News

In this guest post, Karen A. Goraleski, executive director of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, writes about the importance of US funding for global health research. This is the third post in a series about this week’s Rally for Medical Research. On April 8 in Washington, DC, thousands of researchers, patients, and advocates participated in The Rally for Medical Research, organized by the American Association for Cancer Research and joined by more than 200 partnering organizations—including the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. The rally communicated the research community’s message to policymakers that sequestration and other cuts are simply wrong. ASTMH members join the thousands of researchers, patients, and advocates who participated in The Rally for Medical Research. Credit: ASTMH. While many of the speakers, including journalist Cokie Roberts, spoke of cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and HIV, we also know that millions of people in the world—far too many—are in desperate need of lifesaving treatments and vaccines for treatable and preventable infections and diseases, especially those that afflict the global poor. Additional cuts (on top of what has been cut over recent years) to threatened tropical medicine and global health research and development programs at the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Agency for International Development, and Department of Defense will send us into an expensive back-slide of money and lives—delaying new vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics from reaching those who need them most. Let’s put things in perspective: tropical medicine and global health represent just a small portion of the US budget, but are making a BIG difference at home and abroad. Isn’t this the return-on-investment that we all clamor for? The US efforts on global health have saved millions of lives, affording families a fighting chance to build more productive lives. Investments in tropical medicine and global health contribute to our nation’s security by protecting US borders from emerging infectious diseases and reducing poverty in the developing world, which in turn creates stable countries that provide economic and security benefits for the US. Research IS the game-changer that Washington so often talks about. As a community, let’s tell this message to our elected officials loud and often until they finally hear us.

In this guest post, Megan Kane, PhD, communications intern, and Morgan McCloskey, global health intern, from Research!America write about a rally earlier this week in support for health science and research. This is the second post in a series about the Rally for Medical Research. Thousands of scientists, patients, and research advocates gathered together on the grounds of the Carnegie Library in Washington, DC, on April 8 to unite behind a call for increased funding for medical research. The Rally for Medical Research was organized by the American Association for Cancer Researchers in conjunction with its annual meeting and was supported by over 200 partnering organizations. Survivors of heart disease, stroke, HIV, Type 1 diabetes, and other debilitating diseases shared their stories. Former POZ magazine editor Regan Hoffman discussed her HIV diagnosis and shared her gratitude for the antiretroviral treatments that allow her to live with this disease. However, she also spoke of the millions of other HIV-positive individuals around the globe who don’t have access to treatment and of her continued hope for a day when science will bring a cure for all those who suffer from HIV. Thousands of scientists, patients, and research advocates gathered together on the grounds of the Carnegie Library in Washington, DC, on April 8 to unite behind a call for increased funding for medical research. Credit: Research!America Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), as well as research leaders, spoke about the impact of medical research on their lives. Marc Tessier-Lavigne, president of the Rockefeller University and former chief scientific officer of Genentech, said that sequestration cuts on top of flat-funded research budgets are damaging basic science research. He added that industry will not fill this gap in health research. The event also featured messages in support of research from Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rep. David McKinley (R-WV). Closing the ceremony, the Honorable John Edwards Porter, former Congressman and chair of Research!America, encouraged rally attendees to continue the grassroots movement from Monday’s rally in their hometowns and to take the fight to their congressional representatives. Porter said that previous efforts to convince policymakers to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health have not yet been successful and called on scientists to be “intellectual activists” and get “fighting mad.” He encouraged advocates to appeal to Congress on personal levels as well as using the hard facts about the costs of disease. “It’s time for them to step up and have the courage to do their jobs,” Porter said of elected officials. “The job of Congress—appropriators, leadership, every Member—is to choose national priorities going forward and put national resources behind them. … These are people that are accountable to you. … If you can’t get involved and get passionate about what medical research means to our country and our future, who can?” Medical research has the power not only to improve lives here at home, but around the globe. Research!America encourages you to join in with rally attendees and participate in the text petition to Congress, contact your representatives in Congress directly or write a letter to the editor of your local paper.

