Warwick Anderson wants medical researchers to respond to key challenges and shape the future of their profession.
In the process of setting out key challenges he has produced a guide to the contested ground where science and public policy meet.
The former head of both the NHMRC and the International Human Frontier Science Programme sets out the circumstances for research, in what is less a memoir than an experience-informed manifesto, including:
- A medical research oath: setting out scientific principles to adhere to;
- “Professional certification: established and regulated by the profession with accreditation required for public grant funding;”
- “Recognise and properly reward” peer-reviewing: “it is a core part of the work of a medical researcher and so should have a formal status;”
- Assessing researchers: look less at volume of papers and more at their quality, start at MCR level by having applicants submit one paper and make a case for it;
- Do not use journal impact factors and the like as a measure of research;
- Funding decisions: made by committees with members who are independent, impartial and individually accountable to their peers, “nothing undermines trust more quickly than a belief that the system runs on ‘who you know, not what you know’;”
- Research misconduct: “the solutions are largely in our hands,” “we must insist that our university or institute has no tolerance for research misconduct and ensure that everyone knows what to do when doubts arise;”
- Plus, the NHMRC- ARC’s Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research should be “hardened” by legislation;
- Start work on doing more with data: “collectively the medical research community’s largest infrastructure asset;”
- Seven-10 year contracts for emerging researchers with potential: “when a researcher fears an abrupt end to their career and immediate loss of income, they can be tempted to stick to safe and reliable projects only;”
- Funding indirect research costs: there are anomalies in what different types of research institutions receive – federal and state governments should fund NHMRC and ARC to pay full indirect costs of grants.
If any of that all sounds impossible to achieve, in the end, Anderson comes out for optimism.
“The system of medical research is not broken. The many life-enhancing discoveries that occur every day attest to its health and success. It is because I believe fervently in its importance and its values that I am suggesting where it could be better and where there are amber flashing lights in the system, where trust is eroding.
“My appeal is for scientists to lead, to address the problems and to find the best solutions. The interests of our research institutions will not always align with those of the researchers. Our funders are government bodies and so, properly, they are constrained in what they can say and do. So change is up to us.”
Warwick Anderson, Trust in Medical Research: what scientists must do to enhance it (Monash U Publishing) HERE
