Lowering Australia’s defence against infectious diseases

To the Editor: Douglas and other senior epidemiologists have described the imminent demise of the Master of Applied Epidemiology (MAE) program.1 This program has produced around 160 graduates, at least 104 of whom (65%) are working in the broad area of infectious diseases epidemiology. It may be thought, therefore, that there is no further scope for employing MAE graduates. My experience indicates otherwise and I would be very surprised if it were unique.

In a small epidemiology unit of a state reference laboratory, two of the six staff members are MAE graduates. One past employee, also an MAE graduate, is a close collaborator. Last year, on very short notice, this person was able to take over coordination of the infectious diseases epidemiology course in the Master of Public Health program (MPH) at the University of Melbourne after the previous coordinator, also an MAE graduate, accepted a position as Head of the School of Health and Social Development at Deakin University. The MAE graduates from the epidemiology unit contributed to the MPH teaching program as guest lecturers. The University of Melbourne was unable to attract a full-time infectious diseases epidemiologist to the coordinating position, suggesting a lack of suitably trained and experienced people in this discipline.

There is no doubt that the MAE program produces suitably trained and experienced people, as attested by Douglas et al1 and Kelly et al in the Journal.2 It also fits with my experience as an employer of MAE graduates and a collaborator with other graduates and staff from the program. Continued funding of the MAE program was recommended by independent reviewers.3

There are many who believe that, not only should the MAE program continue, it should continue as part of a national infectious diseases prevention and control program.2 It is appropriate that similar Australian programs already exist for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. In a letter to the Journal, Givney eloquently described the arcane processes of interlocking acronym-rich, mandate-limited committees that constitute Australia’s approach to the national coordination of infectious diseases.4 This description would be recognised by many, who would agree with Givney and Kelly et al that the time has come for Australia to establish its own independent expert body for monitoring and control of infectious diseases.