Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
National Press Club -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) and there's a weak trough in NSW. brought by onshore winds, Most rainfall is along the nsw coast and in the Hunter, southwest WA and possibly Tasmania. but there are light showers for The forecasts - mostly cloudy. Brisbane - Sydney - showers. mostly sunny. Canberra - fog then sunny. Melbourne - mostly sunny. Hobart - sunny. Adelaide - a clearing shower. Perth - Darwin - sunny. the midday markets: And a final check of That's the news for now. is at 7 o'clock. Our next full bulletin the National Press Club. Next up on ABC TV - I'm Paul Lockyer. Good afternoon. International Pty Ltd Captioning and Subtitling Closed Captions produced by This program is captioned live. (Bell gongs)

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to

National Press Club and today's Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the National Australia Bank Address.

It's a great pleasure to welcome

today Professor William Brinkley

is this year's medallist for the today Professor William Brinkley who

Australian medical society for

medical research, many of whose

members are here today, and we are

very pleased that the actual

presentation of the medal to

Professor Brinkley will take place

today. Bill Brinkley has an

extraordinarily distinguished

in medical research in the United extraordinarily distinguished record

States. He is distinguished

professor - I will do this in one States. He is distinguished service

breath - in the Department of Of

molecular and cell u lar biology in

Texas, but he has also been very

prominent in a very substantial

increase in medical research

in the United States, and he is a increase in medical research funding

great advocate of scientists

convincing the community and their

political representatives of the

need to keep up the support for

medical science and research. I

would like to ask the Chief

Executive Officer of the Australian

National Medical Research Council

present the medal. Thank you, Ken. National Medical Research Council to

It's a great privilege to be able

do so. As you've said, Bill It's a great privilege to be able to

Brinkley is a very distinguished

scientist, has worked in the area

medical research, has probably been scientist, has worked in the area of

the most challenging and exciting,

actually, over the last 20 years or

so, and he has been a major

contributor to our new knowledge in

that area. Like the ASMR, who will

present this medal to him, he also

understand that engagement in the

community and add vow kacy for

research is an important

responsibility that scientists have,

and, of course, as you've heard, he

has had a very large impact in that

area. The Australian society for

medical research is a wonderful

society. It is led by the younger

members of the medical research

community. It is a very active

society, and, like Bill, understand

that we have a responsibility as

scientists to engage with the

community, not just for increased

funding, but for all the other

issues that arise out of health and

medical research, so it is a

wonderful match between ASMR and

Bill, and I feel very privileged,

Bill, to be able to present this

ASMR medal for 2006 to you. APPLAUSE. Thank you. ASMR medal for 2006 to you.

Ladies and gentlemen, with today's

address, please welcome Professor

Bill Brinkley. APPLAUSE Thank you

professors, Professor Anderson. It

is a great honour to be here. It

a great honour to be selected to be is a great honour to be here. It is

the national speaker for the

Australian Society for Medical

Research. I can't begin to tell

how important the work is that this Research. I can't begin to tell you

group is doing, and I'm so honour

that had they have chosen me to

here and receive this medical and that had they have chosen me to come

also to share with you some of my

own experiences which I think are

very similar in terms of our goals

and ambitions for medical research,

and it's really about the patient.

We want to be able to improve the

quality of life of the citizens of

Australia, the citizens of America, by support

by supporting biomedical research,

because that's where it all begins.

And I would like to share with you

some of the experiences that we've

had in this effort, and I would

to also celebrate with you this had in this effort, and I would like

wonderful increase in funding that

you've recently gotten from your

Federal Government and you're

getting hopefully from your states,

to support medical research. And

the spirit of the ASMR, in medical to support medical research. And in

research Week, I want to

the past recipients of this award - research Week, I want to acknowledge

very distinguished individuals -

I'm so honoured to be following in very distinguished individuals - and

their footsteps. It is a great

honour to be associated with other

citizen scientists, such as Peter

Doherty, the first recipient of the,

a Nobel laureate here in Australia.

And Peter Dwyer who is a recipient.

Professor Leon Rozenberg, and more

recently Professor Mary Hendrix and

Alan Bernstein. It is a wonderful

thing that you are doing. It is a

great honour to all of us to come

here and participate in this

advocacy and also to receive this

medal. I'm reminded of Isaac New

tonne who stated: "If I have seen

further than others, it is by

standing upon the shoulders of

giants." As a scientist and medical

researcher for the past 40 years

and, more recently, my association

with the advocacy for health and

medical research, I have indeed

stood on the shoulders of giants.

They are my mentors, my students

my associates and my many new They are my mentors, my students and

friends who I have met here since I

have been here. I think we have

remarkable pro fwres at this time have been here. I think we have had

and a fwrait future ahead. In my

presentation, I would like to --

great future ahead. In my

presentation, I would like to

briefly address two major issues.

One is my view of the present and

the future of health and medical

research in Australia. And I give

you this from my perspective as a

visitor, and I do it with all

humbleness because I know that you

have worked hard and I have had

a brief glimpse of what you are have worked hard and I have had only

doing, but I am so impressed.

