Size matters! On the implications of increased funding sizes - Eu-SPRI 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Size matters! On the implications of increased funding sizes Mads P. Sørensen, Carter Bloch, Emil B. Madsen and Alexander Kladakis Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000 Aarhus C., Denmark. Increasing attention has been placed on the concentration of funding and its consequences, with results indicating that concentration and inequality in research has grown further in recent years (Aagaard et al. 2020; Nielsen and Andersen 2021, Bol et al. 2018; Petersen and Penner, 2014; Madsen and Aagaard 2020). Research funding policy can play an important role in these developments, particularly through the design of funding instruments, where a focus on larger funding grants can contribute to concentration trends. There can be a number of rationales behind larger grants, from large individual or project grants to research centers. These include economies of scale in research and redistribution of resources towards top researchers in order to increase scientific productivity and pathbreaking research. However, there may potentially also be negative impacts of increasing funding size, and the concentration of funding among a smaller number of researchers. In this paper, we examine the potential implications of trends towards increasing grant sizes or towards larger grant forms. We look at empirical examples of increases in the average size of grants as well as an enlarged allocation of funds to centers (e.g. Centres of Excellence) and other larger forms of funding. We examine the rationales behind these trends as well as the positive and negative impacts of this development. The paper builds on our 2015-article “The size of research funding: Trends and implications” (Bloch and Sørensen, 2015). In the proposed paper, we revisit, reexamine and update our previous findings and analyses. Given the growing attention in recent years to the issues of inequality and concentration of research and funding, we feel it is an opportune time to further explore how both the trends, results and thinking on these issues has developed in recent years. First, we examine international trends towards increased funding sizes. We look at empirical examples of increases in the average size of grants as well as an increased allocation of funds to centers and other larger forms of funding. Our focus is on individual and research group grants as opposed to block grants to universities. Our previous study was complicated by data limitations on basic grant characteristics such as average grant size. However, the general picture was that there had been significant increases in grant size in many countries, though also with a number of exceptions. We have now collected new data on funding and grant sizes from a wide range of funding organisations in a number of countries. A preliminary analysis of these data shows that the trend still exists in some countries (e.g. Denmark, UK, and USA) and in some of the most important funding organisations (e.g. National Science Foundation). However, there are also many countries and fundings organisations in which the average funding seize has been more stable over the last decade. In the paper, we present the data and discuss whether we are dealing with a trend or not.
Second, we present the main rationales for increased funding sizes. We discuss the literature from before 2015 as well as the newest literature. In our search for new literature on rationales for increased grant sizes, we have found +40 papers (2013-2021) with new evidence and/or relevant discussions that we are now examining. In our 2015-paper, we identified three interrelated rationales behind increases in funding size: the creation of a critical mass of research competences; the social and economic impact of research; and the concentration of resources towards excellence. We found that all three rationales could be linked to the pursuit of excellence, although the excellence concept often was quite blurred and somewhat fluffy. In our current paper, we reexamine these three rationales – also in the light of a new understanding of the excellence concept (Sørensen et al. 2016). In the current paper, we review this recent literature to examine how thinking on the implications of increasing funding size has developed. Third, we analyse the potential impact of increased funding sizes. As in our 2015 paper, we critically examine the positive and negative consequences of increases in funding size. We do that through empirical evidence on the role or impacts of size in research funding as well as theoretical arguments. We will strive to present a coherent view of the potential impacts of these initiatives, both positive and negative, that can provide a broader understanding of how funding can reach stated objectives or what conditions should be fulfilled. The amount of empirical work has grown since we wrote our 2015 article, not least when it comes to the productivity and scientific impact of increased funding seize. We will carefully go through all existing evidence to create as comprehensive an analysis as possible. In addition to our 2015 analysis, we will also look at possible epistemic and second generation effects. Our paper will be written as a book chapter for the Edward Elgar Handbook of Public Research Funding (Eds. Lepori, Jongbloed & Hicks), planned for 2022. References Aagaard, K. Kladakis, A. and M. W. Nielsen, Concentration or dispersal of research funding? Quantitative Sci. Studies 1, 117–149 (2020). Bloch, C. and Sørensen, M.P. (2015). The size of research funding – trends and implications. Science and Public Policy. 42(3): 30–43. Bol, T., de Vaan, M. and A. van de Rijt (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 4887–4890. Madsen, E. B., & Aagaard, K. (2020). Concentration of Danish research funding on individual researchers and research topics: Patterns and potential drivers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1159-1181. Nielsen, M. W., & Andersen, J. P. (2021). Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(7). Petersen, A.M. and O. Penner (2014). Inequality and cumulative advantage in science careers: A case study of high-impact journals. EPJ Data Sci. 3, 1–25. Sørensen, M.P., Bloch, C. and Young, M. (2016). Excellence in the knowledge-based economy: from scientific to research excellence. European Journal of Higher Education 6(3), 217-236.
