We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Since the UN Millennium Development Goals were set in 2000, development has climbed up the international political agenda, with G8 leaders promising to double aid for Africa.

But as the 2015 deadline approaches, this increase in aid has not materialised on the ground, says this Nature editorial. In addition, the quality of data used to assess progress towards the goals is woefully inadequate.

The UN reports progress each year. This is measured by comparing quantitative indicators, such as child mortality, against a 1990 baseline. But most of the 163 developing countries have no hard data.

For many indicators, there are less than two data points between 1990 and 2006. UN agencies use modelling techniques to fill the gaps, but these are potentially misleading and risk political interference.

The lack of data makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of any new measures. For example, it is impossible to tell whether the introduction of bednets has significantly contributed to controlling malaria.

The editorial calls for more investment in evidence-based research to assess whether interventions work.

Link to full article in Nature

Related topics