Secondly, I would like to address

the question: Can countries like

America and Australia develop an

effective science policy, quote,

that would stabilise research

funding needed to attract and

our best and brightest young minds funding needed to attract and retain

in science? So first I want to

the ASMR for selecting me as their in science? So first I want to thank

national lecturer and medallist for

2006 and congratulate them on

successful advocacy for increased

funds for health and medical

research in Australia. This is

truly a victory for ASMR and the

people of Australia and all the

other organisation has have helped.

Secondly, I wish to share my

excitement for the future of

medicine and to reflect on

remarkable opportunities that are

now possible in the medical

now possible in the medical research field and en kourges our respective

governments, both Australia's and

the US, to establish more

the US, to establish more meaningful health policy that will address the

needs of future basic and

translational research, and to

stabilise the funding for the

stabilise the funding for the future endeavours that we must have to be

endeavours that we must have to be a healthy nation. The power of

cooperation and healthy competition

continue to be the driving force of

modern innovation in many fields

modern innovation in many fields and of course in medicine. In this

regard, I wish to recognise and

applaud your government, especially

your Prime Minister John Howard and

Health Minister Tony Abbott for

their important leadership in world

health and medical research. Also

health and medical research. Also I wish to congratulate the ASMR, of

course, under the leadership of his

President for his leadership. It

has been remarkable. He and I have

been in contact by email for almost

a year now, and he has prepared me

hopefully well for this

hopefully well for this presentation and for this opportunity to lecture

in every one of your capital cities

and share the excitement that we

and share the excitement that we all have for medical research, so I

thank you very much for that Leon.

As I reviewed recent advances in

Australia before coming, it was

obvious that your country ranks

public health and medical care

amongst its highest priorities. amongst its highest priorities. ASM r.

amongst its highest priorities. ASMR, Research Australia, and AAMI,

which I'm told is a-abbreviated, or

whatever, anyway

whatever, anyway, it is a wonderful

organisation, that has continued to

play a critical role by garnering

support for public and clinical

research - basic clinical research

needed. Recently, Australian

Government sent a clear message to

this effect by naming Professor Ian

Frazer as the 2006 Australian of

Frazer as the 2006 Australian of the year for his pioneering work in the

development of cervical cancer

vaccines. Now, that was a

remarkable discovery. It was a

remarkable thing for your

remarkable thing for your government to do, to recognise a scientist as

one of the outstanding Australians.

What a wonderful thing! This

demonstrates

demonstrates that your political

leaders regard HMR, health and

medical research, as an asset for

all to celebrate. There was the

remarkable discovery made by two

well renowned scientists that

intesty nal bacteria causes more

than 90% of intestinal ulcers and

than 90% of intestinal ulcers and up to 8 o% of the gastric ulcers in

humans. This was a remarkable

opportunity, too, because for many

years we thought ulcers were

produced by stress, physiological

problems. We had no idea that it

was an infectious disease. We

thought it was caused by problems

thought it was caused by problems in society. Graduate students thought

it was a problem caused by graduate

school, but we have all been

school, but we have all been through our stressors, but now we know, as

science progresses, how these

diseases really develop. That's so

important. They are great heroes

important. They are great heroes in our nation. Australia has produced

six Nobel Prize winners, a clear

metric of world-class leadership in

science. I believe that Australia

and America hold similar views on

the importance of medical research.

A few years ago in 2003, my

government also a-appropriatated

significant increases in the

significant increases in the funding for medical research through N HR.

As past President for the

As past President for the Federation for experimental biologies, at that

time, I had the privilege and

time, I had the privilege and unique opportunity to be on the ground

floor in this effort to convince

American people that we needed to

have this kind of increase in fund

have this kind of increase in funding. Our society, which

represents 22 research societies

represents 22 research societies and 84,000 members, has had an impact

84,000 members, has had an impact in Washington, and we were able to get

our Congress and our members of the

House of Representatives and our

Senate to be interested in this

problem, and to develop champions

problem, and to develop champions in Washington. And that's so

Washington. And that's so important for this effort that we're doing.

We have, as scientists, to become

pro efficient and -- proficient

pro efficient and -- proficient and strategically capable of taking our

messages to the State houses and to

our government and tell them how

science works and how we, as

researchers, depend so much on the

funding that is needed to support

this science. For many years in

this science. For many years in the US, the growth of funding for

research was slow ander rat tick.

Our national institutes of health

Our national institutes of health or NIH, didn't not even come into

existence until after World War II.

