Lifting the lifegiving dollar : case samples of creative practice in health and medical research philanthropy

This study aims to stimulate thought, debate and action for change on this question of more vigorous philanthropic funding of Australian health and medical research (HMR). It sharpens the argument with some facts and ideas about HMR funding from overseas sources. It also reports informed opinions from those working, giving and innovating in this area. It pinpoints the range of attitudes to HMR giving, both positive and negative. The study includes some aspects of Government funding as part of the equation, viewing Government as major HMR givers, with particular ability to partner, leverage and create incentives. Stimulating new philanthropy takes active outreach. The opportunity to build more dialogue between the HMR industry and the wider community is timely given the ‘licence to practice’ issues and questioned trust that applies currently somewhat both to science and to the charitable sector. This interest in improving HMR philanthropy also coincides with the launch last year by the Federal Government of Nonprofit Australia Limited (NAL), a group currently assessing infrastructure improvements to the charitable sector. History suggests no one will create this change if Research Australia does not. However, interest in change exists in various quarters. For Research Australia to successfully change the culture of Australian HMR giving, the process will drive the outcomes. Obviously stakeholder buy-in and partners will be needed and the ultimate blueprint for greater philanthropic HMR funding here will not be this document. Instead it will be the one that wears the handprint and ‘mindprint’ of the many architects and implementers interested in promoting HMR philanthropy, from philanthropists to nonprofit peaks to government policy arms. As the African proverb says, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone; but if you want to go far, go with others’.

Submission to: Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research (Australia) otherwise known as the McKeon Review

Public submission # 247 to the McKeon Review. The submission addresses the terms of reference on: How can we optimise translation of health and medical research into better health and wellbeing? (Terms of Reference 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11)

Multi-centre research in Australia:analysis of a recent National Health and Medical Research Council-funded project

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Human research ethics committees provide essential review of research projects to ensure the ethical conduct of human research. Several recent reports have highlighted a complex process for successful application for human research ethics committee approval, particularly for multi-centre studies. Limited resources are available for the execution of human clinical research in Australia and around the world.

METHODS: This report overviews the process of ethics approval for a National Health and Medical Research Council-funded multi-centre study in Australia, focussing on the time and resource implications of such applications in 2007 and 2008.

RESULTS: Applications were submitted to 16 hospital and two university human research ethics committees. The total time to gain final approval from each committee ranged between 13 and 77 days (median = 46 days); the entire process took 16 months to complete and the research officer's time was estimated to cost $A34 143.

CONCLUSIONS: Obstacles to timely human research ethics committee approval are reviewed, including recent, planned and potential initiatives that could improve the ethics approval of multi-centre research.

White House Conference on Aging, January 9-12, 1961: background paper on health and medical care.

Cover title.

Civilian Health and Medical Program, Department of Veterans Affairs : beneficiary information booklet.

Mode of access: Internet.

Rural health and medical care,

Bibliographical footnotes.

Industrial health and medical programs; statements, tables and charts selected and compiled

Bibliography: p. 388-397.