Funding innovation in neglected diseasesBMJ 2018; 360 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1182 (Published 20 March 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;360:k1182
All rapid responses
If funding organisations would like to see a visible clinical impact of their philanthropic action, the best approach is with co-ordinated efforts within the context of governmental health schemes. Non governmental organisations can aid and abet any co-ordinated effort. Large countries like India have robust health schemes within a socialist platform. So a plausible outcome of study - provided the outcome has been validated and ensures benefit to persons involved - can be seen in the context of an academic set up. But first the modalities and organisations have to be identified before implementation.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I would like to thank the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for convening a workshop discussion that inspired our perspectives in this article. The workshop was a dissemination event stemming from the Academies' recent report on Global Health and the Future Role of the United States [see http://resources.nationalacademies.org/infographics/usglobalhealth/index....
Competing interests: See article: the Center for Policy Impact in Global Health has received grant funding from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Global Health Technologies Coalition, which have both argued for increased funding for neglected disease R&D.