Covid; country comparisons

COVID 19; How are we doing?

Frank Gannon

A million years ago, last year, each Saturday afternoon was a time to get the soccer results. A TV voice saying “Leicester City (one of my teams) 0, Manchester City 1” would be upsetting. Now the football and other sports are suspended, but we still get results…daily. These COVID results are not numbers, they are people and devastating is not the word to describe the pain behind them. There are no winners. I am confined in Ireland at present but have a great interest in other countries where I have lived and have family. Here and elsewhere , I hear of and see the great efforts that are being made to contain or delay the epidemic. Much up to date information is provided in each news bulletin; however I have not been able to get a sense of how well Ireland, Germany, Australia and other countries are performing relative to each other. Even the simple statistic of the number of deaths per million is seldom provided. The daily Irish death figure of approximately 20 seems low…….but is it when compared to e.g. Germany? We must have that comparative information to understand how we are performing as we respond to the different recommendations and rules in the different countries. This article ,building on data from Worldometer, is an effort to get some answers to how different countries are doing….and some guide to the timeline of the infections impact.

To get an impression of what is happening when comparing different countries, a choice has to be made on which parameter is the most reliable . The number of new cases is reported daily and is important. However it is a result that is dependent on how many tests are performed and what category of individuals are chosen for the test. Cynically, zero tests means zero new cases, or tests on the general public without symptoms will give a different result to an tests on those that have two key symptoms. So, I have not used these data as a guide. Other data are important guides to those making decisions for the population. An example would be how close are the number of cases that require hospitalization to the total number of ICU beds available. However these data are not readily accessible .

I have focused on the most depressing statistics; the number of deaths that are reported daily. Of course there is some room for the blurring of figures here also; are the deaths attributed to COVID all inclusive (e.g. are deaths that do not occur in hospitals included) or must a positive Coronavirus test be obtained before inclusion. Nonetheless, I expect that in each country these data are relatively consistent internally (hence the trends are correct) and generally good for international comparisons.

I have used the excellent data reported daily on www.worldometers.info.  On its site it provides the number of deaths per million population. I was surprised that Ireland currently(4.4.20) is at 28 ,similar to Denmarkand is not doing as well as some other countries such as Austria or Germany . The USA figure is increasing rapidly, but like China, the COVID has not moved into all parts of these large countries. Canada and Australia and eastern European countries have very good statistics.

Deaths per Country

4/4/2020

 

COUNTRY                         Total deaths                     Deaths/Million

IRELAND                                137                                           28

GERMANY                           1446                                          17

AUSTRALIA                              34                                             1

U.K.                                       4313                                            64

USA                                       8454                                           26

FRANCE                                7560                                          116

SPAIN                                12418                                         266

ITALY                                    15362                                         254

CHINA                                    3329                                              2

 

In the table below, I calculate the  % increase daily for the past 5 days ( up to 4.4.20) and the number of deaths daily and how that number is trending. In most countries the % increase is linear for the recent past. There are some surprises; e.g. the increase in Spain is low (8%per day) but started over a month ago and hence has accumulated to a large figure. The UK daily increase is worryingly high at 28%.

 

COUNTRY   Current Daily  accumulative % increase  for last 5 days

Source of primary data; https://worldometers.info

 IRELAND             18%

GERMANY           17%

AUSTRALIA         10%

UK                        28%

FRANCE               23%

ITALY                   12%

SPAIN                  8%

USA                     22%

CHINA                 Stable 30 days

When the daily deaths are studied there are many countries that are now, apparently ,at a plateau. Some have been there for a period that suggests that the increasing numbers per day may be in the past, although the daily deaths are still very high (e.g.Spain,Italy). Germany and France may be into a plateau-in another week this will be more clear. For other countries ,e.g. Ireland, the numbers are small so the conclusion that this may be the daily level may be premature. Again the countries where things seem to be out of control are the US and UK ; their daily death numbers continue to increase with every report and there is no sense of optimism that the peak has been climbed. Australia has very good numbers to date by all parameters.