In the early 199 o 0 -- 1990s, a

wide range of people led the goal

wide range of people led the goal of doubling the NIH budget. Research

America, another good organisation

that supports advocacy, did a

that supports advocacy, did a survey of the American public and this was

a very careful survey to show that

the majority of our public

the majority of our public supported this increase. And that was very

important for the legislation, for

us to know that the public was

behind this, and this would be do

done. You have to bring everyone

into this, and Research America was

able to show that the public wanted

to support it. And we all agreed

that the rising tide of funding

would raise all boats of health and

medicine. And this was an

medicine. And this was an important message because up until then, each

individual disease group would go

individual disease group would go to Washington and strongly advocate

Washington and strongly advocate for their disease - cancer, die Pete

test, heart diszees - and our

politicians were confused because

they would get the word, we have to

put more money into the cancer

research, more money into research

on the heart and diabetes is a

growing problem, and we've got to

growing problem, and we've got to do something, so the legislators that

we met said - the politicians said,

"Help us out here. Do we give to

the NIH or do we give to the each

individual institute in each

individual institute in each disease group?" So the notion of doubling

the budget and rising the tide was

very appealing to them because they

could see that basic research is

what we're talking about and that's

what's needed. So, the doubling

went very well, and the funding for

the NIH was doubled over a period

the NIH was doubled over a period of five years. We had to get 15%

increase every year for five years.

And that was difficult at first, to

get that point across, because our

politicians and our legislatures

have many priorities and they have

to support them. So it's hard to

get them to support medical

get them to support medical research over something else. You have to

build a very good case for it. And

so we went from $14 billion to $27.

so we went from $14 billion to $27.2 billion in five years, the largest

increase in the history of NIH.

Achieving the goal was also --

Achieving the goal was also -- also required a united chorus of

influential supporters, including

patients, scientists, industry

leaders and most importantly

strategiccly placed elected

individuals with the power of being

a champion to cause and support

a champion to cause and support this research. By the way, you have

research. By the way, you have your own champions here in Australia in

individuals such as the Honourable

individuals such as the Honourable Peter Beattie who I had the joy of

having dinner with the other night

in Queensland who gave an

in Queensland who gave an enormously impressive speech that indicated

support for hed kal research. We

need more like him. The

need more like him. The cooperation of such individuals is not easily

obtained. They have very busy

obtained. They have very busy , they have other priorities, but you

have to work at it. Once they come

together, though, at least in the

United States, the commitment to

double the NIH budget seemed to be

double the NIH budget seemed to be a Fay ta come pli. -- fait accompli.

In fact, we knew we had one when

one of our Congress thought it was

his idea. We had to say, "Yes,

thank you so much, Congressman.

thank you so much, Congressman." Not only was it doubled but private

investment doubled as well.

According to Research America, most

recent estimate including private

and public funding in the United

States is now over $100 billion. I

should mention nonetheless that

should mention nonetheless that this is a really remarkable number, but

it's still paltry when unconsiders

the cost of health care. When you

do the math, when you do the

calculations, we've only increased

and invested 6c for each health

and invested 6c for each health care dollar that we spend. That's a

dollar that we spend. That's a very small amount. And the research

needed to ameliorate the current

burden of disease and disability.

By the way, I understand in

Australia it's only 2 cents out of

the health dollar. So we should

the health dollar. So we should not feel guilty about requesting more

funds now and in the future for the

health of our nation when we

consider the enormous burden of

health care on our citizens, and

that is ever-growing. Many saw the

competition of our successful

doubling campaign as the end of the

story. President Bush and Congress

turned their attention to other

priorities, and I won't go there.

>>Z LAUGHTER LAUGHTER Research

funding in the US has since

stagnated. In truth, the real

battle to make health research a

battle to make health research a top priority in our country has just

begun. We've got to continue, and

that's my message to you here today.

It's a cautionary tale - making

It's a cautionary tale - making the case for greater investment in

health and medical research is a

never-ending endeavour. As we live

longer, we must live healthier and

suffer the consequences of

skyrocketing health care cost.

We've got to reduce that.

Australians are facing the same

challenge. Your national health

challenge. Your national health and medical research budget has doubled

under the present Howard Government

and a phase-in program over five

years starting in 1999, an

investment of more than $400

million, an amazing feat that was

catalysed in 1999 by the Wills

report and I recognise Professor

Wills for his remarkable report

Wills for his remarkable report that got this started in many ways, and

got this started in many ways, and a follow-up assessment of Australia's

governments, investment - the Grant

investment review. John Grant

Review, bears out what we are also

experiences in the US. Investment

in the private sector follows

investment in the public sector.

350 new medically related

350 new medically related businesses were established in Australia

between 1992 and 2003. Industry

investment has more than doubled to

reach a billion dollars here.

Success breeds success. On 9 May,

your government allocated an

additional $#1

additional $105 million in the

future of health and medical

research. This will bring the

funding base from its current level

of $had00 million per year - and

again my sincere congratulations to

ASMR and all who worked to make

ASMR and all who worked to make this possible. Another amazing

possible. Another amazing statistic - the NHMRC provided funding

leverage to obtain $30 million in

overseas competitive grants. This

represents 112% increase in your

ability to get funding from groups

like our NIH - your scientists

competing in this very competitive

game of trying to get money and

you've succeeded from get

you've succeeded from getting from

our own NIH. That's just wonderful,

because we feel you are our

colleagues and we're delighted you

can have this opportunity. This

represents 112% increase. Moreover,

Australia was third only to Canada

and the United Kingdom as the

highest funded country for winning

overseas NIH grants. I also

understand that funding from Bill

and Melinda Gates Foundation might

be on their way here. The national

corps rootion between public and

private investors stimulates

Australia's international

competitors as the maths clearly

shows and this makes you a

significant player in world

competition for the production of

tomorrow's medicines and

technologies. You are in a great

position here. I think Australia

position here. I think Australia is uniquely positioned to be the next

leader in this area. So keep going.