The Diversity of Policy Programs as Instruments for Governmental R&D
Funding
Emanuela Reale
CNR-IRCRES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth – National Research Council
Roma, Italy
emanuela.reale@ircres.cnr.it
Magnus Gulbrandsen
Centre for Technology Innovation and Culture – University of Oslo
Oslo, Norway
magnus.gulbrandsen@tik.uio.no
Thomas Scherngell
AIT – Austrian Institute of Technology
Vienna, Austria
thomas.scherngell@ait.ac.at
Track: 11 Public research funding and its implications for science, innovation and society
ABSTRACT
What is the role of programs in government funding of research and development (R&D)? How can we
understand programs theoretically and device frameworks for empirical studies of them?
Governmental R&D funding has been deeply transformed from the 1970s onward, and the use of project-
based mode of allocation was further advanced in the 1980s for two main reasons: on the one hand, the
stagnation of the volume of public research funding pushed toward more selective modes of allocation; on
the other hand, the new policy rationale about an efficient use of public resources emphasized competitive
allocation as a mean to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the research systems (Lepori et al., 2007).
Moreover, many countries have embarked on mission-oriented reforms of public R&D funding in response
to emerging demands and opportunities, enhancing their strategic-planning capacity and paying more
attention to the social and economic environment, to the need to address societal grand challenges and to
the evolving patterns of relationships between non-academic actors (Foray et al., 2012; Mazzucato, 2018).
In the 1990s, government funding increased for mission-oriented and contract-based research that is
supposed to be more dependent on output and performance criteria. This led to the problem of
understanding how R&D government policies are put into actions by Research Funding Organizations (Braun,
2017; Lepori and Reale, 2019) and the extent to which government funding is implemented in these to
address problems of social relevance designed at policy levels.
Furthermore, from the 2000s onwards, policies developed at European level began to play a major role
toward enhancing the awareness of the importance of internationalization of research, generating different
effects, such as driving national government R&D allocation, setting specific schemes for collaborative
project funding and incentives, changing the political rhetoric in terms of rationales and justification for
public investment in R&D, but also modifying the awareness of research organizations toward the relevance
of the non-national level of governance.
Aim of the paper
The aim of the paper is to give a broad overview of the main theoretical advancements dealing with programs
as instruments of governmental R&D policy, and to discuss upcoming empirical opportunities to grasp thediversity of such programs in a more systematic manner. We address two main aspects: the program’s organizational logics and its scope. First, the logics aspect concerns the diversity and complex nature of research programs, as well as inherent strategies and objectives, the actors implementing the programs and the modes of implementation. Second, the paper develops new conceptual framings based on this theoretical review, also indicating relevant methods for doing empirical studies. This includes examples of novel data and infrastructures to investigate the diversity of funding programs using new concepts and empirical insights. Theoretical background The paper narrates when R&D funding programs emerged and what such a program is. We discuss different notions that programs might have in national and supra-national context, differences that are linked to the sectoral and funding context. Then, by reviewing the literature, the paper presents the multifaceted problems of R&D funding programs focusing on the features that are essential to understand them. R&D funding programs can be understood looking at two main dimensions, which represent a first step to characterize them, namely their organizational-institutional logics and their scope. The first component concerns the need to balance funding towards R&D for scientific priorities and criteria and R&D oriented toward solving societal problems or addressing societal needs. The balance between the two can be problematic. In fact, funding programs have been discussed in the broad framework dealing with accountability, relevance and value of the public investment in research policy. Relevant literature, for example Nightingale and Scott (2007) points out the never-ending debate on how to combine policymakers’ request of doing relevant research (producing usable results, not necessarily impact), and the need of scholars to preserve their autonomy and freedom of research. According to Nedeva (2012), R&D funding programs are shaped by interactions between research spaces and disciplinary spaces. The notions of “global research field” and “localized research spaces” have been proposed to conceptualize the tensions existing between the demands from research fields, which deal with an international arena and from the research space shaped by the conditions existing at the local level (Nedeva, 2012). In the same vein, Langfeldt and Nedeva (2019) distinguish between different types of quality of research, as determined by a combination of F-type (research fields) and S-type (societal sectors or spaces) criteria. Programs therefore can be designed to ask different types of research quality or even combine the quest for different types of research quality thus generating tensions. The mentioned tensions often emerge in the