Category Research Gap

Considerations for a demonstration pooled fund for R&D based on CEWG recommendations

Tool to assess disparity between resources dedicated to a disease and its relative burden on society

Original de-linkage proposal

US public research (NIH) translates into higher health impact than private research

Econ review supporting feasibility of NTD R&D using push and pull mechanisms

4% of drugs registered 2000-11 for NTDs; 4 NCEs

Lots of HIV R&D, but only 0.1% for developing-country specific versions (G-FINDER)

ND R&D highly and unequally concentrated (G-FINDER)

Stiglitz outlining the need for new R&D mechanisms

NTD R&D funding comes from a small number of rich nations/charities

Original source of the “90/10 gap” (!)

1% of global R&D investments are for NTDs

Most innovative drugs are developed by Unis & Biotech

EU commission recognises failure in innovation