get our hands covered in dirt on a regular basis, but over my career I have been involved in many submissions for funding from both state and fed governments and they do not hand funds over easily unless they have a personal interest or it is to placate a political issue.

Supply balanced perspective and not just spin Hasbeen. State and Fed funding to the sciences as a percentage of GDP is just above half of what it was thirty years ago.

>>Here's an example.
I ran into a bloke I was quite friendly with at Uni. After a while he must have thought I'd be sympathetic.<<

Sympathetic? I am wondering if you are coherent, because you must be coherent to express sympathy.

TB

>> When I asked him where he expected to get with his research, he admitted he had realised that it was a blind alley a year ago, but had expected to still get funding.<<

What a load of bull scheiser, are you making this up. I am close to many "funded" projects and there is no such thing as a blind alley as the emphasis shifts as you further your reach. I would estimate that half of the implementable scientific applications coming from research were not the primary focus of the program. But more to the point as if this guy is going to tell an acquaintance from uni he is a dud, you’re dreaming.

>> I wonder how many are doing something similar. After all they are the elite, & should receive special treatment, from the peasent tax payers.Posted by Hasbeen,<<

I do not know one BMedSc, but I know a load of BSc's and I have not seen any of them "profit" extraordinarily from their endeavors. If you want to talk return for reward have a go at the usury industry, the interest we pay both for personal and commonwealth debt is a subject worth your derision. The Fabian ideology to dumb down of the “peasants” who pay the taxes is the crime not the tax money spent on R&D

Research is a highly vital component in society. No one is querying that. No one is disputing any handsome reward a researcher receives after an important discovery. What is being questioned is the funding that goes to the countless researchers who never come up with anything useful.
The researcher who discovers something by looking through his electron microscope is hailed a hero whereas the techo who built that microscope doens'nt get a mention. We don't even get to see the brand name of the equipment which enables the scientists to make a discovery.
Why can I get a porcelain tooth for $30.- in Manila yet in Australia it costs $1200. ?
What I am getting at and you lot know that perfectly well but understandably you're trying to keep your nest egg basket full, is that when something good has been developed then reward the researcher but don't just keep paying them good money for no value whatsoever.
My organisation (employer) now has a budget about six times more than before and we have exec officers on $180,000-260,000 per year yet our achievements are more than halved in comparison to when the execs were on $60,000. So, this shows that more funding does not increase productivity or quality.

Funding to medical science benefits everyone and when one considers the funding given to sport and art - two policy areas that could easily be reduced in lieu of private and individual investment. We already lose too many of our scientists and innovators to OS R&D projects. Although the way the US and UK economy are faring, perhaps there won't be a rush on talent for the time being.

It will be interesting to see if more wasteful programs like Chaplaincy, baby bonuses, child care rebates, cultural and art grants will be cut back in the same way.

Government decisions are not always based on commonsense.

It might just come down to what will lose the least votes and unfortunately it will probably be worthwhile programs like social housing and health that will be cut. Cuts to the public service will ultimately be mismanaged and mean poor delivery of services we have already paid for. It won't be management jobs that will go, it will be the worker bees.

Actually, I'm right with you Pelican. I actually believe that medical research is much better done than most, particularly in our over expanded university sector.

And I'm even more with you that we shouldn't be wasting tax payer money on sport, & the so called arts.

Sport is big business, & big money for many, I see no reason to subsidise any of it, & when an art form can no longer pay it's way with marketing to the general public, it is obviously past it's use by date. There are plenty of modern "art forms", even if I hate them, which generate vast wealth, by appealing to the general public.

I also agree that there is not one person in government, politician, or public servant, qualified to spend my earnings as wisely as I. The dreadful waste of churning money through departments staffed by overpaid dills, may keep the unemployment statistics down, but doesn't help tax payers.

Sorry I can't agree with social housing. I believe it is totally immoral to expect those struggling to make their own way to fund the lazy, incompetent, or unlucky. Anything more than accommodation like an army camp should always be the responsibility of those who want to live in it.

I'm amused by the ignorant statement "we shouldn't be paying for research that goes nowhere".