selection process of proposals submitted to acquire funding within such programs; empirical evidence suggests that the conservative nature of peer review often constrains implementation of the funding instruments’ orientation toward addressing topics of social relevance, because ‘relevance’ may produce resistance in the academic community. Organizational logics of programs are also shaped by the managing research funding organizations (RFOs), their organizational characteristics and policy space (Braun, 1998; Potì and Reale, 2007). RFOs are key policy layers structuring and managing programs according to their own mission, objectives, strategies and traditions of research funding. Programs therefore are at the crossroad between the governmental steering toward achieving some pre-determined results and the relationships between RFOs and research actors. Such relationships are often conceptualized using principal-agent theory (Braun, 2006a, Id., 2006b; Id., 2017; Van den Meulen 1998, 2003; Gulbrandsen, 2005). The second dimension important to understand programs is their scope, which can be broad or narrow according to the orientation of the program itself between science fields and societal objectives. The scope of the programs identifies targets (in terms of research organizations and groups addressed), their placement within the R&D spectrum, and their governance and related fundamental decision-making. A distinction can be made between programs defined by a ministry in its allocation to a research funding organization and defined by the funding organization itself, including questions about who participates in design and implementation. How programs have developed and changed over time This section presents the current evolution of programs as policy instruments, namely modes of coordination, policy mixes, hybridity of R&D programs, and the portfolio perspective.
The literature points out some theoretical knowledge gaps as to coordination of funding programs, and the need to improve the understanding of interconnections between project funding and research funding organizations. Also new directions of analysis of the structure of policy mixes (Flanagan et al., 2011) are discussed, as well as the hybridity in public research funding, which are considered as combination of different logics inside one program or actors managing programs that follow different logics. One further important evolution is that programs are in some settings increasingly put into a portfolio perspective. One may think of a program as a portfolio in itself (of projects) or sets of programs as a portfolio to address a scientific and/or societal need. Portfolio governance is primarily a means to reduce risk, but it may also be a means to increase the chances of radical originality/innovation or as a mechanism of coordination. Empirical results to illustrate the general argument This section develops some illustrative examples of ways to collect and use evidence for analyzing functions and processes of funding programs in order to shed light on national research policies and mix of instruments used to reach given policy goals. The reference will be mainly related to the experiences developed within some European initiatives devoted to mapping and characterizing national and supra-national funding research instruments and their diversity. Most importantly, the section illustrates a recent example of an innovative data infrastructure (EFIL-RISIS) collecting information on programs and building metrics that would allow to deepen the configuration of funding portfolios and policy mixes of programs by focusing on instruments characteristics, actors involved, and topics addressed, at different levels of policymaking (national and regional level) and in different national European contexts. EFIL is currently under development as one of the main new data facilities within the pan-European infrastructure RISIS (risis2.eu) for Science and Innovation Policy Studies. Conclusive remarks The paper ends with a critical assessment of gaps in the theoretical developments on research programs and future research directions dealing with open issues. In particular, new empirical opportunities in light of new, upcoming data facilities will be considered as promising instruments to underline and complement the theoretical debates in this field with more systematic empirical observations. Main references Barré, R., Henriques, L., Pontikakis, D. & Weber, K. M. (2012). Measuring the integration and coordination dynamics of the European Research Area. Science and Public Policy,(0) Braun, D. 1998. The Role of Funding Agencies in the Cognitive Development of Science, Research Policy 27 (1998):807-821. Braun, D. 2006a. The mix of policy rationales in Science and Technology Policy, Melbourne Journal of Politics, November Braun, D. 2006b. Delegation in the distributive policy arena. The case of research policy, in Braun D., Gilardi F. (eds), Delegation in Contemporary Democracies, Routledge, 146-170 Braun D. 2017. Funding Agencies and Political Intervention – A re-assessment of principal-agent relationships in the funding of basic research. Working Paper, University of Lausanne Capano, G., Pritoni, A., Vicentini, G., 2019. Do policy instruments matter? Governments’ choice of policy mix and higher education performance in Western Europe. Journal of Public Policy, 1-27 Gulbrandsen M. 2011. Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sci, 44, 215-230 Gulbrandsen et al 2015. Emerging Hybrid Practices in Public-Private Research Centres. Public Administration, 93(2) 363-379 Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S., Behrens, T., 2003. The Changing Governance of Research and Technology: The European Research Area. Edward Elgar, CheltenamFlanagan, K., Uyarra, E., Laranja, M., 2011. Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy 40, 702-713Foray, D., Mowery, D.C.,
