Rosemary Huxtable’s draft national medical research strategy is out for review. The Association of Australian Medical Research Institutions has a range of recommendations that mostly involve funding.
“The long-term viability of Australia’s medical research sector is being undermined by chronic underfunding. Without sustainable investment, Australia risks weakening its sovereign research capability, compromising health outcomes, limiting our ability to respond to disease outbreaks and emerging health threats, and undermining national stability and economic productivity,” is the main message.
Specifics on the medical research peak body’s Christmas list include:
- Increasing the annual allocation from the Medical Research Future Fund from 2.7 per cent ($650m) now to 4.2 per cent ($1bn) – AAMRI and its pals in the press have long demanded this.
- Increased MRFF money – used in part to cover indirect research costs
- “Appropriate salary support” in government grants
- A National Health and Medical Research Council strategic investment in discovery research, “that will drive the innovation pipeline”
- An infrastructure framework like NCRIS
- Metrics to measure “unimpactful research” for “disinvestment”.
“Strategic reform, backed by sustainable investment and clear accountability, will ensure the sector continues to deliver transformative health outcomes, innovation, and economic growth,” is the promise.
But where is the sustainable investment to come from?
From, a coordinated and strategic approach (e.g., superannuation funds – including self-managed funds, business investment, and cross-government departmental programs) is where.
There is no word how accessing super would work, although AAMRI isn’t alone in wanting to access super. The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering wants “a small minimum Australian R&D investment mandate or investment options” to go to government-oversighted research and development.