Current Covid Death Data trends

Source of primary data; https://worldometers.info

COUNTRY                                                      Daily trend                                    

IRELAND                                                        Flat for 8days (16/day)

GERMANY                                                     Flat for 4 days ~160/day

AUSTRALIA                                                 Flat for 10 days (2/day)

UK                                                                Up

FRANCE                                                         Down for 3 days-unclear

ITALY                                                             Flat for 13 Days ~750/day

SPAIN                                                           Flat for ~12 Days ~750/day

USA                                                                Up

CHINA                                                             DOWN .Plateau ~16 days, then down

 

To get some idea of the profile of the timeline for the disease, I looked at China. From the presented data, China reached a plateau after approximately 20 days of increasing number of deaths ,remained at a plateau for approx. 16 days and then had diminishing numbers of deaths reported. It took approximately 25 days to get down to zero COVID deaths as a norm. Iran (another early hotspot for COVID has been at a daily plateau for approximately 20 days and the number of deaths per day has not yet diminished. Based on these inadequate early pointers it would suggest that it may take up to a month to reach a plateau, another month after reaching a plateau before there is a real decrease in the daily death toll……and perhaps at least another month before the deaths become close to zero.

Of course all statistics can be used selectively and I have focused on one set of data recorded deaths. Those making decisions for the populations have the full range of data including local clusters, severity and age profile of the cases that are presented for clinical assessment, capacity of the system, cultural responses to restrictions etc. Governments will be in a challenging position when the trends suggest the worst of COVID is over and the demands to get the economy going again grow loud. I hope that we reach that particular conundrum very soon as it would mean that the reaper has passed these fields and the results of Sligo Rovers, Leicester City or the Queensland Reds are the source of (unimportant) disappointment or joy.

 

 

 

 

 

Many treatments proposed; no cure yet for COVID 19

There is a shop in Heidelberg Germany(where I lived for some time), called the Zuckerladen .It was large and sold only sweets-or lollies as I have earned to say in Australia. They displayed Jellies of every color, “flavor” and shape . Children got confused and excited when there with so many options. How to pick the best one?
I was reminded of the Zuckerladen when I went through the almost 800 papers that have appeared in the PubMed (the global repository of all medical research publications) up to the end of March and were identified by a search for “Coronavirus Treatments”. Given the time lag before a vaccine is ready for the population, it is very important to have a pill that works to stop the COVID 19 infection. Of the 80 instant reaction papers that I retained as an anthology that could be useful for researchers and clinicians, 40 proposed new therapeutic drug treatments for COVID 19. Most of these papers presented data for more than one compound. One had used an in silico approach and offered the outcome of hundreds of compounds to all who wished to test them. Some have started on combinations of drugs used in treatments. Then there are the variations of dose and delivery to consider. In other words, there are thousands of possible “cures” for COVID 19. Hence my reflection on confusion of limitless choice in the Zuckerladen sweetshop .How can a doctor,treating a patient, make an informed choice on what to use when faced with a bad case COVID 19? And yet, after isolation and before a vaccine the world needs some pill that will save the lives of those infected.
Some high profile drugs get repeated attention. The (hydroxyl) Chloroquinone malaria drug has its supporters from the President of the USA to the desperate New York doctor who uses it although he says he does not know if it has any effect. I gather that the alt-med community also promote this drug. Of course it may have real beneficial effects and these are optimistically reported in the papers on PubMed {note to non-scientists ; almost all publications are positive and optimistic as a study that did not “work” is unlikely to be written up and it is very hard to get negative results published}. Inevitably there are those who have looked at the downside and the efficacy of that treatment and publish their concerns. There are a few papers on ACE 2 and related compounds.The whispered preliminary results for Remdesivir from Gilead excited the stock market. There one begins to see the impact of companies to point us to their preferred treatment. They declare their conflicts , however, it would be hard for them to over-stress any potential negative side effects if there are any. To date there are no case controlled clinical trials on the PubMed site, however it is too soon for many to start or get to an endpoint.
Many of the suggested solutions come from recent work on MERS and the first earlier SARS. And treatments for various animal Coronavirus pathogens are also used in studies. Repurposing and drugs would be a quick way forward as there would be safety information available and efficacy would be the only hurdle to use in treatment. But is this Coronovirus susceptible to variations on a drug that had an effect on its cousin?
The clinical trial results will flood in soon (the Gilead trial is far advanced), as there is a global push to get a treatment into the clinic. One can anticipate that they will be a mixture of success and ” promising but not yet there” reports. Confusion and lack of clarity will continue. Small poorly constructed trials will be included and reported with the same authority of a publication as a large definitive trial. In the rush to find a cure there will not be time to have the sequential series of papers that build on the result of others. The inherent problem is that ,at present, each paper is a pixel that is not adding up to a complete picture. There is nothing really new about this lack of organized coordination of research, as researchers are driven to succeed as individual teams. That is how grants are awarded and reputations made. In this case, it would seem that individualism may work against the common good and needs of society.
Perhaps the COVID 19 experience suggests and demands a different way to tackle major health problems. Would it be possible to have some standard operating procedures for studies with potential treatments? The current variations in the details of a study makes comparisons impossible. For example, the selection criteria for participants can influence the outcome of a test of a new drug regime, as it is known that elderly patients are more likely to succumb to the virus. A trial with a younger cohort will probably show more positive results than one with the elderly. The clinical trials report the age and sex profile of the participants. However, it is impossible to extrapolate from a trial with a robust cohort of participants to the efficacy on a feeble group. Similarly, the same endpoint criteria should used by all studies. Survival, for example, has a clear outcome if but time line for that measure is important. Improvement over a short period (even to dismissal from hospital, may not be an indication of the real efficacy. The criteria used to define success should be common to all studies. Others could add more granularity to the parameters that should be normalized. Papers that meet these criteria should be identified as such (like an ISO number) and all of this compatible data should be centrally and independently examined. There is a role for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in this.
Having looked at the hundreds of papers in PubMed , it is clear that little guidance comes from considering individual publications. How can one know if one anti-viral agent is better than another, or that the answer lies in using lipo-peptides to target the viral spike , or if ribonucleocide analogues will do the job, if blocking the endocytic pathway is a better way to go, or pseudoviruses, or Traditional Chinese Medicines or anti-malaria drugs or antibiotics in combination with all of the above. All of these and more have been proposed. Some standarization would really help and should be attempted. There is a moral duty to do so. There are, unfortunately, a big number of potential trial participants so there is no limitation to defining cohorts that all proponents of a drug treatment could use as the test base. What is needed is an authorative voice to mandate common components of the study and an acceptance by the research community that this is not the time to compete to win, rather to cooperate so we all do not lose. Papers that ultimately are almost anecdotes should not be encouraged by journals, used as career stepping stones or quoted by others.
Of course there some utopian aspects in wishing for an integrated comparable body of data from the tests of potential treatment. It may be viewed as unrealistic. But one thing that COVID has taught us is that the way we have been doing things is not good enough. This is a good example where the business as usual approach may not be adequate. We have to change.

