Susan Alberti hip and shoulders Julia over funding cuts

[Ghost Dog]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/dont-cut-medical-cash-bulldogs-boss/story-e6frf7jo-1226039374868


JULIA Gillard's status as the Western Bulldogs' No. 1 female ticket holder has collided with her politics.

High-profile Bulldogs director Susan Alberti has written to the PM protesting against the possible slashing of vital medical research.

There is intense speculation the Gillard Government is planning Budget cuts of up to $400 million to the sector, which works on cures for the likes of cancer, diabetes, obesity and Alzheimer's disease.


-----------------------------------------------------
Callan ward goes to the same hairdresser as Susan :D

[LostDoggy]

Have to say that I agree with Susan on this one - no Government whether Lib or Labor should be making cuts to medical research funding!:mad:

[Scorlibo]

400 million is a lot to be spending on research which will most likely have very little or no affect on those people suffering the diseases. This is obviously a very sensitive issue, but if this money is just going down the drain at the moment, I don't see the need to deprive other critical causes of the funding. Ms Alberti's main argument according to that article is that researching scientists will face tough finances. Although their intention is admirable, if everyone was paid in accordance with their intentions most would be far richer than what their productivity would suggest. Sorry, but I feel Susan needs to pull her head in over this one.

[Ghost Dog]

400 million is a lot to be spending on research which will most likely have very little or no affect on those people suffering the diseases. This is obviously a very sensitive issue, but if this money is just going down the drain at the moment, I don't see the need to deprive other critical causes of the funding. Ms Alberti's main argument according to that article is that researching scientists will face tough finances. Although their intention is admirable, if everyone was paid in accordance with their intentions most would be far richer than what their productivity would suggest. Sorry, but I feel Susan needs to pull her head in over this one.

Good to get a counter view on this one. Nice one Scorlibo.

I see both sides. Either way, I don't mind Susan being outspoken on this issueIf she feels its a key issue. well good for her.
I can't imagine anyone else from any other club bothering and I don't feel it does the club any harm for it's leaders to throw in their two cents into the public arena where qualified.


My mum was discovered to have ovarian cancer a few months ago. It came as a shock. suddenly didnt feel hungry. It's stage III. Despite new treatments, survival rate for women five years after an ovarian cancer diagnosis is still just 40%.
It's more the pain and discomfort that I see as an issue and there are some interesting new research being done. Certainly it must make some kind of difference, the research that is other wise people would not be so outspoken.

[LostDoggy]

[B]400 million is a lot to be spending on research which will most likely have very little or no affect on those people suffering the diseases.

I see your point Scorlibo, but IMO, it's a little short-sighted. I suffer badly from arthritis and whilst I appreciate they may not find something to help me in my lifetime, if it's going to help someone in the future, then surely research needs to continue. I have a friend who is a quadraplegic and he has always hoped that the stem-cell research will help him walk again.

[bornadog]

Lets wait for the budget before speculating what will be cut.

[Mofra]

Lets wait for the budget before speculating what will be cut.
Classic politics. "Leak" a possible policy to guage public reaction, and if it's negative don't go through with that portion of the budget.

Given the response, I doubt the cuts will proceed. Some media outlets were quoting that for every reserch dollar spent, we've saved $4 in long term medical spending.
Not sure how that figure was qualified or calculated.

[1eyedog]

400 million is a lot to be spending on research which will most likely have very little or no affect on those people suffering the diseases. This is obviously a very sensitive issue, but if this money is just going down the drain at the moment, I don't see the need to deprive other critical causes of the funding. Ms Alberti's main argument according to that article is that researching scientists will face tough finances. Although their intention is admirable, if everyone was paid in accordance with their intentions most would be far richer than what their productivity would suggest. Sorry, but I feel Susan needs to pull her head in over this one.

How do you know? Are you a medical researcher? How can you make such a claim? Robust research with the funds to support it is the key driver to finding cures to medical afflictions on a variety of levels.

How do you think we found cures for deadly diseases like chicken pox, diphtheria, and polio? Be very thankful these diseases do not now have the capacity to kill us and all because of medical research. I think you would take a different stance if you knew what you were on about.