But importantly, the investment

that HMR makes must be maintained

that HMR makes must be maintained in light of your presence good news

about increased funding of M HR and

this might be my most important

message to you today. Ironically,

as we have learnd in America,

success and fundraising and federal

funding makes one mission

vulnerable. Just like those of us

fighting for sustainable resources

in the US, ASMR, Research Australia

must re-tool and dig your heels in

for the next big push to keep

Australia at the leading edge, to

CaptainIse on the great discoveries

in science that you're making, to

maintain world leadership in health

and medical research. Incidentally

the seeds of your investment in

human medical research have already

begun to bear significant economic

fruit. Access Economics reports

reveal for each Australian dollar

invested in Australian medical

research, that's a gain of $5 to $8

to the economy. That's a pretty

good investment. This ratio will

only improve if investments from

both private and public industry

both private and public industry are maintained. You should be able to

make the case that this is a great

investment economically, not just

for the health of the nation.

Australians should be proud of the

growing impacts of biotechnology

industry and the wonderful

developments that have occurred

here. To bring me to my second and

last point, very briefly, given the

importance of health and research

importance of health and research of -- medical research to the health

of our sit accidents, long

of our sit accidents, long gentlemen tift. We are living 8 years longer.

That creates new problems, but I

think if we voted on it, we would

agree that's good. But it does

bring new problems for geriatric

population and how to do geriatric

medication, but it is a good

problem. My question is why do we

have to go from rags to riches

have to go from rags to riches every year or so to convince the

government that we need more Noni

and our scientists are having a

difficult time in getting grants

difficult time in getting grants and everyone thought in Congress we

everyone thought in Congress we were doing so well? Why can't we develop

some kind of policy that would

stabilise this? There are other

questions. Why does the government

funding for physical sciences often

lags and falls behind the funding

lags and falls behind the funding of our biomedical sciences? We are

delighted to get funding, but we

know our colleagues in the physical

sciences suffer and their

contributions are so critical to

biomedical science that we have to

work together. Medical science

work together. Medical science will not succeed and flourish without

them H a good example is the field

of imaging today. Where would we

of imaging today. Where would we be without MIR and CAT scans for

diagnoses? I bring this to your

attention because I believe that

nations must find a way to

nations must find a way to stabilise the funding of both of our sciences.

The basic physical sciences as

The basic physical sciences as well as the biomedical sciences. I

encourage our policy-makers to seek

and establish a more stable science

policy that will secure our

country's leadership for the best

and brightest of today and tomorrow.

I would like to mention a few

benchmarks for a few seconds. How

do you do this? It's not easy to

establish a science policy - we

haven't done it in the United

haven't done it in the United States yet - and we need do, but an excel

rent report has been publiced by

Corn et Al. It lists the following.

Balancing the current funding

commitment. Once you get

commitment. Once you get scientists funded, how can you maintain that

funding while retaining

opportunities for young

investigators that are coming into

the field? We need to know how to

estimate the size of our training

pool that we need in science and

pool that we need in science and the future man power needs in science.

We have no formula for that. What

should be the success rate of

funding? Right now in the United

States, 30 to 40% of approved

States, 30 to 40% of approved grants are funded if the money is there,

but with the droppoff that we've

but with the droppoff that we've had in our funding, we're now only

funding about one out of five

approved grants, and that's falling.

It needs to be a policy. What is

needed for maintaining science

infrastructure? We've got to build

buildings and we've got to build

infrastructure. I just saw your

beautiful building here and I'm so

envious in the basic sciences here

that you have this building coming

forward for basic research. It's

the kind of thing we knee. We need

funding for that and equipment to

funding for that and equipment to go into that building. What should be

the commitment in the institutions?

In other words, what should the

institute itself pay? Should it

share the cost? What allowances

should be made for the needs of

contemporary science, ee

contemporary science, ee Americaning new areas such as nano science,

new areas such as nano science, nano biology - great new discoveries for

the future, but they haven't really

hit the field yet because they are

so new. What about new infectious

diseases and epidemics and

pandemics, caused by things like

avian flu. We need to maintain

these needs and maintain leadership.

Spending the trance -- while

expending the translation of

discoveries to the patients'

bedside. We need that badly. It

takes 10 years for a discovery on

the average to get to the patient's

bedside and millions of dollars

bedside and millions of dollars from pharmaceuticals. We can speed that

up and we should train people who

understand biology and medicine in

the same lab laboratory. So they

have a PhD on the one hand but they

have the ee Viv lent on the other.