Apparently, the world is so simple that scientists investigating potential leads to a breakthrough actually know in advance that these will end up fruitless without trying- or do not resort to trial and error?
What happens if a scientist researched a potential avenue that may have been a productive breakthrough- but found it was not worthwhile- do we demand a refund? (Ignoring that their findings are still a profound benefit to all other researchers who may have also considered this discourse but will now save time and money researching others whilst building upon the discoveries of the previous researcher).

Thank goodness Benjamin Franklin didn't feel that way- or we'd probably still be lighting kerosene lamps at night.

Hasbeen
It is nice to be in agreement on some issues. :)

"Sorry I can't agree with social housing. I believe it is totally immoral to expect those struggling to make their own way to fund the lazy, incompetent, or unlucky. Anything more than accommodation like an army camp should always be the responsibility of those who want to live in it."

I can understand why social housing is controversial but I have seen in my previous job the effects of long waiting lists (housing) on the disabled, single parents and low income earners.

Many were living out of their cars for periods of time between rental housing, which is government subsidised in any case.

While government policy has allowed the cost of housing and rentals to spiral, it is just a fact that some people will never be able to realise the 'great Australian dream' of owning a house.

In my experience the number of mentally ill people waiting for housing is a travesty. More social housing is a win-win and I reckon if you add up the costs of long term homelessness the investment is worthwhile.

Dear James,

Thanks for this thread. You're doing something very positive. I shall certainly try to collect as many signatures as I possibly can and I shall send the petitions in. Once again - Thank You.

I remember Dr Victor Chang who was lauded for re-establishing heart transplant surgery in Australia, afterr the field had languished due to the risks and costs. He founded the highly successful National Heart Transplant Program in 1984, created an artificial heart valve, taught his skills to doctors from around the world, and was working on an artificial circulatory system when he was killed. "When no one else was putting their hand up, he was saying, 'Yes, we want to do heart transplants,'" said Dr Phillip Spratt, Director of Heart and Lung surgery, Research, and Transplantation at St Vincent's Hospital, where Chang worked.

Where would people needing this life-saving surgery and research be without tall poppies like Dr Chang? What value can you place on the saving of human lives?

Pelican I guess we're all the product of our experience. I see a lot of the other side of the coin.

We are a fair way out of town. We're here because we wanted 20 acres for the kids horsing. However, many of our neighbours are in the area as there were some pretty cheep developments in the area.

Mostly both parents work, but many are still struggling to keep their heads above the mortgage. There is no public transport, so they often both drive old bombs, on their last legs. Needing a new tyre is bad, a broken anything is a disaster, meaning borrowing more for repairs, or another $1000 bomb in a hurry.

Many are owner builders, who have been building for years. Some still trying to find the cash to complete the internal walls, kitchen, bathrooms etc.

One of them recently borrowed my horse float to pick up the old carpet from the office where he works, when it was redecorated. Some of it was a little worn, but they were behaving like they'd won the lottery. They have been living in their 3/4 built house for 9 years, with no floor covering on the cement anywhere. There are many others in the same situation.

Perhaps you now see why I am not too interested in housing far too many, in much better standard than these neighbours, at the cost of these neighbours.

I may be strange, but I believe anyone who works for their living, & doesn't "p**s it up a wall", but pays their way, deserves to have better accommodation, health care & services, than any who don't work, regardless of why they don't work.

I also believe that those who work hard to help themselves should not be struggling more than necessary, to pay for those who wont.

Fred Hollows, his wife Gabi and Team continue to date, as a result of funding, Australians and other peoples generosity around the world, saving childrens eyesight and restoring eyesight to give some quality of life to these beautiful cherubs who are and will enjoy what many of us sometimes take for granted.

Dear Hasbeen,

I find it interesting that there are few complaints about how the country pays out far more in "handouts," to the nonpoor than the poor.
Perhaps this fact generally escapes attention because these benefits take the indirect form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions rather than the direct form of cash payments.

Welfare payments represent only approx. 2% of the federal budget.

Lexi
Those who approve the principle of wealth redistributions based on political favouritism are hardly in a position to complain when they think the results arbitrary and unfair. And having approved this practice, how could the discretion of politicians to give handouts to whomever they feel like favouring be limited

Lexi, if you look back a bit in this thread, I think you'll find I am not too happy about the amount wasted on the higher education sector, which is up near the top of the public sector in income.

Perhaps you had better go back to your research. I think your figure on the welfare part of the budget is a thousand or two percent low.