Links to review:
http://www.cohintl.org/
http://www.cohintl.org/04participation/donate.html
http://www.cohintl.org/02projects/tz/tanzania.html
http://www.cohintl.org/04participation/newsletter_archive.html
Clinical Service Work and Women's Health Conference

One of COHI's ongoing projects is a partnership with a local women's health organization called FLEMAFA in Kisarawe, Tanzania. In a region that often lacks even the most basic health care resources, COHI provides technical training on neonatal health, HIV/AIDS, and gender-based violence to FLEMAFA's dedicated staff of women's health practitioners, along with fundraising and capacity-building support. Last summer, COHI brought a global team of women's health professionals to Kisarawe for a week of training, workshops, and service work. The week was capped off by a women's health conference that included participants from every level of Tanzania's government and health care communities.

Today, I am excited to announce our second annual COHI/FLEMAFA week of clinical service work and women's health summit, to be held August 17-24 in Kisarawe. We are planning to take a group of 10 women's health professionals to the region in order to provide basic, hands-on training on issues surrounding women's reproductive health and neonatal health care.

We also seek to raise $100,000 to support COHI's and FLEMAFA's ongoing partnership. As part of our fundraising effort, we are asking participants to pay $3500, and strongly encouraging them to raise an additional $1500. These funds will cover all in-country meals, travel, and accommodation, medical materials and equipment purchases, and COHI staff costs.

If this opportunity interests you, we encourage you to apply! Please send a CV and statement of interest to mbieber[at]cohintl.org by March 21st. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to contact me with questions, and be sure to visit here to read our 2008 Project Report and a summary of last year's trip.
http://cohintl.org/02projects/tz/tanzania.html

And of course, if this trip isn't right for you, that's okay. But we still need your support, so please make a donation here.
http://www.cohintl.org/04participation/donate.html

Yours sincerely,

Matt Bieber
COHI Tanzania Trip Coordinator
mbieber[at]cohintl.org

Circle of Health International is a 501c3 nonprofit organization supporting the empowerment of conflict- and disaster-affected women through the provision of women's health initiatives. Learn more and get involved at www.cohintl.org.

Interesting news regarding a prodigious effort by Novartis to develop new vaccines for neglected diseases. Below is the media release by the company. I wonder what people think about Pharma's role in vaccine/drug development for neglected diseases?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basel, February 22, 2008 - Novartis today announced the opening of a new research institute in Siena with a nonprofit mission to exclusively focus on the development of vaccines for diseases of the developing world. The Novartis Vaccines Institute for Global Health (NVGH) is the first institute of its kind to be set up by a major vaccine manufacturer.
The NVGH's goal is to address the unmet medical need for vaccines for diseases of the developing world by researching vaccines specifically tailored for developing country needs and introducing them first in those countries. The NVGH is a public private partnership and will also collaborate with external organizations to build strength in resources.
The institute will be headed by Allan Saul, who has nearly 30 years of experience in translational research and development. Dr. Saul joined Novartis from the laboratory of Malaria and Vector Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the US. He has a strong background in vaccines research and his translational vaccine research experience has lead to numerous candidates taken into full development and testing.
"NVGH reinforces the Novartis commitment to R&D for neglected diseases, and will potentially bring innovative vaccines to the patients who may need it most," said Dr. Daniel Vasella, Chairman and CEO of Novartis. "Novartis will continue to draw on our expertise and the skills of our associates to contribute to sustainable Corporate Citizenship initiatives."
Research activities at NVGH, which will be part of the Novartis overarching Corporate Research program, will leverage the existing Novartis Vaccines research expertise and innovative technology platforms that add significant value and speed to bringing these vaccines forward. The institute's strategic location in Siena also enables researchers to utilize the scientific know-how and experience of the existing Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics global research center there, led by Rino Rappuoli, Global Head of Vaccines Research. NVGH projects will be managed separately from the commercial vaccine research projects, with a dedicated team of management, scientists and resources.
"Novartis Vaccines is already on the cutting edge of vaccines research," said Joerg Reinhardt, CEO of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics. "And now the opening of NVGH will allow us to apply our knowledge and expertise of vaccines research to diseases that affect the developing world. This approach will enable NVGH to play a leading role in permanently reducing the burden of neglected diseases rather."
The world faces an urgent need to develop better drugs and vaccines for diseases that are largely confined to developing countries. With one-sixth of the world's population affected by neglected diseases yet the drug and vaccine pipeline for these diseases is almost dry. Currently, only about 10% of the world's medical research is devoted to conditions that account for 90% of the global disease burden.
All products discovered at NVGH will be introduced first in developing countries. While NVGH will focus on the R&D for vaccines for diseases of the developing world, the Institute will license a third party to develop and distribute the vaccines at an affordable and accessible price to the target populations.
"NVGH will aim to become a center of excellence for vaccines for neglected diseases," says Paul Herrling, Head of Corporate Research at Novartis. "Novartis has already set-up a similar research institute dedicated to neglected tropical diseases for pharmaceutical drugs, and similarly to that, accessibility to and affordability of NVGH products will be the priority, not commercial value or profit potential."
At present, NVGH is conducting the majority of research activities around conjugate vaccines for enteric diseases. Initial disease areas of focus will be Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. typhi), Salmonella paratyphi A and nontyphoidal salmonellae (NTS), which are important causes of infection and disease in children. In Africa, multidrug-resistant non-typhoidal salmonella (NTS) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and high mortality in children under 5 years of age, second in importance only to pneumococcal disease. With more than 4.5 billion cases per year, diarrheal diseases are ubiquitous around the globe.
NVGH is part of the Novartis overall commitment to corporate citizenship, and finding solutions to help close the access gap. While the fundamental aspects of healthcare provision rely on support of governments and inter-governmental agencies, Novartis plays a role whenever possible to improve patient access to our medicines.