We are at a critical juncture. In

his remarkable book: The world is

flat, Thomas Freedman warns us that

with modern electronic

communications and the little more

of a click of a mouse at your

computer, the playing field of

science in the world has been

levelled. We have become the

benefactors as well as the victims

of globalisation, always in danger

of losing our competitive edge and

becoming a Third World play becoming a Third World player by

becoming a Third World player by the click of a mouse, through

outsourcing, for example. The US

a-Academy of Science considers this

is a major problem, and in their

report 2006 called "rising above

report 2006 called "rising above the gathering storm" this problem is

gathering storm" this problem is die Lynated and it comes down to two

solutions - train and retain the

very best, your current and future

leaders of science and medical

research, beginning in the schools.

That's our big problem in America.

We lose them in the third grade.

They become lawyers. LAUGHTER

But they lose interest in science.

We have to find a way around this.

With cooperation, a little healthy

competition, and with a larger and

more stable investment in health

more stable investment in health and medical research, both of our

countries can retain leadership and

bring better health and prosperity

not only to our citizens but the

people of the world because it is a

world community of health we are

talking about. Our two nations

talking about. Our two nations have long been allies in times of war

long been allies in times of war and peace, and now we are allies in the

Great War on dis

Great War on disease. May we

Great War on disease. May we always remain friends and allies together

remain friends and allies together I think we can rise above the

gathering storm. Thank you for

gathering storm. Thank you for this high honour. I will carry this

honour with me back to the United

States with great memories of your

beautiful, beautiful country.

beautiful, beautiful country. Thank you. APPLAUSE. Thank you, Professor

Brinkley and for those of you who

are not aware of the beautiful new

building he was talking about. It

was the new John Curtin School of

Medical Research. Simon Gross from

science media and the 'Canberra

Times'. You sketched the success

that the medical research community

has had in your country and

Australia in terms of increasing

Australia in terms of increasing the amount of money to put to research

recently. But on another front,

recently. But on another front, the issue of funding and regulation of

embring ot tick stem cell research,

I think it would be fair to say

I think it would be fair to say that you guys have had a loss in course

country and we have kind of

country and we have kind of achieved an unsatisfactory truce. I wonder

if you could throw us any insights

into the nature of that battle over

in the US, and whether you see any

hope beyond just a change of party

at the top, and whether you have

at the top, and whether you have any comments on the criticism of the

Bush regime generally that it

meddles with the direction and

funding of medical research.

Thank you. That's a dissittation

question. Yes, you are correct.

The future - I think one of the

The future - I think one of the most exciting technologies and

discoveries for the future of all

discoveries for the future of all of biology and medicine is stem cell

research. We have an opportunity

here to understand the very basics

of life and the basics of molecular development. For that reason, it

development. For that reason, it is one of the most exciting things to

occur in decades, and I think

Australia has a much more wholesome

view of it at the moment, and I

thank the leadership. In the

thank the leadership. In the United States, we are basically Geoff

Thompson and others discovered

embring ot tick research. It is --

embring yot tick research. It is

such an irony that our government

has approved stem cell research and

put a limitation and a law against

our making new embryot, c stem

our making new embryot, c stem lines funded by the Federal Government.

That's the most agreej just thing

because as you all know here and as

well in the United States, the

wealth springs from ideas and

scientists and individual

investigators have the opportunity

to do research that inspires them,

that excites them, but now we're

told we can't use federal money

which is the main operational money

for most of our schools to do any

stem cell research and create lines

with the old cells, so it is a

problem of great irony because our

private industry has no such

limitations. Our private industry

can do all they want, they can make

the new cell lines, make all the

profit. They can lock it up in

terms of patents and they are, but

our universities are locked out,

our universities are locked out, and this is caused to some extent

entirely politically, I think, by

the supporters of an administration

that sort of came in from the

fringe, to use a term my good

fringe, to use a term my good friend Bill uses, to govern, and they are

bound by very old and primitive

ideas, I think, for modern biology,

as to what life is, and we can't do

this research until, you're right,

until we have a new government.

until we have a new government. But let me say at the same time,

Research America has done a poll in

America, a very good poll, and most

of the states, 70% approve

of the states, 70% approve embryotic stem cell research and yet we are

still locked out. So there is hope

that our country will insist on

that our country will insist on this wonderful technology, but it is a

serious problem right now. You

mentioned a little bit of the

problems we have. I think the

biggest problems we have - once of

them as far as science goes, is the incredible

incredible politicsisation. Our

own President says we should teach

both. In the classrooms, we will

not stand for that. We are not

going to teach fables. We are

going to teach fables. We are going to teach science as it existing at

the cutting edge. We try to say

that it is a kind of creationism in

new clothes and many of us say,

"Well, those guys are just atheists

and blah, blah, blah. Well, I'm a

Christian. For many years and I am

very proud of it and I'm delighted

to go to any church and tell hem

that Jesus was a healer and we can

heal as well by new discoveries and

I believe that is just and we must

do it, but I don't know that I've

gotten that point across to my

conservative colleagues, but we are

trying. I hope that answered your

question. Thank you. Next question

is from Mark Metherell. Mark

Metherell from the 'Sydney Morning

Herald', professor. We seem to be

seeing an incredible outpouring of

medical research results that point

to all sorts of new technologies,

new cures, most of them all at very

significant cost. Is there a risk,

do you think, that the very speed

do you think, that the very speed of scientific discovery these days is,

in a sense, widening the gap

in a sense, widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots? The

haves can afford the best and

haves can afford the best and latest medicine made possible by research,

while those who don't or can't

afford, are left back on the heap?

