News

It’s not much of a surprise that Monday night’s presidential debate, which focused on foreign policy, was consumed by a discussion of defense spending, and security and trade policies regarding the Middle East, North Africa, and China. While not unexpected, it’s still disappointing that both Barack Obama (D) and Mitt Romney (R) were relatively silent on issues like global health, research, and international aid. We’ve written previously about how critical it is for the candidates to address these issues, given the impact of presidential policies on funding for global health research and other development programs. While there have been some brief mentions during the debate season of the role of science and technology—both candidates have discussed how science and technology can help create domestic jobs and tackle issues like energy and climate change—it’s critical to also address the role of science in international health and development. Indeed, there’s been some reaction from the international development community regarding the lack of foreign aid and assistance in Monday night’s debate. Devex provides a summary of some clues offered up by both Romney and Obama regarding foreign aid and development in Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. But as this word cloud from the US Global Leadership Coalition indicates, health, research, and science—among a host of other topics—were missing from the debate. Perhaps Josh Barro from Bloomberg puts it most succinctly: “The biggest problem with this debate, as with the previous ones, is what wasn’t discussed. There was no discussion of Europe or sub-Saharan Africa and only a brief mention of Latin America by Romney (who, as Matt Yglesias notes, got his key factoid wrong). The candidates did not discuss immigration, the drug war, global health, climate change or the international financial system.” He adds that “apparently ‘foreign policy’ has come to mean ‘places in the Middle East and North Africa where we are or might be bombing people, plus some really stupid and demagogic discussion of trade with China.’” With the election now less than two weeks away—and domestic issues such as jobs and the economy taking center stage—it seems increasingly unrealistic that either candidate will offer up much on global health, research, or other development topics soon. But no matter what the outcome is in two weeks, the next president must demonstrate more support for global health and foreign aid than the candidates displayed during Monday night’s debate.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. A new article in Science assesses President Obama’s record on promoting international scientific collaboration through the lenses of diplomacy, international development, and the operational requirements for scientific exchange. Devex examines how pharmaceutical companies are undertaking new research and development models to create products for developing countries, including forming product development partnerships with nongovernment organizations and foundations. A new issue of the Lancet includes a profile piece on the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) at the National Institutes of Health. NCATS aims to “cut the time, cost, and failure rate of bringing laboratory research through to successful clinical medicine.” An inexpensive liquid test that could help detect low levels of viruses and some cancers has been developed by researchers from Imperial College London, who say that the test could lead to more widespread testing for HIV and other diseases in parts of the world where other methods are unaffordable. Several recent studies on the influenza virus indicate that seasonal flu shots could become a thing of the past, replaced by long-lasting vaccines.

In this guest post, Richard Hatzfeld, communications director for the Sabin Vaccine Institute, writes about a special report on neglected tropical diseases in the Financial Times, and the need for increased research, partnerships, and support to combat these diseases. Last Thursday, October 11, the Financial Times featured a special report on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Despite the fact that NTDs impact about one in six people around the world, many people—even some of those working in global health—have never heard of them. We’re hopeful that the efforts of organizations in our community, as well as features in publications such as the Financial Times, are helping to change this. As the report describes in a number of comprehensive articles, global partnerships to combat these diseases have made huge strides in changing the way the public views NTDs. Research investment in NTDs has increased from $268 million in 2007 to $418 million in 2011. In January, the London Declaration hosted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation represented a new era of cooperation in the work to address NTDs, with leaders from 13 pharmaceutical companies, governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and United Arab Emirates, as well as the World Bank and other global health organizations offering increased support. These recent efforts are a big step in the right direction, but there is still great need in the fight to eliminate NTDs. Despite increased awareness, donations, and effort, only 0.6 percent of international development assistance for health issues is given to NTDs, according to the Financial Times report. The Financial Times special section led off with an article on the economic impact of NTDs, and pinpointed this as a reason behind the increased interest in exploring investment solutions. The Honorable John A. Kufuor (president of the Republic of Ghana, 2001-2009), NTD special envoy for the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases—a program of the Sabin Vaccine Institute—highlighted this in one of the report’s articles, saying “[i]f the people are not healthy, they cannot be productive.” Drs. Peter Hotez and Maria Elena Bottazzi in the Sabin PDP lab in Houston, Texas. Photo credit: National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. Several articles in the special section reported on research and development projects that are being led by Sabin and our partners—particularly those addressing neglected diseases such as Chagas disease, dengue fever, and leishmaniasis. For most of these projects, partnership is the rule rather than the exception. Currently, the Sabin Vaccine Institute Product Development Partnership (Sabin PDP) has commenced Phase 1 clinical trials for a hookworm vaccine, and is projected to reach that point in 2013 for a schistosomiasis vaccine. And through our partnership with Eisai, Co. Ltd., Sabin has initiated pre-development and research phases for vaccines for Chagas disease and leishmaniasis. Increased research and funding has done more than raise NTD awareness—it has also led to opportunities across the global health sphere. For example, the Financial Times highlights leishmaniasis research that may have cancer treatment implications. It is important to continue such research efforts, not only for the goal of reducing the burden of NTDs on poor communities, but for the greater benefit of advancing scientific discovery that carries the potential for broad-reaching improvements in global health and development. Read the full Financial Times report here.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. Leading US science organizations have developed a list of 14 policy questions facing the country in 2012, which presidential candidates Barack Obama (D) and Mitt Romney (R) have answered online. An article in the Lancet looks at innovative financing sources for global health, which have become increasingly important as the continued global economic crisis means that increased financing from traditional donors is unlikely in the near term. Scientists with the Centre for the Aids Programme of Research in South Africa recently announced a discovery that could aid efforts to develop an HIV and AIDS vaccine. A new article in Infectious Diseases of Poverty examines how to spur innovation and product development for diseases endemic to developing countries. BIO Ventures for Global Health presents an analysis of the drug and vaccine development pipeline to identify products that meet eligibility criteria to earn a priority review voucher (PRV) from the US Food and Drug Administration, and to predict the number of PRVs that will be issued over the next 10 years.