Nelson, R.R., 2012. Public R&D; and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D; programs? Research policy 41, 1697-1702 Heinze,T. 2008. How to sponsor ground-breaking research: a comparison of funding schemes. Science and Public Policy 35, 802-818 Kern, F., Rogge, K.S., Howlett, M. 2019. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 48, in press.Larrue, P., Guellec, D., Sgard, F., 2018. New Trends in Public Research Funding. Lepori, B., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale,E., Slipersaeter,S., Theves,J. and Van den Besselaar,P. (2007), Comparing the Evolution of National Research Policies: What Patterns of Change? Science and Public Policy, 34 (6), 372- 88Lepori, B., 2011. Coordination modes in public funding systems. Research policy 40, 355-367 Lepori B., Reale E., Laredo P., 2014. Logics of integration and actors’ strategies in European Joint Programs, Research Policy 43, 391-402 Lepori, B., Reale, E., 2019. The changing governance of research systems. Agencification and organizational differentiation in research funding organizations, in Anonymous Handbook on Science and Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenam, pp. 448-463Lewis, J.M., Ross, S., 2011. Research funding systems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK: Policy settings and perceived effects. Policy & Politics 39, 379-398Mazzucato, M., 2018. Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change 27, 803-815 Nightingale, P., Scott, A. (2007). Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy makers. Science and Public Policy, 34(8) 543-553 Nedeva, M. (2012). Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy, (0) Potì, B., Reale E. (2007), Changing allocation models for public research funding: an empirical exploration based on project funding data, Science and Public Policy, 34, 417-430 Primeri E., Reale E. et al. (2014), Measuring the opening of national R&D programs: what indicators for what purposes? Research Evaluation, 23(4), 312-326Salamon, L. M. (Ed.) (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Thèves, J., Lepori,B. and Larédo,P. (2007), Changing Patterns of Public Research Funding in France, Science and Public Policy 34:389-399 van der Meulen, B. (2003). New roles and strategies of a research council: intermediation of the principal- agent relationship. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 323-336 Zacharewicz T., Lepori B., Reale E., Jonkers K. (2019). Performance-based research funding in EU Member States—a comparative assessment. Science and Public Policy, 46(1) 105-115
Funding biomedical research for specific social outcomes: What can we
learn from neglected diseases?
Ohid Yaqub and Josie Coburn
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex
March 2021
Extended abstract
Over the last half century, there has been wide appreciation for research improving health. It has
been a period during which public funding for biomedical research has seen remarkable growth.
That growth has recently slowed down and research targeting – the notion of setting priority areas
to address with research – has taken on greater importance.
In this paper, we will focus on the case of neglected diseases, which has been characterised as a
misalignment in the research system because so little research is directed towards such a large
burden of disease. By focusing on one of the most egregious and extreme cases of misalignment in
the research system, we highlight some of the opportunities and potential pitfalls of targeting
research towards specific social outcomes more generally.
We take stock of a stream of studies that could be called misalignments research, an agenda that
seeks to reconcile research supply with health needs. The basic framework of supply and demand
lends itself well to advocacy and calls to increase funding allocations. However, we know little about
the reasons for such misalignments, even when they are as severe as they seem to be for neglected
diseases. More funding is needed, but how much? What else is needed to ensure the funding meets
its intended goals? In short, how wrong is wrong?
We survey selected bodies of literature to identify fruitful avenues for developing such frameworks
further. We hope that this may help to shed light on factors influencing the direction of the research
system towards or away from neglected diseases.
A notable starting point is the landmark report by the Commission on Health Research for
Development (1990), which identified what became commonly referred to as the 10/90 gap,
observing that only 10 percent of global biomedical research funds are allocated to diseases that
cause about 90 percent of the world’s disease burden. Since then, a considerable body of literature
has now accumulated indicating a misalignment between research priorities and global health
needs.
Studies have examined research effort and disease burden in more detail and in various ways. For
example, Røttingen et al. (2013) calculated the ratio between disease burden in low- and middle-
income countries and in high-income countries (LMICs and HICs), and compared it against a range of
research indicators spanning not just research and development (R&D) funding, but also publications
and clincal trials. They found that “only about 1% of all health R&D investments were allocated to
neglected diseases in 2010” and that there was a “persistent imbalance between R&D investments
and needs-based priorities as measured by all R&D indicators (research inputs, processes, and
outputs)” (Røttingen et al. 2013).