I'm not old but I have kids and as far as I'm concerned there is nothing more important than government spending on health and education.

[firstdogonthemoon]

Perhaps Julia could respond with, yeah but Susan, how much money do your pokies rip out of the people in the community that can least afford to pay?

[Scorlibo]

Classic politics. "Leak" a possible policy to guage public reaction, and if it's negative don't go through with that portion of the budget.

Given the response, I doubt the cuts will proceed. Some media outlets were quoting that for every reserch dollar spent, we've saved $4 in long term medical spending.
Not sure how that figure was qualified or calculated.

That's a very intriguing statistic if true, do you have any of said media outlet's material on hand Mofra? I would be interested in having a squiz.

It would be a misleading statistic though, considering the vast development of medical treatment and technology in the last century. The number of health conditions which remain to be improved by research are far fewer than there were, as is the probability of improving them lessened by their lack of improvement to date.


How do you know? Are you a medical researcher? How can you make such a claim? Robust research with the funds to support it is the key driver to finding cures to medical afflictions on a variety of levels.

Similarly, how can you make this claim? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's the same way I made mine, by weighing in all of the experiences and knowledge that usually go into making such an assessment. You don't have to be a medical researcher to have an irregular opinion on government spending in the area of health. Research may indeed be the key driver for finding cures to medical afflictions, but that doesn't make it any more likely that a cure will be found a) in the near future, b) using this money and c) through Australian medical research, and not any number of other research projects around the world aspiring for the same cure.



I think you would take a different stance if you knew what you were on about.

I'm not old but I have kids and as far as I'm concerned there is nothing more important than government spending on health and education.

I agree with you that health and education are perhaps the two most important causes for the government to sufficiently fund.

I think the bolded part is unnecessary.

[AndrewP6]

Research may indeed be the key driver for finding cures to medical afflictions, but that doesn't make it any more likely that a cure will be found a) in the near future, b) using this money and c) through Australian medical research, and not any number of other research projects around the world aspiring for the same cure.


This isn't reasonable justification for cutting research funds - the notion that we should stop trying because so far it hasn't been successful.:confused:

[Scorlibo]

This isn't reasonable justification for cutting research funds - the notion that we should stop trying because so far it hasn't been successful.:confused:

In every other area that is exactly how it works. Plus, it's not like this cut is completely stopping medical research, it is just slightly lessening the number of people researching, and perhaps their resources, within Australia. Remembering also that this is a global cause, and that Australian efforts might be considered somewhat minor in this context.

[LostDoggy]

In every other area that is exactly how it works. Plus, it's not like this cut is completely stopping medical research, it is just slightly lessening the number of people researching, and perhaps their resources, within Australia. Remembering also that this is a global cause, and that Australian efforts might be considered somewhat minor in this context.

I refrained from posting previously as I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you knew what you were talking about, but this post shows a less than average understanding of the topic at hand, so I hope I may be able to add some value to the discussion:

Australia (along with, among others, the US, UK, France and Germany) is a major international hub of medical research with world leading institutions that attract top practitioners and researchers from around the globe. My wife is an intensivist (intensive care specialist) who has worked all around the world, and she can tell you that our medical research institutions routinely rank among the top in the world. Medical research is not a singular global 'cause' so much as a varied range of research streams (of which Australia is a world leader in at least two dozen of them), and international public research, while competitive, involves broad cooperative discourse rather than blind duplication of effort (ie. researchers from around the world are not competing to come up with the same cure, they are building on each others' work). To suggest that we may as well not do it because others will is an argument for all countries to stop medical research altogether and just rely on someone else.

$400 million in cuts will not simply 'slightly lessen the number of people researching', it will fundamentally change the funding mix of medical research in this country, forcing most researchers to either drop out altogether or compete for private sources of funding, and [sarcasm alert] we all know that Big Pharma ie. pharmaceutical megacorporations have our best interests at heart. Medical research, like education, is a public good, and public funding ensures that effort is directed where it is most needed, not where profits are greatest. It is well-documented that that the overwhelming proportion of pharmaceutical megacorporation research funding goes into profitable first-world 'medication' such as diet pills and impotency drugs like Viagra instead of into AIDS or cancer research.