Is there any sign, do you think of widen

Is there any sign, do you think of a widening Gulf particularly if your

own country? It is an important

question, one that is also very

difficult to answer, but I think,

difficult to answer, but I think, if we look at history, and we look at

where science has come since World

War II and where medicine has

evolved, everyone is benefitting

from these new increases of the

past. It takes a little time and

it's not fair and our poor people

have difficulty having access to

have difficulty having access to the cutting-edge research and

cutting-edge research and technology that's going on in the big centres

in our nations, they can't get

there, can't get access to it.

You're right, it is a problem, but

the way we solve that problem is

the way we solve that problem is not only to train new researchers, but

train fish I shans who go out in

train fish I shans who go out in the community that are full of

community that are full of knowledge that we are doing in the technology,

and to make it possible. Yes, it's

going to cost money, but look at

going to cost money, but look at the burden of health care to the poor

people - they suffer from it more

than anyone else. Anything we can

do to raise that ratio of more

dollars spent for medical research

in reference to health care dollars,

it will eventually help, hopefully

soon, the underprivileged, and it's

always on our mind, but it is a

difficult question to answer

difficult question to answer because it is a real question of concern to

many of us. Peter Phillips.

Peter Phil lips, Professor Brinkley,

I'm one of the directors of the

National Press Club. Another

esteemed Texan, former ambassador

Schieffer said to us sheer not very

long ago that one of the things

which he had to learn as an

ambassador was that whenever he got

to go to where the real power

to go to where the real power centre was, which was in Washington, he

would only get 15 seconds with

people who mattered, and I guess we

knew who he meant when he was

talking about people who mattered.

On that basis, the sort of thing,

On that basis, the sort of thing, if Tom Schieffer could get 15 seconds,

one infers that US medical research

and scientific research is getting

and scientific research is getting a pretty fair chunk of the 15 seconds

as well because your results would

a-appear to be, in terms of

government support and government

involvement in research, would seem

to be pretty good. I don't seek,

to be pretty good. I don't seek, as a visitor to our country n domestic

political issueses, but your

presence nevertheless dog beggar

comment. Molecular and research

comment. Molecular and research can achieve a lot without involving

government, of course, but long

experience tells we can achieve an

awful lot more with government.

What's yoir experience in the US at

both the state and federal levels

suggest that your Australian

counterparts might do here to

counterparts might do here to secure and sustain even more favourable

and sustain even more favourable and indulgent attitudes of governments

towards the provision of funding

towards the provision of funding for medical research? Wonderful

question. It's been occupying my

mind for about 10 years. We were

getting a lesson -- - we were

getting less than 6 seconds to talk

to the right people, but we changed

all that because we developed

networks of scientists throughout

the country in which we were able

the country in which we were able to teach our young people and

scientists how to interact, but

strategicly who to talk to. Many

strategicly who to talk to. Many of our scientists thought if you went

to Congress and you talked to your

representative or your Congressman,

than you did your part for science.

That won't work. You've got to go

to people on appropriatation and

budget committees and you have to

develop a good story, and, yes, you

only have a short time, but they

don't want to hear about C 21.

Their eyes roll, and that's what we

had to teach our scientists to be

spokesmen to get their message

across, simple and straightforward,

and that was one way. Secondly.

and that was one way. Secondly. We started building champions on the

hill, we say, in Washington , who

had a great interest in biology and

medicine, and we would work through

them to have access to the key

people, and when we worked through

our champions, people like John

our champions, people like John Port ter who was chairman of labour

health and human services during

health and human services during the doubling at NIH - he is now retired,

but Congressman Porter would help

us. He knew everyone. He would

say, "Here is Bill Brinkley. I

say, "Here is Bill Brinkley. I want you to take a few fin minutes and

chat with him." That would work.

You would develop inside help. If

you go up there and talk about what

they teach you in the text books

they teach you in the text books and talk about health, it won't work.

You have got to develop networks,

you have got to teach them to be

strategically capable of

communicating with the members of

Congress and you've got to teach

them how to get to the right people,

and I think you need to do the same

thing here. Next question from

thing here. Next question from Glenn Milne. Glenn Milne from News

Limited, Sunday Publications and

'The Australian' which to translate

for you is Fox news without

pictures. I speak to you today as.

pictures. I speak to you today as... LAUGHTER I love, Fox.

I speak to today as a father of a

daughter who hated chemistry and is

now studying law. Mr Peacock,

now studying law. Mr Peacock, chief scientist of Australia. He has

scientist of Australia. He has been appointed to oversight an inquiry

into nuclear power in Australia.

into nuclear power in Australia. He has already been attacked from

several quarters for having certain

views on nuclear power already. I

would like you to reflect on the

role between the job that Jim does,

which he has described as onerous

today, and the tension between

government appointees and the

oversight of science, and how you

resolve that kind of tension,

particularly in the context of my

colleague's reflections on embring

otic stem cell research in the US.

