Sir

The US situation may be worse than it once was, as your News Feature 'Closing arguments' (Nature 457, 650–655; 2009) points out. But it's still a big step ahead of Australia. Total health-related R&D spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is roughly half that of the United States or the United Kingdom, according to the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (Statistics and Indicators for 30 Countries OECD, 2007). Our biomedical fellowship scheme is backlogged to the point that the awards designed to support new principal investigators go mostly to well-established group leaders.

A recent survey of the medical research workforce in Australia highlights the level of anxiety and discontent over poor career-development opportunities and lack of funding (M. Kavallaris et al. Med. J. Australia 188, 520–524; 2008). In the preceding five years, for example, 6% of respondents had already left active research; 73% were considering leaving. This presents a clear challenge for recruitment and retention of a highly skilled workforce.

To keep Australian science at the leading edge, we need to maintain the flow of fresh ideas by ensuring opportunities for both new and established investigators.The new US administration has recognized the loss of career-development opportunities caused by underfunding. Australia runs the risk of failing to capitalize on significant government investments made so far. The recent announcement of a federal fellowship scheme for mid-career researchers hints at a potential improvement. But the near-term prospects for aspiring new investigators and those returning from overseas are not promising.

See also: Diversity of funding sources and topics is key to survival  Grant-writing offices would let scientists get on with research  We need more insight into what's worth paying for