In this guest post, Regina McEnery—science writer for IAVI Report and VAX—writes about a rally held in Washington, DC, on April 8 to call on federal policymakers to support health research. This post originally appeared on the IAVI Report blog. Megan Kane never thought her first post-doc assignment would be a temporary job in science communications. The Virginia resident, who graduated from Johns Hopkins recently with a PhD in human genetics, had hoped to land a job with an academic or government lab focused on HIV and AIDS. She has a particular interest in long-term nonprogressors—HIV-infected individuals who are able to control HIV for up to a decade or more without ever taking ARVs. But after a 5 ½ month search and about a dozen applications, Kane found the hiring climate about as arid as the Sahara. It wasn’t that researchers weren’t impressed with her credentials or interested in hiring her, she said. They were just reluctant or unable to add new positions—which typically go to early career investigators—due to the rocky funding climate. The fear is that federal funding for basic science, which isn’t exactly exorbitant now, could get a whole lot worse in coming months, thanks to the sequester. That is the $85 billion in automatic and largely indiscriminate spending cuts took effect March 1, which could result in a 5 percent drop in the National Institute of Health’s annual budget of $31 billion. Kane said her friends are all having a hard time finding jobs. And, at least in her case, the frustration doesn’t end with her career. “My husband works for the federal government and so he’s looking at furlough days,” said Kane, who works for Research!America as a communications intern. “That’s another reason why I need a permanent job.” Advocates held a rally on April 8 to call on federal policymakers to stop sequestration from damaging health research efforts. I ran into Kane, dressed in her white coat and snapping pictures, at an April 8 rally championing support for medical research. Research!America was one of the organizers of the rally, held in Washington, DC, in front of the Carnegie Library, where etched in stone were the words: “Dedicated to the diffusion of knowledge.” The library is adjacent to the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, where an estimated 18,000 researchers, policymakers, and advocates had gathered for the annual American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) meeting. It was no coincidence that the rally was staged the same week as the AACR meeting: it is one of the largest scientific conferences in the world, and cancer commands the largest chunk of the NIH budget. People attending the AACR meeting were encouraged to attend the rally—and a few thousand obliged, grabbing free T-shirts with empty boxes printed on the back, so people could spell out why they were there. Many listed cancer, heart disease or stroke. There was a pancreatic cancer group, a diabetes group, and an endocrine disorders group. About half-dozen women wore hot-pink feather boas around their neck to show their support for breast cancer research. And one lone woman, who declined to give her name, said she was rallying for shigella, a bacterium that causes dysentery and which she has been studying for about eight years. The rally lasted about two hours and had a long list of speakers that included Regan Hofmann, former editor of POZ magazine and a long-term survivor of HIV. Hofmann said she has been grateful for the daily dose of combination antiretroviral therapy that has kept her alive since her diagnosis in 1996. “But these drugs have side effects and are not easy to take,” she said. “We need a lot more research and development to find preventive and therapeutic vaccines.” Hofmann said she is grateful for the “extra time on the planet” but “I never stop hoping that one day I won’t have to take the pills.” She is looking to research to help make that happen.

In this guest post, Kristina Gryboski—technical advisor for the Child Survival and Health Grants Program at the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—writes about the importance of partnerships to advance health research. This post is the third in a series highlighting USAID’s new strategy for global health research and development (R&D). It was adapted from a post that originally appeared on the IMPACT blog. Asking the right questions is the first step to generating both the “upstream” research needed to create new health products and the “downstream” evidence needed for the implementation of health policies and practices, as my colleague E. Callie Raulfs-Wang described in her March 12 blog. And fostering the right partnerships is crucial to determining the right questions. Partnerships facilitate both product development and operations research, or the testing of scalable solutions that overcome barriers to access, demand, and quality in real world settings. Product development and operations research work in a continuous loop to improve public health around the globe—for example, downstream operations research can help identify a specific vaccine, drug, or device needed in a particular community or setting, thereby informing the more upstream research needed to successfully create this tool. We’ve previously detailed how USAID has established effective partnerships with a range of sectors—governments, nonprofit groups, and philanthropic organizations—to advance the development of new health tools, like microbicides, HIV and AIDS vaccines, and tuberculosis diagnostics. Further down the research spectrum, investing in operations research to accelerate results is also a key strategy in the Global Roadmap of the Child Survival Call to Action. This pledge, signed by more than 160 governments, renewed their commitment to child survival and to eliminating all preventable child mortality in two decades, as USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah explained. USAID’s Child Survival and Health Grants Program (CSHGP) supports new operations research partnerships among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academia, and ministries of health to generate evidence about how to solve critical challenges in the implementation and scale-up of high impact maternal, newborn, and child health interventions. By working in partnership with ministries of health, studies are designed to meet the ministries’ expressed needs for evidence that would strengthen their systems. Solutions are tailored to local contexts, with relevance to global implementation challenges, such as how best to: integrate services within and across sectors; improve the continuum of care to maximize access and lower costs; ensure equity in access to health information and appropriate use of services; and strengthen systems’ capacity for accountability to communities. As USAID’s Jim Shelton commented in Nature magazine this year, promoting health literacy for preventive health behaviors such as hand-washing and breastfeeding, and deploying community-based interventions for services and health education, are among the priority public health approaches needed now for universal access to health. Some questions that must be addressed in order to operationalize these approaches include: How can community health workers more effectively reach households with timely information, case management, and referral? What are effective models for partnerships between health care providers and community agents/traditional caregivers to improve the continuum of care and increase demand for services through culturally appropriate and respectful care? How can data collected by communities be used as a communication and planning tool to improve the quality of care and accountability? The answers to these questions would facilitate the research goals of integrated maternal and newborn health, child health, and nutrition, as outlined in USAID’s Report to Congress: Health-Related Research and Development Strategy. As stated in the research goals for health systems strengthening (HSS), “Ensuring equitable access to high-quality essential health services requires an increase in the evidence base on how to best implement HSS interventions and promote uptake of best practices.” These partnerships have the potential to achieve more than the sum of their parts by bringing together perspectives and skills that yield rigorous, relevant, and practical evidence. At this year’s Global Maternal Health Conference in Arusha, Tanzania, presenters from CSHGP’s NGO partners in Peru, Liberia, Pakistan, and Ecuador shared experiences on bridging the gap between communities and health systems to meet the maternal and newborn health needs of their most vulnerable populations. These research projects are helping ministries of health learn how best to operationalize and improve current policies on providing culturally competent, respectful care, and are testing new systems for overcoming geographic and financial barriers to safe childbirth. These partnerships are meeting the evidence needs of ministries of health that are striving to implement policies that make access to care more equitable. Partnerships also help ensure that USAID supports the most effective and efficient research across the spectrum of global health, from developing and delivering new health tools to discovering the most effective policies and strengthening systems to improve health around the world. To learn more about some of these 30 research partnerships in 23 countries check out this brief .