Governments don’t cut medical research funding, at least in ways that get noticed. When Labor hinted it might try in 2011, it prompted labcoated protestors in the streets and the floated idea was soon sunk. Scientists warning work will end on childhood cancer will do that.
But for all the self-serving surveys and endless medicos in the media there is not much on the public record on what the community actually knows about the costs and benefits of medical research, or what the people want.
So, Rosemary Huxtable found out. Ms Huxtable is developing the national medical research strategy, now in consultation.
Over the Summer a cross-section of the community including “individuals with low trust in health and medical research” were asked what they knew about medical research in discussions and interviews.
The result is a fascinating report which may not tell industry comms people anything new but sets out issues to raise and messages to send. Working on a fundraising campaign? This report is worth a read.
The good news for lobbies is, “a few felt that government funding for health and medical research was lower than for other areas (e.g. Defence), which limited the impact it could have.” The again, the bad news is that was “a few.”
Findings include:
- Participants get research happens but are not across process or specific subjects until they have a personal need to know.
- When they need to find out, “most participants reported that they primarily considered the source of information and/or cross-checked across multiple sources.”
- They are positive about research but prefer it to be motivated by community interest, “rather than political, career or commercial interests.” They do not like pharmaceutical companies, as a rule.
- People dislike hyped announcements (but then click on them anyway)
- Most think research is “generally appropriate and timely” but some worry it is too slow, except when it is too fast, (Covid vaccines came up).
- there is a general sense that focusing research on common health conditions aligns research with community needs – although women’s, Indigenous and regional community health need more work
The takeout: there was support for the strategy, with qualifications including:
- It could be too inflexible to adapt to emergencies
- It might not meet specific-group needs
- Politicisation is a risk
- That it takes funding from existing programs
“Most participants felt the National Strategy should include a framework of key principles that inform the selection of priorities and funding decisions to support trust and transparency in the sector.”