Plenty of funding but deadliest diseases still neglected
Updated
The developing world's cruellest and deadliest diseases remain severely neglected, a survey has found.
Presenter: Linda Mottram
Speaker:Doctor Mary Moran, Study leader from the George Institute for International Health
- Listen:
- Windows Media
MORAN: What you see really is tranche of five diseases that get between one and five per cent of funding. These are really important diseases that are real numbers as I mentioned are dengue, all of the various worm infections, pneumonia, meningitis. Those diseases are very significant killers and they get between one and five per cent of funding. And then there's a whole bunch of diseases, there's five diseases that get nought-point-one to nought-point-five per cent of funding, so it's a kind of a tenth of the next level up. And some of those are really significant; rheumatic fevers are a very high cause of morbidity, it's the number seventh killer in the developing world. Trachoma, leprosy, typhoid fever; they all get less than a half per cent of global funding.
MOTTRAM: And yet they're killing very large numbers of people?
MORAN: Yeah we were very surprised by the results I have to say, by the high concentration of funders and of funding, and you can't, it's not that the biggest killer disease could get the most money, it's the money, the amount of money you need is determined by the product you need. So if it's going to cost the same to make a vaccine if it's for one person or if it's for a billion people. So certainly you would expect that some of these major killers will be getting a lot more attention than they are getting.
MOTTRAM: So what explains the skewing? I mean is there a sort of PR effort issue here as well where diseases like HIV-AIDS get so much publicity they get far more attention in terms of research? Is that an issue?
MORAN: There's a range of reasons, some of it is that you have groups working in the area that you can fund, so you've got respected partners, you've got known researchers, you've got product development partnerships that have run a portfolio that you can invest in. So that's an important factor. Some of it is that there's policy settings that we think encourage bias really, so a number of the global funds for AIDS, TB and malaria is a European framework program for AIDS, TB and malaria and so on and so on. You don't hear many framework programs for diarrhea or global funds for tropical diseases. So we think it's a combination of having someone you can fund, having product development partnerships that are very active in terms of advocacy, and in terms of doing research, having products that you can put money into, and policy frameworks that encourage people to think about some things rather than others. And people do fund what they're familiar with, that's human nature. And one of the nice things about this area is that it's clear that there's a lot of care and attention, there's two and a half billion dollars that were invested in 2007, and that people do want to do something and they are willing to put money up. And I suppose it's our job now to give them information so they can see the whole landscape, and that's something we've tried to do with this report.
MOTTRAM: And between governments and the private sector, how is the divide for funding there? Where is most of the money coming from?
MORAN: We call it the 7-2-1, there's about 70 per cent coming from the public sector, 20 per cent from the philanthropic funds and about 10 per cent from the private sector. That's a pretty reasonable breakdown I'd imagine. What did strike us was that within each of those sectors it was very, very uneven. So within the philanthropic sector for instance two organisations account for 95 per cent for funds. So it's the Gates Foundation Welcome Trust. So other philanthropic organisations really collectively represent a very, very small amount of funding. It's the same in the public sector when one government represented 70 per cent of funding, that was the US. There are a number of OECD countries that really are just absent in terms of being major funders.
MOTTRAM: And where does Australia sit in terms of its contribution to this kind of research?
MORAN: Actually Australia came out ninth in terms of government funding, which was very credible considering our size. So Australia funded I think partly because of our location has a genuine interest in some of these diseases, so in terms like malaria or dengue, even rheumatic fever, Australia turned out to be one of the more prominent funders.
