Politics, Poetry and Reviews

Author: Catherine (Page 46 of 54)

Politics: Save Our Scientists # 2

There will be a rallies around Australia today, asking the Government to protect medical research. (Hopefully, the Melbourne one will not be an underwater rally. I am officially on umbrella duty – holding umbrellas over speakers and towelling off the stage so people don’t fall over.)

Remember, a surplus may be a pleasing thing, but the reason governments tax us is so that they can do useful things with the money, not to build up a nice little pile of coins. Yes, we are in deficit. Yes, we should be aiming to get out of deficit. But we don’t need to do this all in one year, and especially not in a year when many people have already found themselves cash-strapped due to natural disasters.

Reducing medical research funding is short sighted – medical research is like a relay race; the big clinical trial that I helped set up in 2004 to see if we could prevent type 1 diabetes in at risk children is based on work done in the 70s and 80s and even earlier – work that showed what the immune cells were doing, work that investigated immune pathways in mice with and without autoimmune diseases, studies that figured out which children were at risk of diabetes in the first place, and trials that demonstrated that intranasal insulin was safe. That’s forty years to get from concept to a clinical trial, and it will be another ten or so before the treatment goes on the market, if it does.

There are, in fact, some researchers who were starting out in the 1970s as young PhD students and who are still involved in this research as 60+-year olds. They will probably still be seeing things through into the clinic as 70-year-olds, because researchers don’t tend to retire. It’s quite literally a lifetime of work.

But, actually, those PhD students in the 1970s couldn’t have started their PhDs if researchers in the 1950s hadn’t started figuring out things about autoimmunity. And if researchers around the turn of the century hadn’t figured out how to isolate insulin and use it to keep people with diabetes alive in the first place. And nobody’s research career is that long.

We need young researchers to enter the field now, so that they will be there to take up the baton and carry forward the research of those who are nearing the end of their careers. But these are the researchers who are going to be disproportionately affected by funding cuts.

Protect research. Come to the rally today, even if it is pouring with rain. Write to your politicians – tell them your story and how medical research has helped you. Blog about it, tweet about it, and above all don’t let up the pressure until the budget is through and research is still in it.

Politics: Save Our Scientists (an opinionated post)

As you may know, I herd medical researchers for a living. Currently, I’m herding cancer researchers (principally leukemia, lymphoma, and breast cancers), but in the past I’ve also herded diabetes researchers (both types), arthritis researchers, and researchers into coeliac disease.

One of the things that is a constant in all forms of medical research is the endless quest for funding. This tends to go in cycles – labs will get a nice Program Grant from somewhere and a bunch of fellowships and have enough money to support lots of researchers and do all sorts of useful things – from working out exactly which genes switch on or off a cell’s ability to die when it has been damaged by disease or radiation (which may sound very theoretical but is in fact the basis for a number of cancer therapeutics), to setting up entire clinical trials to test a vaccine that might prevent type 1 diabetes.

And then the grant comes to an end, and we have a problem. We start spending a lot of our research time applying for more grants, which we may or may not get. Less established researchers start applying for fellowships – and also for jobs in other Institutes where someone has a nice, large Program grant which will help support them. If we’re lucky, we get our funding renewed and everything continues. If we are less lucky, the junior scientists don’t get their fellowships, the senior researchers get enough funding for their own salaries and projects but not enough to support postdocs who should, at least in theory, have their own fellowships anyway, and the junior scientists disappear to other institutes or countries or out of science entirely.

The Australian Government is currently looking for places to cut funds in their upcoming budget, and one area they are considering is research funding, including medical research funding. This may be a short-term measure, or a longer-term one. Either way, the effects will be fairly mild in the short-term (which is, I suppose, what makes it appealing), but disastrous in the long term.

Continue reading

Politics: Update on Seena

I got an email from my local MP this morning:

Dear Ms McLean,

Thank you for your email expressing concern about children in detention.

I am very sympathetic to the difficult circumstances facing the family members of the people tragically killed at Christmas Island on 15 December last year, especially the children.

