🧵Thread - basic science research in Oz
1. I sat down to read the #NHMRC Corporate Plan and I'm very disquieted about the implications for #BasicScience research in Australia
Is there space for basic science research in health and medical science in Australia?
1. I sat down to read the #NHMRC Corporate Plan and I'm very disquieted about the implications for #BasicScience research in Australia
Is there space for basic science research in health and medical science in Australia?
https://twitter.com/nhmrc/status/1433217915327635461
2. My major concern is the reduced focus on basic science research with increased emphasis on translational research with 'tangible benefits for society'
In principle I don't disagree, and translation is the major underpinning for #MRFF which is an very important policy action
In principle I don't disagree, and translation is the major underpinning for #MRFF which is an very important policy action
3. My understanding of the #MRFF is to complement the #NHMRC
Broadly speaking it seems NHMRC fills knowledge gaps with basic science and MRFF seeks to address development of drugs/treatments/cures etc and support consumers/industry etc with some overlap between these two bodies
Broadly speaking it seems NHMRC fills knowledge gaps with basic science and MRFF seeks to address development of drugs/treatments/cures etc and support consumers/industry etc with some overlap between these two bodies
4. This year's #NHMRC corporate plan is similar to plans of previous years with emphasis on translation, consumer engagement, etc
However, will the formation of the new Health Research Impact Committee accelerate NHMRC shifting away from basic science to societal translation?
However, will the formation of the new Health Research Impact Committee accelerate NHMRC shifting away from basic science to societal translation?
5. The Health Research Impact Committee 'reflects a shift in emphasis in publicly-funded research...whose success is measured primarily in academic outputs and accolades to one that the community and governments expect to yield tangible benefits for society'
What will this mean?
What will this mean?
6. As per the previous tweet, what are the unintended consequences of this governance shift in #NHMRC for basic science research?
Will the Impact Committee de-emphasis basic science questions on molecules/gene/biological systems in favour of purely clinical questions?
Will the Impact Committee de-emphasis basic science questions on molecules/gene/biological systems in favour of purely clinical questions?
7. What does this imply for funding of basic science in Australia if the #NHMRC is now putting emphasis on 'tangible benefits for society'?
To me, this seems like duplication in the missions of NHMRC and MRFF whereas they seemed to be complementary earlier
To me, this seems like duplication in the missions of NHMRC and MRFF whereas they seemed to be complementary earlier
8. A de-emphasis of basic science research has serious implications for the bench-to-bedside virtuous cycle for medical research
Where will the new ideas for clinical translation come from if the basic science pool dries up?
Where will the new ideas for clinical translation come from if the basic science pool dries up?
https://twitter.com/whereisdaz/status/1177387932748877824?s=20
9. The reason for my disquiet is the #NHMRC is the principle funder for basic medical science in Australia
#MRFF and charities focus, rightly, on translational and clinical research to solve health problems; that is their role.
From tweet 3 picture NHMRC has a different role
#MRFF and charities focus, rightly, on translational and clinical research to solve health problems; that is their role.
From tweet 3 picture NHMRC has a different role
10. If #NHMRC reduces funding of basic science in Australia, this has implications for health and medical research
There are not many other sources for basic research funding in Australia. And ARC shouldn't fund health and medical research since that is not their mission.
There are not many other sources for basic research funding in Australia. And ARC shouldn't fund health and medical research since that is not their mission.
11. I have concerns about the idea of tangible outcomes for society from health and medical research
This idea clashes with the need for basic science research that produces pure discovery in health which may OR may not produce tangible outcomes in the future
This idea clashes with the need for basic science research that produces pure discovery in health which may OR may not produce tangible outcomes in the future
12. Basic science in health and potential future applications is unknown. It needs to be funded on its own merits and not to 'pass the pub test'
I say all this as someone not interested in being a basic science researcher, and more interested in 'tangible benefits for society'
I say all this as someone not interested in being a basic science researcher, and more interested in 'tangible benefits for society'
13. To be clear, I think basic science and clinical science are complementary and necessary for the virtuous cycle for bench-to-bedside
I am just concerned about funding implications for basic science research by the major funding body, #NHMRC, with their emphasis on translation
I am just concerned about funding implications for basic science research by the major funding body, #NHMRC, with their emphasis on translation
14. And I know there are many basic science medical researchers who are worried about this shift
https://twitter.com/Gianina_Natoli/status/1358673699616903168?s=20
https://twitter.com/jasminamarkulic/status/1336513289476395014?s=20
https://twitter.com/CytokineSignal/status/1262923287295860739?s=20
15. Lastly, I think I will finish on this
https://twitter.com/djmarsh24/status/968340095324606466?s=20
PS. Because I botched tweet 14
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
