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

Just ten per cent of health research funding is spent on studies of diseases affecting 90 per cent of the world's people. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's 'Grand Challenges in Global Health' initiative is offering US$200 million in research grants to redress the balance. But is it likely to work?

In this article in The Lancet, Anne-Emanuelle Birn of the University of Toronto's public health sciences department says the initiative largely misses the point: that poverty is the root cause of poor health and short life-spans.

She says the initiative focuses instead on technological methods to alleviate disease, such as new vaccines. And to meet the goal of improving nutrition, the project suggests making a region reliant on just one crop, a method that caused disaster in Ireland during the 19th century potato famine.

Birn says that the foundation could more effectively combat diseases of the poor by taking up a new challenge: integrating the medical or technical means of improving global health with social considerations. Schooling and sewage systems, for instance, affect long-term improvements in health outcomes, and a broad focus on social justice would bring the target of health for all closer, says Birn.

Link to full article in The Lancet