I also don't understand how one can blithely assume that medical research in this country has been 'unsuccessful'; Australia has pioneered cutting-edge therapies and treatments in many fields of medicine and is currently at the forefront of efforts in a number of fields, including alzheimers, cardiology, neglected tropical diseases, neuroscience etc. It is also one of the most efficient industries around, where every grant dollar is highly contested and meticulously accounted for. I've been heavily involved in the Australian Research Council grants process in the past, and the medical field puts most others to shame in their level of professionalism.

As previously suggested by another poster, this is nothing more than a Julia suburban poll-tester -- there is evidence of declining support for science funding from conservative Australians, which parallels a similar trend in conservative US politics (hello Sarah Palin), and Julia has shown that she is nothing if not willing to court the reactionary vote.

By your own standards of epistemological methodology ie. 'weighing in all of the experiences and knowledge that usually go into making such an assessment', do you truly think that you possess the necessary 'experience and knowledge' to make a call on the effectiveness or otherwise of $400 million of research funding? I would suggest not, and a quick and simple Google search survey of medical research in Australia may open your eyes and change your mind. :)

[AndrewP6]

In every other area that is exactly how it works. Plus, it's not like this cut is completely stopping medical research, it is just slightly lessening the number of people researching, and perhaps their resources, within Australia. Remembering also that this is a global cause, and that Australian efforts might be considered somewhat minor in this context.

The Fred Hollows Foundation says "Hello"

[Ghost Dog]

The Fred Hollows Foundation says "Hello"

The best 6 word comeback I've seen so far.:D

[Scorlibo]

I refrained from posting previously as I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you knew what you were talking about, but this post shows a less than average understanding of the topic at hand, so I hope I may be able to add some value to the discussion:

Australia (along with, among others, the US, UK, France and Germany) is a major international hub of medical research with world leading institutions that attract top practitioners and researchers from around the globe. My wife is an intensivist (intensive care specialist) who has worked all around the world, and she can tell you that our medical research institutions routinely rank among the top in the world. Medical research is not a singular global 'cause' so much as a varied range of research streams (of which Australia is a world leader in at least two dozen of them), and international public research, while competitive, involves broad cooperative discourse rather than blind duplication of effort (ie. researchers from around the world are not competing to come up with the same cure, they are building on each others' work). To suggest that we may as well not do it because others will is an argument for all countries to stop medical research altogether and just rely on someone else.

$400 million in cuts will not simply 'slightly lessen the number of people researching', it will fundamentally change the funding mix of medical research in this country, forcing most researchers to either drop out altogether or compete for private sources of funding, and [sarcasm alert] we all know that Big Pharma ie. pharmaceutical megacorporations have our best interests at heart. Medical research, like education, is a public good, and public funding ensures that effort is directed where it is most needed, not where profits are greatest. It is well-documented that that the overwhelming proportion of pharmaceutical megacorporation research funding goes into profitable first-world 'medication' such as diet pills and impotency drugs like Viagra instead of into AIDS or cancer research.

I also don't understand how one can blithely assume that medical research in this country has been 'unsuccessful'; Australia has pioneered cutting-edge therapies and treatments in many fields of medicine and is currently at the forefront of efforts in a number of fields, including alzheimers, cardiology, neglected tropical diseases, neuroscience etc. It is also one of the most efficient industries around, where every grant dollar is highly contested and meticulously accounted for. I've been heavily involved in the Australian Research Council grants process in the past, and the medical field puts most others to shame in their level of professionalism.

As previously suggested by another poster, this is nothing more than a Julia suburban poll-tester -- there is evidence of declining support for science funding from conservative Australians, which parallels a similar trend in conservative US politics (hello Sarah Palin), and Julia has shown that she is nothing if not willing to court the reactionary vote.

