Budget 2014 saw an increase in funding for science, including an unexpected expansion of the centres of research excellence, which will see four more centres operational in 2016.

The move appears to be a strong endorsement of the CoRE model, which involves researchers from across the science system working together on high-priority areas of science. Funding is earmarked for a Māori research CoRE, which will answer critics alarmed that the current CoRE, Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, recently failed to win more funding.

R&D efforts rewarded

Elsewhere, R&D efforts by start-up companies received a boost to the tune of $58 million over the next four years. A provision allows for start-ups to receive upfront payments rather than carry forward their tax losses to apply against future income. A second provision means businesses can deduct tax for so-called "black hole R&D expenditure".

A top-up to contestable funding and initiatives in related-areas, such as tackling kauri die-back, freshwater quality issues and in the health space, make it a reasonable budget for science. The Government claimed that science funding has increased 60 per cent since 2007/08.

The SMC rounded up reaction from scientists. Sciblogger Dr Siouxsie Wiles drills into the CoRE funding announcement here.

Science-related announcements from Budget 2014

• $56.8m more for contestable science funding (over three years, beginning in 2015/16)
• Plans to reform the contestable funding system, including a new National Statement of Science Investment, aiming to make the system "more flexible, less complex and more closely focused on research that is of relevance to NZ"
• Expansion of the Centres of Research Excellence -  $53 million over four years will be added to existing funding to boost the number of CoREs to ten by 2016. In addition to the six successful CoREs previously announced, three more will be selected in a closed tender from the 21

  unsuccessful applicants of that previous funding round. The final CoRE will be a Maori Centre of Research Excellence, chosen in an open tender

• An additional $67.9 million for tertiary science education (an 8.5 per cent increase per equivalent full-time student).
• While there appeared to be a slight increase in Marsden Fund funding for 2014 - 2015 - from $49.2 million to $52.3 million in 2013 - 2014 - this is apparently just a a year to year adjustment, the actual funding was flat.

Aussie's medical research war chest

A dismal Australian budget revealed A$80 billion in cost savings that will be applied over the next decade. A rare bright spot was the announcement of a medical research fund that will tackle some of Australia's biggest health issues and be worth A$20 billion by the early 2020s.

The medical research will be funded from fees charged on doctors' visits. It will focus on big health burdens such as cancer and heart disease, which cost the health sector billions. The medical research fund could help boost the international rankings of Australian universities as they take advantage of funding to increase their research output. 

It may also have spin-offs for New Zealand researchers who partner with scientists across the Tasman. A current joint Australia-New Zealand effort is underway to research better ways of tackling rheumatic fever, including a vaccine for the disease.

However, Sciblogger Dr John Pickering points out that the new money for medical research may also lure away some of our best researchers:

"I expect there would be more one-way traffic of scientists to Australia. It is imperative that this be avoided, for all our health's sake," he writes.

Elsewhere in the Aussie Budget, science took a hit, with the CSIRO's funding cut to the tune of $111 million over four years. That will see around 500 additional jobs go at Australia's national research institute and areas of research scaled back or cut completely.

For decades, the scientific community has largely resisted speaking out about animal research for fear of becoming the target of animal rights extremism or attracting unwanted negative attention.

In New Zealand, in addition to the high security measures in place for animal research facilities, their location or even existence within larger teaching and research institutions is often kept quiet. Students may be discouraged from discussing the animal component of their research openly with outsiders. 

Although a few individuals have championed the need for greater public engagement on animal research, a groundswell has yet to build. 

Moreover, headline-grabbing claims about animal testing during the recent ˜legal highs" debate laid bare some of the gaps between reality and perception on safety testing and animal research.

Openness pledge

In the UK, by contrast, the tide has begun to turn. This week saw the launch of a voluntary agreement committing dozens of major bioscience organisations to improving transparency in animal research, spearheaded by the group Understanding Animal Research.

The Concordat on Openness on Animal Research brings together over 40 research organisations as signatories, including universities, medical research charities, pharmaceutical companies and professional societies.

It comprises four commitments, each underpinned by practical steps:

• Commitment 1: We will be clear about when, how and why we use animals in research

• Commitment 2: We will enhance our communications with the media and the public about our research using animals

• Commitment 3: We will be proactive in providing opportunities for the public to find out about research using animals

• Commitment 4: We will report on progress annually and share our experiences

The agreement was preceded by 18 months of public consultation and research into attitudes to animal research. 

This documented widespread support for the use of animals in essential research, but uncovered areas where public awareness of legal and ethical constraints on animal testing remains limited. For instance, two thirds of the British public did not know that it is illegal to use animals for research if viable alternatives exist, or that cosmetic research on animals is not permitted in the UK (following a 1998 ban).

As part of the practical steps outlined under the commitments above, the signatories have also volunteered to:

• make policy statements on animal research and provide clear information on involvement in animal research available on their websites;

• take steps to ensure their staff and students are aware of existing animal research;

• support and encourage researchers and staff to engage with media where possible, and identify spokespeople to talk about involvement in animal research;

• include information about animal research's contributions to scientific advancements or products in media releases about them;

• include information about animal research in any talks or public events they take part in.

A planned clinical trial to evaluate antibiotics in unconscious patients has sparked public debate over the issue of consent -- or lack thereof -- in medical research.

The front page article in Wednesday's New Zealand Herald  broke the story of a planned clinical trial which will test a new antibiotic drug in coma patients who develop infections from mechanical ventilators.

According to meeting minutes from the Health and Disability Ethics Committee which evaluated the study (available here), the researchers "proposed obtaining assent from relatives and the retrospective consent from patients when they recovered."

Auckland Women's Health Council co-ordinator Lynda Williams was one of the first individuals to raise concerns about the trial and speaking to Newstalk ZB said, "We need to do something about it because it is not okay to be enrolling unconscious patients in research."

"We cannot go back to this idea that the doctor knows best.''

Best interests? 

A key issue in the raised in the meeting minutes was the nature of the clinical trial which, as a 'non-inferiority trial', only aimed to show a drug was as good as the standard treatment, not better.

The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights allows health care providers to proceed if an individual is unable to give consent if "it is in the best interests of the consumer" and several other conditions are satisfied.

Associate Professor Joanna Manning, of Auckland University, told the NZ Herald: "It's questionable whether the researcher could rely on ... the code to proceed to trial on unconscious patients because the question mark is over whether giving the person this medication would be in their best interests, when the purpose of the trial is only to prove it is not inferior to current standard care."

Radio New Zealand reports that the ethics committee is waiting for final legal advice before proceeding with the trial in question. 

Experts contacted by the Science Media Centre generally supported research involving unconscious patients -- but only within within the current ethical guidelines.

Associate Professor Tim Dare, Head of the Philosophy Department, University of Auckland, commented:

"These cases will almost always be difficult, but the clearest will be where there is genuine uncertainty as to which of two therapeutic options is best. If that is the case, the Code of Patients' Rights requirement to give priority to the patient's 'best interests' will be unhelpful. If there is an important question to be settled, and it cannot be settled using another patient group who could consent, it may be appropriate to conduct approved research using participants who cannot consent."

Professor Gareth Jones of the Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, commented:

"While one can sympathize with the researchers' predicament when dealing with unconscious patients, enormous care is required to ensure that the best interests of the patients come first. Is the treatment likely to benefit the patient far more than any other available treatment?

"Retrospective consent also sets a dangerous precedent, since once normalized, it will legitimize a whole raft of other cases that may bear little resemblance to the current antibiotics research."

Read more expert commentary on the Science Media Centre website.