Funding Research for Neglected Infectious Diseases: An Investment in the Future

Author(s): Megan K. Meier

Neglected infectious diseases do not affect the majority of United States citizens. However, many of these diseases are rampant throughout developing countries. In 2002 these diseases were responsible for more than 50% of lives lost in African countries, but only 3% of lives lost in developed countries, such as the United States (1). Any infectious disease can be considered “neglected” when there is insufficient therapeutic intervention available for the clinical management of that disease (2). Some common examples of neglected diseases that are prevalent in developing countries are malaria and tuberculosis. Developing countries do not have adequate funds to research possible therapeutics to cure the individuals with these diseases. The shortage of proper medications has prompted the United States to consider using tax dollars to begin research on these neglected diseases. This thought has sparked much debate as to if the United States should be investing additional money into problems that do not currently nor directly impact the homeland. While some view the investment as costly and not worth the United States’ time, others view it as a worthy investment that could save present and future lives. It is the opinion of this author that tax dollars should be used to research and develop solutions for neglected diseases. The research is humanitarian, and the United States possesses the knowledge about neglected diseases, will benefit from economic gains, and can defend U.S. citizens against future outbreaks.

1. Ridley, D, Grabowski, H, Moe, J. Developing drugs for developing countries. Health Affairs. March 2006; 25:2.
2. Yamey, G. The world’s most neglected diseases. British Medical Journal. July 2002; 325: 177-8.
3. Martin G, Grant A, D’Angostino M. Global health funding and economic development. Globalization and Health 2012; 8:8.
4. Rezaie, R, McGahan, A, Frew, S, Daar, A, Singer, P. Emergence of biopharmaceutical innovators in China, India, Brazil, and South Africa as global competitors and collaborators. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2012; 10:18.
5. Trouiller, P, Olliaro, P, Torreele, E, Orbinski, J, Laing, R, Ford, N. Drug development for neglected diseases: a deficient market and a public-health policy failure. The Lancet. June 2002; 359:9324.
6. Chakma J, Masum H, Perampaladas K, Heys J, Singer P. Indian vaccine innovation: the case of Shantha Biotechnics. Globalization and Health. 2011; 7:9.
7. Lexchin, J. Canada and access to medicines in developing countries: intellectual property rights first. Globalization and Health. June 2013; 9:42.
8. DiMasi, J, Hansen, R, Grabowski, H. The price of innovation: new estimate of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics. March 2003; 22:2.
9. Walubo, Andrew. The current status and trend of clinical pharmacology in developing countries. BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. 28 September 2013; 14:49.
10. Desiraju, R, Nair, H, Chintagunta, P. Diffusion of new pharmaceutical drugs in developing and developed nations. International Journal of Global Marketing. December 2004; 21:4.