Skip to main content

Charity investing in talented scientists to boost hearing research in the UK

Action on Hearing Loss has launched a new initiative to support the early careers of scientists working towards new treatments and cures for hearing loss and tinnitus. This follows the merger with Deafness Research UK.

The new Pauline Ashley Awards are now open to applications from research scientists in the UK aiming to further their careers in hearing loss research. The research grants have been established in memory of Lady Ashley of Stoke who co-founded Deafness Research UK along with her husband Lord Ashley of Stoke.

Scientists from across the country can apply for funding to support research projects that will generate data to strengthen future applications for long term funding from national funding agencies.

Caroline Ashley, daughter of Lady Ashley said: ‘My Dad, Jack Ashley, described hearing loss as being like a bird, suddenly shuttered into a glass cage. He could watch the busy world go by, cut-off from its conversations and cadence. The family, and particularly my Mum, Pauline, witnessed the devastation of deafness and the massive energy and resilience required to keep going, keep up company, in the face of isolation.

‘Thankfully research into hearing loss bears fruit: cochlear implants provide some sound for some people. But so much more research is needed to find causes and cures. The Pauline Ashley grants will help ensure new talent is cultivated, building our chance for long-term treatment for all affected by hearing loss.’

Dr Sohaila Rastan, Executive Director of Biomedical Research at Action on Hearing Loss said: ‘As a result of merging with Deafness Research UK we are delighted to be able to support talented new scientists in the field of hearing loss research through the Pauline Ashley Grants Scheme. This is a great opportunity for researchers at the start of their careers and for scientists changing fields who often struggle to secure long term funding from the main national funders.’

To apply for the Pauline Ashley Small Grants Scheme, please visit www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/Ashleygrants


On 31st March 2013 Deafness Research UK merged with Action on Hearing Loss (formerly the RNID, registered charity numbers 207720 England and Wales and SC038926 Scotland) with the aim of increasing awareness of and support for research into hearing loss and tinnitus. Deafness Research UK was set up in 1985 by the late Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lady Ashley of Stoke.

For more information about Action on Hearing Loss’s Biomedical Research programme, visit, www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/biomedicalresearch
All applications must be received on or before Monday 15 July 2013 (5pm GMT). Further details can be requested further details, telephone 020 7296 8233 or email research@hearingloss.org.uk 

The scheme will support projects up to £30,000 and will be run twice yearly and as always, eligible proposals will be peer-reviewed by experts in the respective fields and ranked by an advisory panel, to be chaired by Professor Alan Palmer, Director of MRC Institute of Hearing Research, Nottingham. Applications are invited from areas including:

- medical devices, improved benefit from hearing aids and cochlear implants

- treatments to protect or restore hearing

- diagnosis of hearing loss

- treatments for middle ear conditions (such as glue ear)

- central auditory processing disorders

- tinnitus.

Deadlines - First round Application deadline Monday 15 July 2013 at 5.00pm GMT - Final decision: October 2013. Second round Application deadline: November 2013 Final decision: February 2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As