Susan Alberti hip and shoulders Julia over funding cuts

[Ghost Dog]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/don...-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

[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!

[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.

[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.