It's important to acknowledge the work of our young researchers
I refer to the interesting supplement (''Frontiers of medicine'', September 7). Under the column headed ''Superheroes of science'', there is a discussion of an important potential breakthrough in the treatment of Type-1 diabetes, which is attributed to ''superheroes'' Professor Christopher Parish and Dr Charmaine Simeonovic of the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the ANU. At the foot of the item there is a reference to the researchers' breakthrough being published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.
This article was in fact published by a team of researchers from the school, including Parish and Simeonovic, and named as its first author Dr Andrew Ziolkowski, a post-doctoral fellow at the school. It is clear from the article that there were a number of heroes involved in this important research, including young researchers. Young scientists face many challenges in establishing a career in science, including the financial insecurity of the grants process and modest remuneration. It makes things even more difficult for them when their role in important and sometimes ground-breaking work is not publicly acknowledged.
George Witynski, Deakin
Murray Upton's latest tirade against our ''lacklustre politicians'' (Letters, September 7) prompts me to reverse that most fundamental of philosophical questions about existence: why is there something rather than nothing?
If, as Upton alleges, the non-happening on City Hill was ''solely due to the ACT government giving in to the development lobby'' why is there nothing rather than something?
That is, why is it that, eight years on since developer Terry Snow tried to transform it, City Hill is still covered in car parks and not the ugly developer/Property Council monstrosities which Upton sees everywhere he turns?
A development lobby that exercises its corrupting, malignant power over our political processes by not building anything for nearly a decade … hmmm. These guys need to take some lessons from how development lobbies work in NSW and Queensland.
Chris Williams, Griffith
H. Ronald (Letters, September 5) totally misses the point of my letter of September 3 about Barnaby Joyce. I was questioning the suitability of Joyce to hold high office in a Coalition government. Ronald does not address this. Maybe it is inconvenient, even from Ronald's conservative perspective, to try to defend this ''retail politician'' (Tony Abbott's words) and failed shadow finance minister, who pursues populist acclaim like a seagull after a chip. His latest efforts on Cubbie Station are testament to this, where even his conservative colleagues have disowned him.
Ronald claims the ABC ''… has an unwavering cant to the left.'' Of course, there is no argumentation to substantiate this so it can be dismissed as yet another a cheap shot, lacking integrity. It is in the same category as Joyce's low-level attempts to disparage some ABC presenters and panelists, and the shadow finance minister's recent comment that Canberra public servants have little to do ''other than leave a paper trail to cover their backsides''.
Because of her/his admitted conservative leaning, perhaps it is Ronald who lacks balance rather than the ABC.
We should treasure the ABC as a rock in the sensationalist waters of tabloid journalism.
Keith Croker, Kambah
Like your regular correspondent H. Ronald, I too have a bias towards the ABC when it comes to my listening and viewing choices. I cannot agree, however, with Ronald's criticism (Letters, September 5), implied rather than overt, that the ABC's news and current affairs coverage is biased.
In my opinion the ABC presents more balanced reportage and opinion than all the major commercial radio and television networks put together.
I also find puzzling Ronald's ''frustration'', given s/he is a taxpayer, with this perceived ABC bias. Is s/he honestly saying that because s/he pays taxes the ABC should broadcast current affairs material wholly in accord with his/her ideology and beliefs?
That's not quite as bad as tuning into the ''shock jocks'' to be told how to think, but it's a strange view from one who professes to otherwise admire the ABC.
Robin Poke, Hughes