Data Doubts

Data doubts

Frank Gannon

Recently, I wrote a quite confident blog (“COVID 19;How are we doing”) that looked at COVID trends in different countries. As I lived in and have family and friends in different countries, I was following the various national announcements. Generally, the authorities were positive .Given the extent of self-interest in making such pronouncements; I was interested to compare how countries were really doing in controlling the pandemic. Given the different reactions to the COVID challenge, it was of interest also to learn if sharp harsh restrictions were the best options, or would a laissez faire approach (think UK, USA and Sweden) achieve the same outcome. In response to my blog, Jorg Klug made a correct point that this is a global problem and, like the other major global problem; climate change, it would not be solved by countries individually but by a global perspective and response. That is true, however this pandemic has been managed in a localized manner .The decisions are not uniform and yet the effect on a neighbor country or state is real and unavoidable. So local responses, up to the point of regional differences within countries, is what we have to consider . Since the initial blog there have been a number of publications ranking of the performance of countries by different criteria. For what it is worth, the Worldometer site says that Spain, Italy, UK, Belgium, Netherlands ,Switzerland, Andorra, San Marino, Luxembourg Ireland and Sweden all have more than 100 deaths per million. Others will join soon.

I prefaced some of the very useful Worldometer data with the phrase “for what it is worth” That is not a comment on Worldometer or other sites that collect data ;it is a comment on the data itself. At a time when we all need to know the bad news and hope that it will transition with a downward curve to normality ,there are two headline pieces of data of relevance; the number of cases and the number of deaths. Below that, are figures like the number of people in CVUs, the recovery rate, the clustering or otherwise, the average age of those that die etc. Some of these data are not available and certainly are not comparable internationally. However, every country has a daily update for its citizens on the number of new cases and the number of COVID related deaths.

