Flying Blind newsletter

Flying Blind newsletter categories.

Linked Data After Research

We’ve already had a look at the vast array of different problems associated with attempting to track Australian health and medical research (HMR) spending. We’ve also explored the hoops that researchers have to jump through when they apply for grants or seek to gain approval from ethics committees, not to mention when they make requests for access or linkage from custodians and data gatekeepers.

Reviewing the reviews: the changing landscape of health and medical research

Health matters to Australians. Health and medical research (HMR) does too. In 2016, Research Australia polled public opinion on national priorities. Eighty eight percent of respondents highlighted improving hospitals and the health system. Seventy nine percent of respondents favoured increased HMR funding.

Making Sense of the Dollars: Health and Medical Research Expenditure in Australia

Released in February 2013, the McKeon Review marked the most comprehensive analysis of the health and medical research (HMR) sector since the Wills Review in 1998. McKeon’s words highlight one of the panel’s most alarming takeaways. At the end of the review period, despite the “combined insights of thousands of individuals who contributed their ideas and time”, meeting with “over 300 individuals from universities, MRIs, governments, hospitals, businesses and not-for-profit organisations” and receiving 400 written submissions, the panel were not able to make a confident assessment of total HMR spending.

The Researcher’s Journey

One would think that the process of obtaining data to conduct health and medical research in Australia would be straightforward. Unfortunately, it’s not. Researchers are constantly plagued by incessant delays and lengthy negotiations – all which stem from the fact that they have to go through a variety of different processes before their projects can commence.