OT: AFL v Fed Gov

[jenny61_99]

Ahh I work in this area and there are some issues. Btw NHMRC Jenny National Health and Medical Research Council.

Recently the ARC released the results for the Federation Fellows. The Fed Fellow was created to try and entice back to Australia those researchers that had to go overseas in order to get funding etc. So what happened with the latest applications 3 are from OS institutions the other 27 (I think will have to check the numbers) are all already IN an Australian institution and that kinda goes against why they were created. ARC and NHMRC are also incredibly hard to get and actually are less money than many other granting bodies but they are prestigious to have on your resume for these particular reasons. The increase in the NHMRC funding was not for competitive grants but for Medical Institutions that are already established and also to implement a National Ethics Review process in relation to clinical trials that occure across more than one site. The problem with this is the different state regulations / laws that are going to have to be accounted for / considered and will be not easy to resolve.

This area is now also under investigation in respect to the Research Quality Framework (RQF) which will effect the amount of monies that a University receives from the Government in relation to quantifiable measures. These measures are still under discussion and not fully formalised and yet the Universities are having to go ahead and impliment the RQF without knowing totally what they should be looking at and aiming for. It's a farcial situation and makes it very diffcult and has increase workloads considerably and put stress on researchers, research administrators as well as some Universities looking at 'poaching' researchers from other institutions to increase their own track records. Luckily DEST did make some rules that stopped the poaching, but not before some bad blood was drawn.

Somehow that pesky extra N got in the way!

The problem with Federation Fellowships is that they are indeed intended to entice Australian academics currently overseas to come back to Oz to continue their research. While the salary is generous (being married to one ) the overseas institutions just upped the ante to keep said academics overseas. In my circumstances, the fellowship was more than likely to keep us here, and I think that is just as important. We had to leave Australia in 1983 for hubby to pursue his post-doctorates. Much of his research that SHOULD have been Australian owned and developed is now owned by Stanford University and University of Toronto - and we see this happen all the time. Funding for scientific and medical research has vastly improved over the last decade - and so it should. Governments ARE attempting to stop the brain drain that occurred in the 1980's and I think are doing a reasonable job (considering the bottomless pockets of their opposition institutions overseas).

 

[Crow-mo]

Crowmo I'll be honest with you I'm really not interested in having an arguement with someone who brings no new information to the discussion and only attempts to slag off the other person's facts.

But I will give you credit for one thing it definately seems your Shift+F7 is working on Word and it is quite ironic that the term obfuscate is in itself obfuscating when used as you have.

Good luck voting for Labour at the coming election I know that I will certainly not be joining you.

that's what I thought, all the huff and puff of teenage bravado and approximately zero knowledge on the subject.

how about you stop telling everyone else they're idiots, when you've come up completely empty under the microscope?

sound fair

Ps. seeing as your obviously parroting the views of dad, and maybe one interesting tutor at school, maybe they can tell you what part of: recognising the impact of an independent monetary policy mechanism, and global resources & commodity boom, means I would vote for one party or the other?

clown.

 

[Crow-mo]

Unfortunately my folks couldn't give a rats about politics and it was't until I started studying economics that I started to take an interest in politics as well. Unfortunately for me I aint that young either.

excuse me? you're studying economics, but can't explain the most elementary ideas?

You second point in this paragraph is ridiculous as I seem to be the only one who is bringing up facts in my arguments.

should I ask for a third time, what these facts are??????
you've done nothing of the sort, and when pressed a little...

I'd especially like you to clarify why you tried to focus on unemployment, when that is a derivative of other factors?

Look, like many have said Howard has done some sneaky and devious (some might say disgusting) things during his tenure this we can both agree on but surely you would have to agree with me that his economic management has been very sound. Hawke had a positive global economic environment during parts of his reign yet he tried to squeeze every last bit of juice from the economic orange until it fell out from underneath him. Then came the recession we had to have ...

who said there was anything wrong with his economic management?

a very unsophisticated analysis and conclusion.

Howard might have done some terrible things in your eyes but for me in the things that matter he has truly kept Australia on the right course.

don't disagree, but an unformed, uninformed dogma hasn't allowed you to do anything other than parrot political platitudes and go running when called into question.

"you're an idiot"
"I am just laughing at you at all"

etc etc. for someone who clearly understands so little is a bit rich.

BTW if you could some how prove to me that global economic conditions totally define the conditions within this country or any country I will happily listen. However something tells me you will not be able to find any such evidence.

ahhh... the old you have to prove to me... argument. firstly, someone needs to evidence that they are worth swinging or proving. digging in, and acting like a porkchop, doesn't make your coalescence particularly valuable now does it?

and seeing as you got so uptight about my claim, and seeing as you keep telling everyone how many facts you've delivered in support - why is it, no one can find them??????

but just start with one, why don't you tell me what the demand for natural resources in China has to do with the current, former, or future governments (of whatever party). then maybe you can tell me which of Australia's domestic industries is providing meaningful organic growth on a like for like basis as a significant % of GDP, and how it is has been stimulated by government policy.

if you're arguing that our growth has not come from an independent boom in our major exports, then it must be domestic innovations driving it. which ones?

look bottom line: you're pretending to be a great economic expert, and you've NOT provided ONE single piece of economic evidence to support your non-existant position. when challenged, you've run a mile. IF you want to have a conversation on this, you need to. if you don't, you need to step back.

for me, none of this is a political issue.