In the past week, it has become clear that the data through which we look at the pandemic are inadequate and that comparisons are not really, possible. I was skeptical about the case number data and said so in the initial blog. I knew that the criteria for selecting those for testing in different countries were not standard. In Ireland ,for instance , (and as I am located here at present I am well informed about the subtleties beneath the headline news), there was a shift testing from those who seemed to be possibly Covid positive to those that had two confirmed symptoms. Even then, there is priority given to those in the healthcare sector of those with underlying symptoms. Clearly, this does not give an accurate number for the total number of cases in the community. Then, there is the problem of a time lag between the collection of the sample and the test result. So the daily case number is a strange mix of the outcome of different selection exclusions. Ireland is not special in this context. There is a world shortage of some of the reagents required for the test to detect the virus so there must be a lag and inadequate levels of testing in many countries. Laboratory capacities vary depending on the investment made (or cut) for the past decade. Sometimes a new resource allows the data to be presented more rapidly. That can appear to be a significant increase from the day before. It is not a real event, merely a catch up on historical data, but can cause concern for the population.

Death rates seemed more straightforward when I first looked at them. However, I have now realized that even death data has uncertainties. For example, apparently some countries (and the UK for sure up to the present) report only those who die from COVID in hospital. In some countries, the figure includes all those that are presumed to have COVID 19-others need a positive COVID test. Distinguishing between death from “underlying causes” and the COVID trigger allows some more room for variation. Official records of deaths are not necessarily up to date. Many elderly people die in age care homes. There are significant COVID clusters in nursing homes. Separating the two causes is complex. Those who were homeless before the pandemic are probably still outside the usual care situations and perhaps not included in statistics. So we cannot be sure what the real death figure is in each country. Political expediency can get in the way of accurate objectivity especially when there are so many fudge factors available When we look at deaths compared to the number of cases we are doubly confounded to the point of reaching meaningless conclusions as neither of the numbers are real.

In a word we have very inadequate data on which to make any strong statements about most aspects of the pandemic. More significant is the question of how decisions are made by the relevant authorities about when it is safe to ease back on restrictions. People hear that Spain , Italy, Denmark ,Austria, the Czech Republic, China and other countries are allowing schools and businesses to reopen. So “why not do so here” they say. Clearly if the data are not comparable, the decision of one country is not a guide to others. This points to a very clear need for greater international transparency and more explicit statements about what is really being achieved, or not. There is an obvious void that could be filled by the EU for many affected countries such that the decision makers do so with the best information. And then we will get to the political challenge of balancing public health against economic and societal well-being costs. That is the topic that will dominate the next weeks. But the death toll, real or manipulated for local spin will be the true barometer of the decisions .The voters will know that and will speak when next they have a chance.

We are delivering – Snapshot four

We are delivering: Research quality and quantity

• Our output of around 800 scientific papers published in 2016 was the highest ever and has more than doubled in the past 10 years (to more than two papers per day).
• There was a 10-fold increase in citations of our papers by researchers worldwide in the past 10 years (indicating the quality of our papers as judged by other researchers).
• Average h-Index (an integrated measure of quality and quantity of a scientist’s output) of our Faculty is 42 (considered to be outstanding).
• 28 of our researchers have had a publication that has been cited more than 1,000 times.

We are delivering: Research that is translated

• There are 17 ongoing clinical trials based on our work and led by QIMR Berghofer researchers (in all four programs Cancer, Infectious Diseases, Mental health and Chronic Disorders).
• Our researchers were involved in 35 third-party-sponsored ongoing clinical trials.
• 47% of our research projects have moved forward from the discovery phase closer to translation.
• We wholly own the clinical trials company, Q-Pharm.

We are delivering: Economic value

• BGI, one of the world’s largest genomics companies, has established its Asia-Pacific headquarters in the Institute.
• US company Atara Biotherapeutics has expanded the original contract for research at the Institute and entered into a new contract in the area of immunotherapy.
• Q-Gen Cellular Therapeutics, our TGA-certified GMP facility has been expanded to accommodate an increase in manufacturing of cellular therapeutics.
• The first project has transferred to our SEEDBox™ laboratory for support through to commercialisation.

