Tag Archives: NHMRC

Why doesn’t primary health care matter to the NHMRC?

In the week that two major reports have stressed the importance of primary health care, it is more than a touch ironic that the new members of the National Health and Medical Research Council were also announced – without a single member there to wave the flag for primary health care.
You can see the new [...]

Podger’s book is HOT – just wait for Halton’s

Having now had a quick read of Podger’s book (following on from the previous post), I recommend it strongly as an eminently readable and quite fascinating insight into the workings of the upper echelons of the public service and government.
It also includes many revealing anecdotes and observations about key events in the health portfolio – [...]

The Baker Institute supports push for better management of conflicts of interest

Professor Garry Jennings, Director of the Baker IDI Heart & Diabetes Institute, has responded to recent Croakey posts raising concerns about his organisation’s close ties with industry. It seems there will be no more Baker staff appearing in pharmaceutical advertorials. He writes:
“The Croakey posting on Conflict of Interest points to both the diversity of views [...]

The Baker, the NHMRC and conflicts of interest

Following the recent post about the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute’s latest foray into pharmaceutical marketing, Croakey asked both the Baker and the NHMRC for comment.
No word yet from the Baker, but Professor Warwick Anderson, ceo of the NHMRC, sent this comment:
“The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (issued jointly by NHMRC, [...]

Some feedback on the Nutbeam review of public health research

Professor Glenn Salkeld, head of the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, recently wrote this overview of the Nutbeam review, in which he urged colleagues to “get active” and comment on the report.
Cris Kerr, an advocate for the value of patient testimony, took his advice and has sent in the following response [...]

Public health brigade urged to stand up and be counted

After keeping us waiting for some time, the NHMRC has finally delivered a swag of reviews and reports for public comment, including the much-anticipated Nutbeam Review of Public Health Research Funding (which has been the subject of some interest previously at Crikey and Croakey).
The NHMRC is seeking comment on its strategic plan,  and has also [...]

Has anyone the time, interest or funding for these stories?

In case there are any researchers or journalists out there with too much time on their hands, here are two ideas for stories or research projects.
• What is the role of the media in Mr Ward’s death?
The 4 Corners report on the death of Mr Ward, an Aboriginal man who was incarcerated in the most [...]

NHMRC chief puts his hand up: delay our fault

Last week, Crikey published this story about the delayed release of a major review of public health research, which was completed last October, and promised for release early this year but still under wraps.
(Ironically enough, one of the review’s recommendations was the establishment of a national public health research register to improve transparency around research [...]

Some critical issues for clinical practice guidelines

Agnes Vitry, Senior Research Fellow, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, has sent in this detailed, thoughtful response to the recent Croakey survey on the issues surrounding the controversial, commercially-funded Australian and NZ guidelines for blood clot prevention (for more background, see previous Croakey posts).
Vitry’s comments are well worth a read:
1. [...]

The guidelines controversy: what do the experts think?

Following the recent controversy about Australian and NZ guidelines for preventing blood clots, Croakey asked some relevant parties for their views on:
• whether  health departments, hospitals,  safety and quality groups be reviewing their support for these particular  guidelines in response to the concerns raised in the MJA and elsewhere?
• whether such agencies also review their [...]