http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/9/1/1
donors have been shown to have on WHO’s budget allocations [11] and by research showing that a small group of eleven organizations (many of which are a part of HIROs) currently provide 75% of global funding for neglected disease research and development [5,12]. Besides HIROs, there are other groups where funders of research for health collaborate. Especially the ‘Enhancing Support for Strengthening the Effectiveness of National Capacity Efforts’ initiative (ESSENCE) - a collaborative framework between funding agencies to scale up research capacity and increase the effectiveness of research for health in Africa - has recently made some encouraging first steps in aligning donor funding towards national priorities for health research [13]. Other examples are the Product Development Partnership (PDP) Funders group (formerly known as the PDP Donor Coordination Group), whose purpose is to facilitate donors in supporting and monitoring the performance of PDPs [14]; the International Forum of Research Donors (IFORD), which brings together funders of research related to international development [15]; and the International Health Partnership+ (IHP+), which aims to improve the impact of health aid in general [16].
In discussing the need for increased coordination among funders of research for health, it is important to consider what exactly needs to be coordinated. Recent positive developments among funders include the identification of common approaches to monitoring and evaluation and sharing research data [17,18]. However, funders have been found to fall short of agreeing on a harmonized agenda for research funding [19]. This finding is worrying; in order to maximize the impact of research investments on health and health equity it is of fundamental importance that funders agree on common health research priorities, both in countries and on the global level, and act on those priorities in a coordinated manner [20-23].
Since HIROs brings together the heads of major funders of biomedical research, it appears to be particularly well suited to give rise to the major changes in health research governance that are called for by the Bamako call to action. Unfortunately, HIROs has made little information available on its goals or on how it aims to achieve increased harmonization, alignment and coordination. An internet search reveals only websites noting that a meeting has taken place, and a search on PubMed for “Heads of International Research Organisations” OR “Heads of International Research Organizations” OR “Heads of International biomedical Research Organisations” OR “Heads of International biomedical Research Organizations” OR HIRO[Title/Abstract] OR HIROs [Title/Abstract] returns no relevant results. HIROs is not the only group where funders collaborate that is sparing with information. Recently, IHP+ was criticized for its lack of transparency [24]. Individual funders have also been criticized for not being transparent enough in their operations [25].
Conclusion
An initiative like the HIROs group is most welcome in the crowded field of global health research funders. It is surely one of the few groups that could initiate discussion on aid alignment for global health research. Given the enormous potential benefits of more coordination by this group, the contents of its discussions are of great interest to the global health research community. More transparency on HIROs’ intentions for achieving increased coordination and on its current efforts towards addressing the gap between global health research needs and investments would therefore be desirable.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Eric Budgell and Robert Terry for reviewing drafts of this manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 10 January 2011 Accepted: 17 March 2011
Published: 17 March 2011
References
1. The Expert Working Group on Research and Development Financing: Research and development: coordination and financing: report of the expert working group Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
2. Commission on Health Research for Development: Health Research: Essential Link to Equity in Development New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
3. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research Relating to Future Intervention Options: Investing in Health Research and Development Geneva: World Health Organization; 1996.
4. The Advisory Committee on Health Research: A research policy agenda for science and technology to support global health development Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
5. Moran M, Guzman J, Ropars AL, McDonald A, Jameson N, Omune B, Ryan S, Wu L: Neglected disease research and development: how much are we really spending? PLoS Med 2009, 6:e30.
6. “10/90 gap”. [http://www.globalforumhealth.org/About/10-90-gap].
7. Chirac P, Torreele E: Global framework on essential health R&D. Lancet 2006, 367:1560-1561.
8. Nishtar S: Public - private ‘partnerships’ in health - a global call to action. Health Res Policy Syst 2004, 2:5.
9. The Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action. [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/63/43911948.pdf].
10. The Bamako call to action on research for health: strengthening research for health, development, and equity. [http://www.who.int/rpc/news/BAMAKOCALLTOACTIONFinalNov24.pdf].
11. Stuckler D, King L, Robinson H, McKee M: WHO’s budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis. Lancet 2008, 372:1563-1569.
12. Moran M, Guzman J, Henderson K, Abela-Oversteegen L, Wu L, Omune B, Gouglas D, Chapman N, Zmudzki F: Neglected disease research and development: Is the global financial crisis changing R&D? Policy Cures; 2011.
13. ESSENCE on Health Research (Enhancing Support for Strengthening the Effectiveness of National Capacity Efforts). [http://apps.who.int/tdr/svc/partnerships/initiatives/essence].
14. Strategy for supporting GLOBAL HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS 2006 - 2010 Irish Aid; 2007.
15. International Forum of Research Donors (IFORD). [http://www.iford.org/en/Home].