Thank you Thank you very much. I'm

glad you mentioned Professor

Peacock. He is one of my friends

from way, way back. We are soul

brothers in research. I'm so proud

he is now a leader here in science

community. But your question is

community. But your question is one that is again, requires education

the part of the scientist.

that is again, requires education on the part of the scientist, onto

issue has are facing us, whether

they be nuclear energy or whether

they be global warming, or whether

they be stem cells. We have to

they be stem cells. We have to talk to our selves and say, "What is the

important message we want to get

across?" And then we have to

strategically target our supporter

strategically target our supporters

in Congress and Sol list sit their

help. Slis it their help. Then we

have to go to the people on the

street. Every chance you get to

talk to a Rotary club or a church

group about stem cells, sometimes

it's tough to walk into a

fundamentalist group and talk about

stem cells and say, "No, it didn't

happen that way in genesis, but let

me tell you, it was even more of a

greater plan than you can imagine.

Let me tell you about that plan.

Let me tell you about that plan." Anyway, that's is what ideally we

should do. It is a difficult

problem. I don't have a simple

answer to. My sympathy goes out to

Jim, but knowing Jim, he will

Jim, but knowing Jim, he will handle it. Australian society for medical

research. Bill, health and medical

research is truly an investment in

our future. We have demonstrated

health, wealth and knowledge gains.

Excellence and cutting-edge

Excellence and cutting-edge research is built on a continue yum of

support and the government has

recognised the value of investing

recognised the value of investing in health and medical research. But

just expanding, I guess, this issue

of a continue yum, I'm reminded of

what ah Rhys to the tell said which

is that -- Aristotle said it is an

act. Ongoing support is critical

for this. Could you tell us

for this. Could you tell us perhaps what's been the US experience in

sourcing research dollars from

non-government funds like, for

example, or sources like, for

example, superannuation funds or

health funds? From non-government,

like private? Well, it has been

like private? Well, it has been very good. We happen to have some

organisations like the Howard

organisations like the Howard Hughes Foundation that has contributed

enormously to the quality of

squience in our country, millions

and millions of dollars to support

the research of our investigators,

and an investigators that gets and

competes successfulfully for Howard

Hughes is not easy to do. Once you

get that funding, it's good for

several years and it relieves you

from the burden of having to find

your money sometimes with

government, which is difficult. So

that's one good example. Another

that's one good example. Another is private endowment. We have

wonderful people in the community.

In our community, we have very

fortunate to have some very wealthy

people in Houston, for example. I

will use this one example: A man

there recently gave us $100 million

to start a cancer centre in our

University. That was a nice cheque,

and the thing about it, the way we

got that private invest

got that private investment, was to

become friends with this gentleman

and begin to explain to him how his

family, all of whom had had a

serious episodes of cancer, particular

particularly gynaecological cancer.

He lost a wife, lost a daughter.

was a self-

He lost a wife, lost a daughter. He was a self-made billionaire and it

was easy to talk to him once we got

to know him and what we could do

with the cancer centre and all the

work that's going on. He was not

not a science-educated individual,

but he knew a lot about oil.

Anyway, he came about and was very

generous and he did this on his own.

We didn't really ask him for a

penny. He realise that had we

needed a cancer centre, and he gave

it. So there are examples out

there, all avenues and arenas of

there, all avenues and arenas of the private areas that will help you,

and pharmaceutical industries, in

and pharmaceutical industries, in my opinion, and I will probably get

shot down for this, but I don't

think they have helped enough in

America. They are doing better,

America. They are doing better, but we are training the next generation

of workers in the industry, in our

biomedical schools and our PhD

programs and our medical programs -

we are training nature next talent.

They haven't returned training

grants and funding as much as I

think they should. That's still

having to come largely from

government sources. So on the one

hand we have been lucky to get some

private funding from wealthy

entrepreneurs and wealthy

individuals, but we have not been

able to get nearly enough to

alleviate the need for training

dollars. That's been our biggest

problem - training dollars. So

problem - training dollars. So good and bad in some respects. I don't

think the big farmer has done

think the big farmer has done enough and they are capable of doing a lot

more. Next question is from Judith

Wentworth. Thanks, Judith Whitworth

from the Australian National

University. You talk, Bill, about

the global community of health, but

I think we all realise that

I think we all realise that billions of people worldwide are suffering from disease

from diseases for which little or

from diseases for which little or no research is being done. Could you

comment on who should be advocating

for them and what the roles should

be of your governments for this?