We are delivering: Star researchers

• Two of our researchers (Nick Martin and Mark Smyth) were included in the international list of the top 1% of cited authors for 2016.
• Steven Lane was awarded one (of two) inaugural CSL Centenary Fellowships.
• Sarah Medland was awarded the Australian Academy of Sciences Ruth Stephens Gani Medal.
• Andrea Henden was awarded the Albert Baikie Award of the Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand.

We are delivering: Directly to the community

• We hosted over 1,000 high school students in our Education laboratory.
• We presented to more than 1,000 students throughout Queensland as part of our regional outreach program.
• We provided tours of the Institute and talks to almost 4,000 people.
• We were active participants in the World Science Festival and the Guinness World Records largest ever practical science lesson.

Thanks to support from our donors and Queensland Health. As you can see, WE ARE DELIVERING.

A cameo week

Last week was one where a number of events occurred which illustrated the diversity of work and the activities at QIMR Berghofer. It started with my return from India following a scientific meeting, which is part of our Asian Strategy, and discussions with a major pharmaceutical company, which is part of our commercialisation strategy.  On Monday I attended meetings where the potential collaborations between the institute and others worldwide in the US led Moonshot Cancer Program started the day and continued with discussions with a team from BGI, the Chinese genomics company.

On Tuesday the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Health and another Minister attended a press conference to announce an agreement which establishes the BGI Headquarters in Australia within our building. This will be the start of an interesting phase of interactions with this very significant company.  The Minister for Science, Information Technology and Innovation then hosted an event to witness the formal signing of the agreement with BGI.

Almost simultaneously a very significant paper from Michelle Wykes from the Institute was published in a top ranked scientific journal; Immunity.  This describes a new immune checkpoint player. Interestingly, its discovery came from her work on malaria infection and included collaboration with James McCarthy who is carrying out human challenge studies where his team injects live malaria parasites into volunteers at our clinical trials company, Q-Pharm, then tests new drugs for consideration from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Medicines for Malaria Venture).

Michelle Wykes’ work holds great promise for the future. Molecules such as the one she described are already in the clinic and make a major indent on melanomas.  However, the drugs on the market do not work on every cancer or on every individual with melanoma so new therapies are needed and we continue to work with Michelle on that in our recently established SEEDBox®.

In another development during the week, we announced the outcome of the research carried out by Stuart MacGregor and colleagues worldwide on oesophageal cancer, identifying new genes that contribute to the onset of this cancer and again opening up pathways for future treatments.

A little earlier than this, my article on the impact of Brexit and researchers was published in EMBO Reports. To cap the week off I attended the Bangara dance performance which celebrates through dance and music the history and role of the indigenous people in Australia.

This was not quite a typical week but one that illustrates how research at QIMR Berhofer is giving rise to practical outcomes, how our commercialisation policies are kicking in, how our links with Asia are consolidating and how in the midst of all of that, it is possible to have balance and interesting life outside of work.

We are delivering – Snap shot three

WE ARE DELIVERING: relevant discovery research

Our scientists:

• Presented a paper on ‘The economics of skin cancer prevention’ to the World Health Organization.
• Developed a mouse model to study Zika virus.
• Described the genetic differences between those that have Barrett’s oesophageus and develop oesophageal cancer and those that don’t get the cancer.
• Published information on genes associated with the risk of endometrial cancer.
• Provided the first description of the anti-metastatic (prevention of secondaries) potential of the cancer immunotherapy we have developed.

WE ARE DELIVERING: research with practical consequences for the community

• We developed and launched a personal skin cancer risk prediction tool for doctors and patients which can be delivered over the web.
  > Try the skin cancer risk prediction tool
• We showed that melanoma rates in Australia are declining (a world first). Our recommendations for many years have been followed and are effective.
• We have entered into an agreement to license technology that will help clinicians define the best treatment for pre-term babies who often have reduced oxygen levels in their blood.
• Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research program provides lectures in Cairns, Toowoomba and Rockhampton, with more locations planned for later this year. To date more than 1,200 students have been introduced to science and scientists from the Institute, and this number is growing annually.

WE ARE DELIVERING: progressive policies

• We have introduced a novel ‘Entrepreneurs’ Leave of Absence’ policy to remove barriers for those that wish to take a temporary step away from the Institute and into a biotechnology company.
• To help retain female researchers after maternity, we now provide financial support to allow them to balance their family/work demands, for instance by hiring a babysitter. We have a very high proportion of women in lead research positions (35%) and 53% of new faculty appointments in the last 5 years were women, but we want them and us to do better.

