Neglected-Disease Research Funding Hits Record High (nature.com)

Reader schwit1 shares a report: Research funding for diseases that predominantly affect people living in poverty hit a record high in 2017, according to a report released on 23 January by Policy Cures Research, a global-health think tank in Sydney, Australia. At US$3.6 billion, investments into 'neglected' diseases were higher than in any year since 2007. A surge from 2016 to 2017 included a rise in funding to fight neglected diseases generally, as opposed to targeting individual maladies.

Anna Doubell, director of research at Policy Cures Research, says that the launch of several trials testing new Ebola drugs, diagnostics and vaccines in response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa between 2014 and 2016 might be giving donors hope that investments into neglected diseases pay off. "The amount of progress made in a short period of time after the Ebola outbreak might have brought in optimism about what is possible," Doubell says.

Comments

It's a scarily low number

[amorsen]

According to the graph, the number jumps up and down a bit but does not have a clear trend. Considering how many people are affected and have their lives and their chances to contribute to society ruined by these diseases, it is a very low number. The EU alone spends 30 times that on agricultural subsidies, with unclear benefits.

Alternative Solution

[Thelasko]

Another way to get rid of diseases that predominately affect people living in poverty is to get people out of poverty.

Despite there being no cure for Ebola, there's an 82% survival rate for cases in the United States. In Africa, the survival rate is only 50%, and the disease spreads much more rapidly.

You'd be surprised how many diseases can be prevented with basic hygiene practices, and how many diseases can be treated with basic drugs.

Plumbers save more lives than doctors. Don't take them for granted.

Bah, humbug

[TimothyHollins]

There's usually good reason that "neglected" diseases are neglected. It can be because they are incredibly rare, or as with the more common ones, that they proliferate because of factors not related to the disease.

Ebola is a case of "stupidity". An infection in the western world would be (and has on multiple occasions been) dealt with quickly and effectively by simple safety precautions. This is why doctors and nurses rarely get sick when working in the epidemic area. Isolation and basic sanitary procedures is all it takes to halt and stop an outbreak. This is the kind of solution that works in a society that works.
On the other hand, if patients flee the hospital because of rumors, if patients go to a witch-doctor instead of a doctor, and if patients ignore the isolation clause and go back to unsanitary living on top of other people (with bodily fluids spraying left and right), then Ebola will quickly becomes a very serious and national problem.

The biggest reduction in Ebola mortality will come about when the disease is treated with reason and rationality by the at-risk population, at which point epidemics can be reduced to individual cases that swiftly pass.

With all that said, I certainly hope that an effective treatment and/or vaccination can be found. I just don't believe that resources are better spent on diseases that can be effectively dealt with already by proper hygiene and sanitation.

Re:I'd guess that some challanges are easier

[ShanghaiBill]

An ebola outbreak can be stopped dead in its tracks with soap and hand sanitizer.

I support medical research, but poor countries mostly need education and better public health measures.

Clean water makes a huge difference. But electricity makes a huge difference too. Electric cooking and lighting removes soot from indoor air, relieving respiratory problems, allows students to read and study later, and saves money that people otherwise spent on fuel. Electric pumps make the clean water easier to achieve.

Decentralized electricity based on solar panels is making a big difference in poor countries.