Thank you for that question,

Thank you for that question, because that's so true, and these are dice

ceases are very serious in Third

World countries that we don't know

enough about, don't get nearly at

tension from the sources. I don't

know exactly how to answer that

except to say that the gaets fournd

daition, for example, has been very

generous in helping for some of

these. We are going to have to tap

into private efforts, I think, at

the moment to get more funding

worldwide, and I think some of the

work that's being done by

celebrities and Hollywood and other

places has been good. But you're

right, we haven't done nearly

enough, and we've got - I don't

think we sometimes realise what

horrible situations exist in

horrible situations exist in nations that are Third World countries that

have serious medical problems with

just medicine in general, but

especially AIDS and HIV, but things

like that are just far underfunded

and I don't know the solution to it,

except to say that we need to

develop strategy and we need to get

more private foundations involved,

and we need to think more about it

like you have. Not a very good

answer, but I don't know the answer.

Snoo snoot next question is from

Maria. Bill Maria from the

Australian society more medical

research. With an ageing

population, there is going to be

competing interest for money for

health care as opposed to putting

money in research. Do you have any

advice about how to approach the

policy-makers about investing in

medical research so we reduce the

burden of disease in the future,

because as you know, medical

research takes a long time between

doing the basic research,

translational research to outcomes

and with competing health costs,

and with competing health costs, how to compete in that arena. Do you

have some advice? I wish I do have

some advice. I am getting older

some advice. I am getting older and I think about it a little more than

I used to. But it is becoming a

great problem with the great

advances we've made with longevity.

But the way is to look at our

curriculum in medical schools and

develop more education with the

people that really understand the

problems. Medical students I've

talked to don't really want to go

there much and we need to develop

more innovative programs in our

educational programs to develop

bringing the knowledge to the aged

population. We need to develop

better health care policies that

will enable people to not just live

at the fringes with government

support that we have in our

government, but to have

opportunities to qualify for more

funding and to be the benefactors

funding and to be the benefactors of research on ageing, which is we

research on ageing, which is we need to enhance as well. We need to

to enhance as well. We need to know more about ageing than we know

more about ageing than we know right now, both soes logically as well as

biology and to deal with the fact

that we have going to have people

living to 100 very soon, routinely,

I think. My father died at 63

I think. My father died at 63 about with a coronary and I had a similar

episode at 64 and very quickly

episode at 64 and very quickly taken and given a double bypass and a

stent and give stay tins because

they said my cholesterol was too

high and look at me - I'm just a

specimen of health here. I think

specimen of health here. I think we need to do more. I think the older

generation will benefit from these

kinds of discoveries and our

kinds of discoveries and our parents didn't live long, but we are going

to be living longer. Our children

need to know that we have to have

access to these great medical

treatments and cures, and we will.

I think it will be better, but it

I think it will be better, but it is still a big problem. Jim peacock.

Bill, I would like to return - Jim

peacock, to the point you brought

peacock, to the point you brought up about support for medical research

first as physical and natural

sciences and I'm reminded of the

time in President Ford's day where

he declared that he needed to solve

cancer, and cancer research was

cancer, and cancer research was much favoured, but in fact, a lot of the

major breakthroughs came from the

fundamental work on genetic and

molecular, cell u lar processes.

I'm wondering whether the very

success of support for medical

research has been carried along

research has been carried along with it a narrowing of the definition of

what's medical research and whether

you've got any feel about that. An

observation - I don't know whether

it's correct is - that NIH I think

used to be a little more

broad-minded about what it

supported. Although I'm sitting

next to Warwick Anderson here, I

think our NHMC is fairly narrow in

that Yes, thank you Professor

Peacock. Thank you for that

question because it is a question I

feel very emotional about. The

example of gave of neglect of the

physical sciences is due largely, I

think has its base in education. I

think that our policy-makers don't

realise the importance of disoffer

ris in the physical sciences for

health. I think they know how to

get to Mars and the moon and they

are excited about things like that,

but they don't focus on the needs

but they don't focus on the needs we have, and I do agree that medical

research is very narrowly defined.

To Nobel laureates that discovered

the bucky balls and the nano tubes

had no idea that these tiny

molecular fibres would do nothing

but strengthen our spacecraft with

NASA. Now we know that's the few

NASA. Now we know that's the few ur of medicine. Using these nano

of medicine. Using these nano tubes to get cells inside is a good

example of how basic discovery is

example of how basic discovery is so critical for the future of medicine,

but that message has never gotten

beyond the more advanced scientific

audience, I think. We have not

audience, I think. We have not been able to make a good story out of

that. I think the press hasn't

helped us a lot either because they

focus on, as they probably should,

medical discoveries of shaving

patients with diabetes, of course,

which is important. But if we can

get more upheads on the basics of

training of maths and physics in

training of maths and physics in our education systems and public

education systems and public schools it will be very help if in what

you've identified, but, yes, it is

still a major problem. Thank you

for the question. Professor

Brinkley, thank you for the past

hour. We've run out of time.

Thank you. I would like you to show

people what your medal actually

looks like. I will even put it on.

APPLAUSE Bill Brinkley was telling

us that he first visited Australia

and first met Jim scvp peacock 30

years ago and he enjoyed it so much

that he has remembered just about

every detail of it. We will give

you a membership of the club in

you a membership of the club in case it's quite soon so you can come

it's quite soon so you can come back and do it all again. APPLAUSE

Thank you very much. APPLAUSE.

Closed Captions provided by

Captioning and Subtitling

International Pty Ltd