WE ARE DELIVERING: new ways of promoting commercialising research

• We have established The SEED Box® (Scientific Exploitation and Entrepreneurial Development) to nurture and mature promising commercial projects.
• CSL have joined us to identify, manage and support our Proof of Concept proposals.

Thanks to support from our donors and Queensland Health. As you can see, WE ARE DELIVERING.

A formula for Formula 1

Not all would know that I am a keen follower of Formula 1 car racing.  That goes back many years starting in the 70s when I went from Strasbourg to Hockenheim to attend the German Grand Prix there. As the cycles of life turned I ended up living close to Hockenheim in Heidelberg and renewed the contact with the sport. Over the years I have had the pleasure of attending the GPs in Melbourne, Silverstone, Monaco and Singapore so I watch with interest the evolution of the sport.

At the moment, with viewing drifting down apparently, the promoters feel the  need to shake things up and attract viewers for the qualifying day (and eventually the practice sessions) to make it an exciting weekend that culminates with the race itself. For those that are not close to F1, a qualifying session defines the order of the cars on the grid with the fastest cars at the front. The order of the cars is decided by the lap times in a special qualifying hour on the day before the race itself.

The promoters decided to  try to get things a bit more mixed up as last year qualifying produced the same sequence of cars that were fastest at almost every GP They produced an idea to alter the process that is too complicated to describe correctly in a paragraph, but basically the aim was to have  one car eliminated every 90 secs instead of having three 10+ minutes where cars were eliminated at the end of each stint and the order defined by their lap times.

The new system was tried in Australia and was a disaster.  Everybody said it was rubbish as the contest for positions never materialised, the last session ended four minutes before the allocated time, and the outcome was the same old same old. Team leaders agreed (unusual) to revert to the old system…but  10 days later that decision was overturned in the sort of back room dealing that highlighted the lack of transparency of the sport.

So there will be no “shake up” of the grid and unless things change when the experiment is repeated in Bahrain next week the qualifying process will bring no extra excitement.

In the absence of a clear plan for the future I have outlined below my own suggestion. It has new elements and could make everybody get engaged. It covers the practice and the qualifying and has a new mini race.

In this plan

1. The final grid is decided by computer making random selection. That will shake things up. See below in step 4 for a variation on this . Note that in horse racing the draw for the starting positions is standard and adds advantages and disadvantages that are part of that sport.
2. Because of the process of computer selection, the qualifying session becomes irrelevant .So it will be replaced by a new 10 lap mini race  with no pit stops, with 1 car per team driven by the reserve drivers. That will showcase new talent. The scores (or perhaps 1/3)from this race will go to the constructors championship and a title will be given to the best driver at the end of the season
3. The Practice will also be integrated into the new plan as the combined placing scores from P1,P2 and P3 will define the grid placings for the mini race. {An alternative would be to allow the best scores from 2 of the practice sessions-or randomly select one sessions for the ranking}
4. The Practice sessions could also be used to give a ranking that could be converted into a score that would alter the random selection for the race proper. For example a car drawn 15^th but that had been the top of the Practice sessions could get a 10 place advantage, second in the practice 9 place advantage etc.

Well those are my suggestions and I think they would change the inevitable grid ranking, add value to the Practice sessions (where frequently a car that is performing well does not convert that into the qualifying session), highlight reserve talent and new drivers and provide the fans with 2 different races (like Cricket tests and T20)

We are delivering – Snap shot two

WE ARE DELIVERING: Quality Research

• Three of our researchers are in the world’s top 1% Cited Authors in 2015
• We received two Research Excellence Awards from the NHMRC
• The World Congress of Psychiatrics selected one of our researchers for their Young Investigator Award 2015
• 27 of our researchers have had a research paper that has been cited more than 1000 times

WE ARE DELIVERING: Relevant Research

• 70 per cent of our teams have direct collaborations with clinicians
• 50 per cent of our research is in Disease Oriented Discovery and 50 per cent is further along the path to translation
• We recently collected the first brain images from the Herston Imaging Research Facility (established in collaboration with UQ, QUT and Metro North HSS)

