‘Cut my tits off and call me David’ says female researcher frustrated by lack of funding

Australia has been shamed for its dismal treatment of scientists but our female researchers have the most reason to be dismayed.

Professor Fiona Simpson has long struggled to get grant money for her breakthrough cancer research — because, she says, she is a woman.

“I’ve thought I should cut my tits off and call me David,” she said of the extremes she considered, albeit jokingly, to overcome the gender bias in science funding.

Her experience is not unique, with a new Australian study by Professor Louise Purton showing men receive 23 per cent more National Health and Medical Council (NHMRC) grants and $95 million more in funding than women.

Senior male scientists collected almost two in every three research grant dollars this year, despite changes to boost research funding for women.

Separate research by science journal Nature ranked Australia among the worst in the world for its treatment of scientists — alongside Spain and Brazil — and 21st in the OECD in terms of our funding of science.

Prof Simpson’s work at the University of Queensland has led to the discovery of a drug that

stops cancer returning but she missed out on NHMRC funding for 20 years and actually had to pay for the drug she used in her breakthrough research out of her own pocket.

University of Queensland Professor Fiona Simpson talking about how difficult it is to secure funding each year. Picture: Brad Fleet

Prof Purton, from St Vincent’s Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, had personally experienced gender bias before undertaking her research.

“My hearing impairment (lost at age three) has not been the biggest obstacle, it was being a woman,” she said of her difficulties getting research funding grants.

Scientists have saved lives during the pandemic but poor pay, gender funding bias and precarious short term work contracts are forcing our best and brightest overseas.

A Roy Morgan Poll for Research Australia found funding for health and medical research to be a third-ranked spending priority for Australians (83.5 per cent support), sitting behind improving hospitals and the healthcare system (89.4 per cent), and improving education standards and outcomes (84.8 per cent).

Yet the Nature study reported just 37 per cent of scientists in Australia felt positive about their prospects compared to 52 per cent in the US, 50 per cent in China, 57 per cent in India, 38 per cent in Spain and 33 per cent in Brazil.

More than half (53 per cent) of Australia’s scientists said they did not have enough funding for their research.

Professor Louise Purton’s study brought to light some disturbing statistics.

Concerningly, a survey of 1400 Australian scientists by Science and Technology Australia and Professional Scientists Australia found

one in five respondents (19.9 per cent) intended to leave the profession permanently.

Science and Technology Australia chief Misha Schubert said a key reason was the short term work contracts, which last an average of just 18 months.

“You can’t do world leading science with those funding levels,” she said.

Ms Schubert wants funding grants that extend for seven to 10 years to give scientists more certainty.

And Prof Purton is calling for grant money to be shared equally between male and female applicants.

Research Australia’s Nadia Levine said reforms needed to fund the entire research ecosystem from fundamental research in universities to translation and implementation and commercialisation.