Røttingen’s ratio was augmented by von Philipsborn et al. (2015) to add a “neglect factor”,
measuring the ratio of disease burden and R&D expenditure globally. This study found that poverty-
related and neglected diseases (PRNDs) made up 14% of the global burden of disease (GBD) but only
1received 1.4% of R&D investment. The authors concluded that further investment in PRND research
is needed and that even within the PRND category, there was huge variation in the neglect factors
associated with different PRNDs.
Such studies may have helped advocacy efforts to secure greater funding for neglected diseases.
Despite the proliferation of measurements of misalignments between GBD, R&D, publications and
clinical trials at both the international and country levels, we know little about whether the growth
of targeted research encourages a realignment between scientific research and societal needs in the
context of PRND research.
Research funding priorities and rationales are different in different places. In HICs, funding rationales
based on excellence and relevance can both be pursued, whereas in LMICs, scarce resources may
mean having to make difficult choices rather than pursuing multiple rationales (Chataway et al.
2019). This may mean having to do the difficult job of balancing capacity building and addressing
national priorities, with the need for scientists to maintain autonomy and to strive for scientific
excellence (Chataway and Daniels 2020).
Furthermore, R&D funding to address neglected diseases predominantly comes from HICs, even
though the diseases predominantly affect those in LMICs, and this shapes research priorities and
programmes in ways that may not be optimal for LMICs (Adam, Ralaidovy, and Swaminathan 2019;
Ralaidovy, Adam, and Boucher 2020). For example, a large proportion of funding originating from
HICs is targeted at particular diseases. Clinton and Sridhar (2017) argue that donors typically prefer
“vertical” interventions, targeted at tackling specific diseases, over taking a “horizontal” approach,
which would focus on strengthening entire health systems including basic-care services, even though
“there is near universal consensus that optimal health systems are the key to improving health”,
because the results of vertical programmes are perceived as being easier to measure, and the
interventions themselves, easier to monitor and control (Clinton and Sridhar 2017 pp. 8-12). Since
many neglected diseases are diseases of poverty, addressing the social determinants of health and
strengthening health research systems in LMICs may achieve more than research targeted towards
neglected diseases (Chataway et al. 2019).
The concept of a “neglected disease” can be described in terms of pharmaceutical market failure,
whereby R&D investment is well below the level required by health needs due to a lack of market.
Since the early 2000s, product development partnerships (PDPs) have played an increasingly
important role in tackling the challenge of neglected diseases, e.g. IAVI, MMV, MVI and DNDi. PDPs
are not-for-profit organisations, linking industry skills, philanthropic investment and public health
interests to develop products to address neglected diseases. However, PDPs are not a panacea and,
for example, the plethora of new actors and organisations means their activities may be
uncoordinated, and the “lack of coordination and prioritization invariably results in gaps in funding
and distorted priorities in both R&D and procurement, leaving low- and middle- income countries in
the position of having to accept the net result of multiple uncoordinated decisions rather than
benefiting from careful planning and investment” (M. Merson, Black, and Mills 2012).
Within any given field there are typically a number of trajectories (Dosi 1982) and these trajectories
require different levels of research funding and have different potential impacts. For example, for
podoconiosis, which is a neglected disease caused by inflammation due to exposure of bare feet to
irritant alkalic clay soils, people would be less likely to contract the disease if they had shoes to wear,
but because there is a genetic element, there is also genetic research into podoconiosis that might
be more fundable (Davey, Tekola, and Newport 2007). Similarly, for malaria, since it is transmitted
by mosquitos, people are less likely to contract the disease if they sleep under insecticide-treated
2bed nets. Efforts are underway to find a vaccine and to use transgenic mosquitoes to reduce the
transmission of malaria, but progress in these trajectories may be inhibited by the success of
insecticide-treated bed nets. In another example, for Chagas disease, scholars have argued that its
conceptualisation changed over time “from a problem of precarious living conditions, to a problem
of fumigation, and then a problem of basic research” (Kreimer and Zabala 2007). The prominence of
a particular research trajectory in the discourse around a particular disease may change over time as
a consequence of both scientific advances and social shaping and this might also change the
conceptualisation of the disease itself.