We have a duty of care to ensure the health and well-being of all children in the care of the Immigration Department very seriously, particularly in relation to mental health issues.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship is currently finalising arrangements and advice to enable Minister Bowen to make a decision to accommodate Sina, the 9 year old orphan who travelled to Sydney for the funerals, and his family, in community detention arrangements, along with accommodation options for the other two orphans and their family members.

Sina and the other two children along with their families are expected to be living in the community by the end of next week.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. Should you feel I can be of further assistance in this or any other matter in future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Yours sincerely,

Kelvin Thomson MP

Member for Wills

Letters do make a difference, if enough people write them. Now we just have to get the other 700+ children out of detention…

Politics: Children in Detention – Seena Akhliqi Sheikhdost

So, there’s a child in detention on Christmas Island because he is an ‘illegal immigrant’. Actually, there are a lot of children in detention in Australia and on Christmas Island for this reason, but for now I’m just going to focus on one, because I am torn between tears and fury.

Seena Akhliqi Sheikhdost was one of the children in the boat tragedy off Christmas Island late last year. His parents both drowned, but he survived, and was of course put into detention, because we are compassionate people who find this an appropriate way to deal with bereaved eight-year-old suspected terrorists. He does, in fact, have family in Sydney, but as an unaccompanied minor, the Government is his legal guardian, and the Government apparently have forgotten why we got rid of Little Johnny, or else they don’t care. They don’t want to release him to his family because they haven’t processed him yet. He has been in detention for more than two months, His first six days in detention he spent without any family, although he had an aunt in the same centre. She wasn’t initially told he was there, you see (to be fair, this was probably bureaucratic stupidity, but there is enough awfulness to go around without adding that sort of thing into it).

As an illegal immigrant, Seena doesn’t get to go to school. He doesn’t get to associate with Australian citizens, either. And while he was allowed to go to the funeral of his parents, he can’t go back home with the family members who are in Australia legally, because he doesn’t have ASIO clearance. And did I mention that he is eight years old?

I find this deeply upsetting to contemplate, which means it’s time to write to the politicians again…

Continue reading

Film review: The King’s Speech

Yesterday, I went to see The King’s Speech. It’s the first time I’ve actually been to a cinema since Chicago came out, so that was a little strange. I’d forgotten how dark they are, how bloody long the ads and previews go for, and how many irritating people there are in the audience. Given that my main reason for not going to the cinema is that a) I’m not good at sitting still for a whole movie and b) I want to comment and ask questions and generally theorise and chatter, which is not polite behaviour in a cinema, I found it rather irritating to have people on my left fidgeting and moving and bouncing up and down and people to my right talking and asking questions and finishing the King’s sentences. I mean, really. It’s a film about stuttering! How is this a clever thing to do?

Anyway, my conclusion is that I loved the film, but I still prefer watching films at home where I can ask about things or comment on things or think about them or even go away and research them as they occur to me. And this film has a lot of things I want to think about and research some more. I’m definitely going to be seeing it again, possibly even in the cinema.

Continue reading

Politics: Scrutineering, or why I love our electoral system

Here’s the thing about scrutineering. It isn’t just about protecting your party’s votes or recording where the preference flows are going (though this is, of course, what you are appointed to do). It’s also about both observing and protecting the process of counting votes, and, particularly in an election where the results look like being quite depressing, I find it rather comforting to have watched the process and to know that yes, those really are the votes that were cast. For those who care, here’s what happens after they shut the doors at your polling place.

Continue reading

Politics: Victoria says no, thank you…

Apparently the people of Victoria have spoken, and they have said “We can’t tell the major parties apart. Also, it’s raining, so you can’t expect us to bother voting.”

How on earth can voter turnout be an election issue in a country where voting is compulsory?

I am completely boggled by this.

Anyway, it looks like we won’t know the result until Monday or later. Which sounds strangely familiar, only this time we don’t even have any independents or Greens or unaffiliated Nationals to make it more interesting. It will just be boring major parties all the way…

Politics: Who Stole Labor’s Votes?

