AQ – Volume 83, Issue 3
Meeting the Challenge of Translating Australia’s Medical Research
Australia is globally recognized for its contribution to medical research, but not its capacity to develop new therapies. This scenario is increasingly problematic as return on investment from health and medical research is becoming increasingly important for the Australian government and for governments around the world. As a result, there is an increased emphasis on the area of translational research with major infrastructure investment in most states and a focus on integration of medical institutions with academic environments. What role can the newly created entity, Therapeutic Innovation Australia, play in catalysing translational outcomes for Australian research?
Ross McKinnon and Stewart Hay
No Vision, No Aspiration, No Connection
Australian politics seems to never have been quite this turgid. Quality debate has never been quite so drowned out by shouting, carping competition…for what? The ambitions of both parties seem to be only about retaining or attaining government. There is no vision, no aspiration, and thus no connection with the Australian people. How did a change of government so fundamentally fail to revitalise our democracy?
The need for homelands
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have occupied Australia for millennia and belong to the world’s longest-surviving continuous culture. Yet since colonisation Australian governments have advocated and enforced policies that have removed Aboriginal Peoples from their land and into centralised communities, despite proven health and social benefits to the people living in homeland communities. With the significance of homelands to Aboriginal Peoples so clear, why then are government policies and commitments to homelands so weak?
The curious case of evidence-based practice
Almost all of us will seek health care at same stage and therefore it is critical that the health care we receive is underpinned by safe and quality practices. Yet research tells us that this is not always the case. Are we right to assume that the treatments we are prescribed by health care professionals are founded on constantly evolving evidence or are many of our doctors still peddling spurious remedies? What is the missing puzzle piece that keeps evidence-based practice from becoming the evidence-based treatments at the point-of-care?
Back copies of AQ from 1929 through to 2007 are available from JSTOR