Malaria Treatment & Prevention
MIM Conference-Categories of Research
Started by Joel Breman on 15 Dec 2009
The division of over 800 papers given at the recent MIM meeting into approximately equal portions: parasite biology, vector biology, epidemiology, drugs, immunology/vaccines, prevention, case (patient) management, and other is useful. However, the conclusion that the funding follows these divisions does not necessary follow. For instance, the vector biology and allied research gets considerably less financial support than drugs and vaccines--even though personal protection and vector control are cornerstones of current efforts. Yes, malaria workers can benefit by reviewing the history of the past malaria control and eradication programs, and by understanding fully the successful inovations and pitfalls of other eradication programs. Finally, the malaria problem is vast, tied to other diseases and the complexities of health systems and poverty. We don't yet have a critical mass of scientists, public health workers or institutions to address the malaria problem, including social scientists. Without commited long-term leadership the quest will falter.
Attached resource:
-
MIM Conference -- Categories of Research (download, 89.3 KB) (click here for more details...) Source: Multilateral Inititiative on Malaria - MIM
Preview
Peter Brown
Thanks for this reply. The point that the distribution of MIM papers does not reflect the distribution of research funding is well taken. I really meant to raise the funding issue as a question because I do not know where that data might be. I assume that the largest proportion of funding is for lab-based research. I also assume that field-based vector biology research does not garner appropriate attention. I guess my main point -- and this was in the second slide (see resources) that I posted -- is that there were very few presentations at MIM abouconcerning issues of antimalaria program structure, functions, monitoring, improvement and so forth. To me, this is an area of remarkable importance. Antimalaria programs as part of health delivery systems will require an iterative process of innovations and monitoring/research in order to improve.
My comments about malaria history research came from a presentation I recently did at WHO. So I did not mean to distract from the larger point about operations research. I agree with Joel completely that "commited long-term leadership" is necessary for continued progress on the malaria problem(s) -- indeed I think that is what history demonstrates.
12:56 PM, 5 Jan 2010 | Permalink
Peter Brown
By the way, do people think that there is "commited long term leadership" in contemporary antimalaria efforts???
I taught a seminar the other year on global health leadership in historical perspective. I ended up still being a bit confused about the factors that make for successul leadership.
1:00 PM, 5 Jan 2010 | Permalink