Certain die-hard Labor supporters are turning me into a rabid Greens voter (as opposed to a mildly enthusiastic Greens voter). There is far too much unseemly rejoicing over the Liberal Party putting the Greens last on their HTV cards, tinged with a smug feeling that after all the Greens aren’t a real party and this will keep them in their place. Grown-ups don’t vote for small parties, one gathers. Sensible people realise that Australia only has two real political parties, and a vote for anything else is just a protest vote, a sign of immaturity. As for uppity small parties that try to become big parties, well, they need to be put in their place.

(and no, I am not impressed by the Liberals, either, who have expressed themselves in deeds rather than words – but then, that’s the Liberals for you. I’d hoped for better from Labor.)

As a connoisseur of small parties, this is making me furious. (Actually, it’s also hitting all my angry feminist buttons, too – presumably it’s that whole notion that the Greens are gettng ideas above their station and need to be put back in their box, which sounds awfully familiar from the feminist context.)

The thing is, the Greens did not steal my vote from Labor. Nobody did. Labor lost my vote all on its own. Not as much as the Liberal Party lost my vote, but then, the Liberal Party never really had my vote to lose. But I am not a die-hard voter of any stripe. If the Labor Party actually started acting more like the Labor Party and less like Liberals Lite, then I might well consider voting for them. If the Liberal Party developed a social conscience, I would even consider voting for them (though they probably wouldn’t be the Liberal Party any more).

If Labor wants to regain the votes of people like me, it needs to stop assuming that a vote for the Greens is a protest vote (if we are all protest voting, why are so many of us voting Green, rather than distributing our votes among such admirable protest vote choices as the Sex Party or the Socialist Alliance?), or a sign of immaturity. It needs to stop defining Green votes solely in relation to Labor, or as Labor votes gone astray (believe me, I’ve scrutineered for the Greens and Greens voters do not follow How To Vote cards. Most of them put Labor before Liberal, but there are definitely some Green Liberals out there too). Above all, it needs to stop reacting and start *thinking* about why so many people are voting Green. What values do the Greens espouse that Labor does not? Maybe these are things that Labor quite legitimately has decided it doesn’t believe in. Then again, maybe not.

But you can’t cynically move your policies closer and closer to those of the Liberal Party on the one hand, and then complain when voters flee in droves to one of the few sane parties espousing something different. It’s hypocritical.

The Greens are not, in any real political sense, a threat to Labor. They are not going to achieve government in their own right. Even if they get the balance of power, they are hardly going to support the Coalition – they have almost nothing in common. However far to the right Labor has moved, it is still closer to Green policy in almost all areas than the Coalition is likely to be. The only threat the Greens present is a moral one – by existing, by having sane and humane policies about immigration, healthcare, public transport, workplace relations, human rights, and, yes, the environment, they remind voters of what Labor used to stand for, and how far it has moved from there.

No wonder the Greens are making Labor nervous. If Labor wants to recapture those votes, they are going to have to move back towards what they used to stand for, and that’s scary, because judging by their current trajectory, Labor secretly thinks that Australians really want to vote Liberal.

Which is an indictment in itself.

Personally, I think the Green threat could be just what the Labor Party needs.

Film review: Shakespeare’s Henry VIII (BBC production)

Preliminary thoughts:

We’ve just watched the first Act of the BBC Henry VIII. This is a play to which I come with no preconceptions, as it is I think the only play that I have never read or seen and that I have not even encountered as Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare.

Of course, one can never be entirely without preconceptions in a history play – I’ve successfully picked a number of characters so far based on a combination of lines and costume, though Henry’s reign is one I know relatively little about (aside from the obvious). In fact, they have dressed everyone to resemble their Holbein portraits as far as possible, at least for their first scenes. This amuses me, because the romance novel I read yesterday featured a troupe of players, and one of them commented that it was easy to pick out Henry VIII’s costume from a wardrobe, as ‘they always make him look like the Holbein portrait’.

Naturally they do – that’s what Henry looks like to everyone from the 17th century onward, I’m sure, and it’s easy to forget that in his youth he was supposedly the handsomest man in Europe (though I imagine the bar is set a little lower for kings). Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Cate Speaks

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