WE ARE DELIVERING: Competitive Research

• We were ranked second of all institutes and universities in Queensland and second in Australia for research funds awarded to institutes by the NHMRC to medical research
• We provided four of the 10 named investigators from Queensland on the successful application by the Australian Genome Health Alliance

WE ARE DELIVERING: Translated Research

• We published an extensive series of papers that showed how lifestyle choices are responsible for 37,000 new cases of cancer in Australia every year
• We signed a very significant agreement with Atara Bio-therapeutics to deliver more immunotherapy solutions for a range of diseases. This follows an earlier major agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb for the application of other forms of immunotherapy
• We launched a new immunotherapy trial for the treatment of glioblastomas (brain cancer)

Thanks to support from our donors and Queensland Health. As you can see, WE ARE DELIVERING

Interesting Week for Innovation

The analysis of the weakness in the Australian system in converting excellent research to economic benefit has been aired repeatedly over the last months.  Something has to be done about it and it is refreshing that a significant document was released by the Prime Minister on Monday addressing, in a holistic manner, various steps that can be taken, and hopefully will be taken, to pump up Australia’s performance in innovation.  In a recent blog I pointed to the dangers of excess pressure on moving away from the foundations of research-driven innovation. In this piece I would like to stress the real need to get better value from the investments that are being made at the federal and state levels.

The wealth of a nation ultimately depends on 3 major components as defined by the OECD in various studies: (1) its natural wealth (e.g. resources), (2) the utilisation of the natural resources (e.g. agriculture), and (3) generation of wealth from brain power.  Brain power does not mean PhD-driven research, it means all applications of intelligence by all members of society.  Australia has been very lucky to have great strengths in the first 2 categories and perhaps because of that has overlooked the third.  By converting the raw material that has been shown in research outputs, for example, there is a real opportunity for Australia to advance its economy even more than in its current healthy position.

The culture of innovation has to permeate right through the system, however.  Innovation is not compatible with excessive demands for totally non-productive administrative actions.  Government will have to accept this and in the process achieve one of its often stated goals of reducing red tape.  Delays in decision-making while every detail is covered can have a dampening effect on innovation and productivity.

Indeed, productivity is at the heart of the innovation initiatives as it really means getting from the system much more than it is at present. A great opportunity to increase productivity is to increase the conversion of discovery into economic benefit.  To address this gap the culture will have to be changed and a number of the measures that are outlined in the National Innovation and Science Agenda will do that and QIMR Berghofer looks forward to participating fully in this process.

However, it is not just at the federal level that innovation is receiving attention.  In Queensland, the Advanced Queensland plan has been rolled out over the last number of months ahead of NISA.  Perhaps not surprisingly ,the two plans align almost completely: the analysis of what needs to be done has been clear for some time and it is great that some actions are being taken to address these gaps.  As a member of the Advance Queensland Expert Panel, I attended the first formal meeting of that panel this week and heard of the progress in the operation of the multi-faceted program and also was part of discussions on many related topics.  It is up and running and hopefully NISA will be implemented with equal vigour.

It would appear that, subject to analysing all of the details which will emerge, the government has now put in place a pathway towards a new component of the Australian economy and we all have the responsibility to join in and do so.

This is a story about Australia but obviously it is one that is global with each country at a different stage of realising that the real riches of the future for society and the economy lies in the space above our shoulders.

Shaker of Trees or Counter of Leaves

I was a member of an interview panel recently.  As frequently occurs on those panels, the first question prior to seeing the candidates was ‘What are we looking for?’.  That’s when I came up with the aphorism ‘Are we looking for a shaker of trees or a counter of leaves?’.

For many positions the easy response is to say that we are looking for a shaker of trees, somebody who would shakes things up. But of course shaking things up does not mean getting things done.  So the shakers of trees although necessary are not sufficient.  Similarly if we look for a counter of leaves then that may ensure that everything is accounted for but does not necessarily mean that there is any forward movement as a result.  In both instances the person who is merely a shaker of trees or who is a counter leaves would be inadequate in order to make a true contribution at an effective level in an organisation.  There must be follow through from shaking trees and there must be a purpose in the counting of leaves.

Interestingly, having put that categorization on the table, it became easier to identify an individual who would shake the trees and ensure that when things were stirred  up they would be in a position to carry that through to get a productive result from the change that they had initiated.