For neglected areas of research with scarce funding such as neglected disease research, it is
particularly important to gain a better understanding of the interplay between funding strategies
and other dynamics operating in the research system, such as institutional-level and researcher-level
influences on the content of research, as these may well pull resources away from neglected areas
and towards the mainstream. For example, Yegros et al. (2020) found that researchers receive more
citations when they work on diseases more prevalent in HICs, suggesting that there are features of
the academic publishing system which incentivise researchers to focus on diseases of the rich.
Research funders and policymakers know that research is uncertain and that it changes direction,
but there has not yet been much research to understand how and why this happens, and to
formulate appropriate policy responses, particularly in the context of neglected areas of research.
Examples of features of LMIC health and research systems that are unique to neglected disease
research and are yet to be addressed by policy are: weak health systems and a need for health
system strengthening as well as vertical interventions; underfunded LMIC research systems in which
it is difficult to pursue both excellence and relevance; a lack of R&D funding for neglected disease
research internationally; and more generally a HIC-centred international research system in which
funding, publishing incentives, and evaluation systems tend to pull research away from LMIC-
focused problems; and finally a lack of attractive markets for neglected disease innovations and thus
underinvestment by pharmaceutical companies. Targeting more research towards neglected
diseases is a welcome development, but we need funding rationales and policies to address these
system-wide issues as well. These might include incorporating features of LMIC health and research
systems, as well as the behaviour of researchers in these fields, and the array of non-governmental
and non-market organisations that are oriented to addressing neglected diseases.
Word count: 1,553.
Bibliography
Adam, Taghreed, Ambinintsoa H. Ralaidovy, and Soumya Swaminathan. 2019. “Biomedical Research;
What Gets Funded Where?” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 97 (8): 8–9.
https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.240499.
Chataway, Joanna, and Chux Daniels. 2020. “The Republic of Science Meets the Republics of
Somewhere: Embedding Scientific Excellence in Sub-Saharan Africa.” In Transforming Research
Excellence: New Ideas from the Global South, edited by E Kraemer-Mbula, R Tijssen, M L
Wallace, and R McLean, 39–58. Cape Town, South Africa: African Minds.
Chataway, Joanna, Charlie Dobson, Chux Daniels, Rob Byrne, Rebecca Hanlin, and Aschalew Tigabu.
2019. “Science Granting Councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and Tensions.” Science and
Public Policy, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz007.
3Clinton, Chelsea, and Devi Sridhar. 2017. Governing Global Health: Who Runs the World and Why?
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Commission on Health Research for Development. 1990. Health Research: Essential Link to Equity in
Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1177/101053959000400420.
Davey, Gail, Fasil Tekola, and Melanie J. Newport. 2007. “Podoconiosis: Non-Infectious Geochemical
Elephantiasis.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 101 (12):
1175–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2007.08.013.
Dosi, Giovanni. 1982. “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories. A Suggested
Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change.” Research Policy 11 (3):
147–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6.
Kreimer, Pablo, and Juan Pablo Zabala. 2007. “Chagas Disease in Argentina: Reciprocal Construction
of Social and Scientific Problems.” Science, Technology and Society 12 (1): 49–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180601200104.
Merson, M, R Black, and A Mills. 2012. Global Health: Diseases, Programs, Systems and Policies.
Edited by Michael H Merson, Robert E Black, and Anne J Mills. 3rd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones &
Bartlett Learning.
Philipsborn, Peter von, Fridolin Steinbeis, Max E Bender, and Peter Tinnemann. 2015. “Poverty-
Related and Neglected Diseases - an Economic and Epidemiological Analysis of Poverty
Relatedness and Neglect in Research and Development.” Global Health Action 8: 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62168-6.
Ralaidovy, Ambinintsoa H., Taghreed Adam, and Philippe Boucher. 2020. “Resource Allocation for
Biomedical Research: Analysis of Investments by Major Funders.” Health Research Policy and
Systems 18 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0532-0.
Røttingen, John Arne, Sadie Regmi, Mari Eide, Alison J. Young, Roderik F. Viergever, Christine Ardal,
Javier Guzman, Danny Edwards, Stephen A. Matlin, and Robert F. Terry. 2013. “Mapping of
Available Health Research and Development Data: What’s There, What’s Missing, and What
Role Is There for a Global Observatory?” The Lancet 382: 1286–1307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61046-6.
Yegros, Alfredo, Wouter Van de Klippe, Maria Francisca Abad-Garcia, and Ismael Rafols. 2020.
“Exploring Why Global Health Needs Are Unmet by Public Research Efforts: The Potential
Influences of Geography, Industry, and Publication Incentives.” Health Research Policy and
Systems 18 (47): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3459230.
4You can also read