By your own standards of epistemological methodology ie. 'weighing in all of the experiences and knowledge that usually go into making such an assessment', do you truly think that you possess the necessary 'experience and knowledge' to make a call on the effectiveness or otherwise of $400 million of research funding? I would suggest not, and a quick and simple Google search survey of medical research in Australia may open your eyes and change your mind. :)

To be honest Lantern I feel indifferent towards this budget cut, my arguments so far have stemmed from a longing to play devil's advocate rather than a true passion for the policy itself. It would have killed me to see a thread like this go by in mindless agreement without any sort of sensible argument either for or against the policy itself, simply because of Susan Alberti's involvement. Judging by your well informed response, I'd say this is a success on my part. What I don't appreciate is the superior tone in which your post is set. Your knowledge on one aspect of this subject does not make you correct and I would suggest that you too consider whether your experience and knowledge put you in a fair position to 'make a call', and an apparently definitive one at that, on the effectiveness of $400 million not only in regards to research funding, but to our whole society.

Again, I do not profess to know enormous amounts about this subject, but I do take a very keen interest in fairness and equality, and how they are influenced by common human perception and/or bias.

One thing's for sure, if the government proceeds with this cut, they won't be doing it for votes, but for the merit of the decision, which is why whatever merit is in that decision deserves to be reviewed.

[Murphy'sLore]

To be honest Lantern I feel indifferent towards this budget cut, my arguments so far have stemmed from a longing to play devil's advocate rather than a true passion for the policy itself. It would have killed me to see a thread like this go by in mindless agreement without any sort of sensible argument either for or against the policy itself, simply because of Susan Alberti's involvement. Judging by your well informed response, I'd say this is a success on my part. What I don't appreciate is the superior tone in which your post is set. Your knowledge on one aspect of this subject does not make you correct and I would suggest that you too consider whether your experience and knowledge put you in a fair position to 'make a call', and an apparently definitive one at that, on the effectiveness of $400 million not only in regards to research funding, but to our whole society.

Again, I do not profess to know enormous amounts about this subject, but I do take a very keen interest in fairness and equality, and how they are influenced by common human perception and/or bias.

One thing's for sure, if the government proceeds with this cut, they won't be doing it for votes, but for the merit of the decision, which is why whatever merit is in that decision deserves to be reviewed.

Surely you're not serious.

[aker39]

One thing's for sure, if the government proceeds with this cut, they won't be doing it for votes, but for the merit of the decision, which is why whatever merit is in that decision deserves to be reviewed.

They'll be doing it because they have said they will return to surplus and they need to cut, cut, cut.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Judging by your well informed response, I'd say this is a success on my part.

Well player, Aker.

You totally pwned me but only because I was so right?

[Scorlibo]

They'll be doing it because they have said they will return to surplus and they need to cut, cut, cut.

And they are making a decision to cut on medical research, instead of on any number of other causes.


Well player, Aker.

You totally pwned me but only because I was so right?

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like that, just pleased to get some reasonable discussion on the issue.

[anfo27]

The NHMRC (National Health Medical Research Council) receives something in the region of $750 million a year in government funding and that funding has gone up 10% every single year so for the supposed leaks saying that $400 million of cuts were possible was a bluff. My guess is the government have no intention of giving the research industry another 10% increase so they leak out that there could be cuts of up to $400 mill so when the budget actually comes out and there is no increase in budget the fact there is no cut to the budget will soften the blow and have everyone thankful they still have a job.
If that actually happened the medical research industry would be in ruins. I work in this industry and in the last 12 months we have only started to see the effects of the GFC afew years ago with researchers finding it more difficult to get funding as it is. As a few have already intimated, Autralia is one of the leading countries in the world in this area and we have top researchers from all over the world coming here to their research and if these cuts happen then we would not only lose these top researchers we would lose our own researchers as well and this field will literally go backwards.
Medical research is a growing industry with new facilities being consructed all the time. Across the road from the Royal Melbourne Hospital were the old Dental hospital used to be will be a new state of the art research building that has already had the funding approved so if these cuts went ahead you would have a brand new facility with nobody in there.
As Mofra has suggested, research has found that every dollar the government puts into research we'll save us $5 down the track.