I found a very interesting article in the Feb 8th issue of Science regarding new ways for encouraging research in academia and industry for the development of new drugs for neglected diseases. The proposal involves a large prize that would replace a patent, thus allowing access to life-saving drugs at affordable prices. The argument is that the size of the prize will determine the level of interest in research. Furthermore, another criteria which could be used to determine the size of the prize could be the number of lives saved or enhanced as a direct result of the drug/therapy. I think this is the kind of 'out-of-the-box' thinking that could yield some positive results in the long run.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAASTRICHT, THE NETHERLANDS--If the World Health Organization offered a $10 billion award for a malaria vaccine, would that persuade major pharmaceutical companies to go after the prize? Could a $100 million prize encourage development of a reliable, cheap, and fast diagnostic assay for tuberculosis? And would those monetary awards prove to be the cheapest, or fastest, way to achieve such medical innovations?

Provocative questions such as those were at the core of a 2-day workshop* here last week addressing whether prize incentives can stimulate the creation of new drugs and therapies. For some speakers, prizes offer a chance to spur medical research on neglected diseases, including those that strike people in developing nations who can afford little health care. Others took a more radical view: A national or global medical prize scheme could eliminate drug patents, stimulate drug development, and lower escalating health care costs. "A prize is a [research] incentive, the same way a monopoly is an incentive," says James Love, director of the think tank Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) in Washington, D.C.

Cosponsored by KEI and UNU-MERIT, a research and training center run jointly by United Nations University and Maastricht University, the workshop drew several dozen economists, intellectual-property specialists, public-health officials, and drug-development experts to discuss a concept that's attracting more attention. For example, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has introduced a bill, the Medical Innovation Prize Act, written with Love's help, that would replace medical patents with an estimated $80 billion annual award fund. Although the bill is unlikely to go anywhere now, Sanders hopes to get a Senate hearing this year to publicize the concept. "There is growing interest and political feasibility for trying prizes in a variety of contexts," says Stephen Merrill of the U.S. National Academies, who recently examined how the U.S. National Science Foundation could set up a prize system to stimulate innovation (Science, 26 January 2007, p. 446).
Prize contests have long been used to steer efforts toward particular discoveries or technological accomplishments, and they're becoming popular again (Science, 30 September 2005, p. 2153). One well-known early success was the British government's 18th century prize to find a way for seafarers to gauge longitude. More recently, the $10 million Ansari X Prize for a private, reusable, crewed spacecraft prompted an estimated $100 million to $400 million in space-flight research before Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne won it in 2004.

Although perhaps not as prevalent as technology competitions, medical prizes are attracting sponsors. Pierre Chirac of Médecins sans Frontières said at the meeting that his group was considering an award for the desperately needed TB diagnostic test. And in 2006, Prize4Life, a nonprofit group founded by a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), announced a $1 million prize for a biomarker that can track the fatal disease's progression--a key for any drug development. Prize4Life hopes to launch two more contests, including a $2.5 million prize for a treatment that proves effective in a common mouse model of ALS.

Such modest awards pale in comparison to the mammoth prize system Love advocates through the Sanders bill. Financed annually with 0.6% of the United States's gross domestic product--about $80 billion at the moment--the Sanders plan would give annual awards to medical innovations based on the health impact for the nation--assessed using a measurement known as quality-adjusted life years that gauges improvements in life expectancy. Instead of the government granting patents to a company, a board that would include business and patient representatives, as well as government health officials, would each year judge any new products and award their developers a share of the fund.

At the Maastricht meeting, intellectual-property specialist William Fisher III of Harvard Law School argued that prize schemes have some advantages. Patents, said Fisher, guide medical research away from vaccines, which may require at most a few doses per person but arguably have the most health impact, and toward treatments for the rich and the development of "me-too" drugs, copies of an already successful drug with just enough differences to be patentable. "Prizes can offset all three" of those biases, he says.

PhRMA, a trade group in Washington, D.C., that represents pharmaceutical and biotech firms, has strongly criticized the Sanders bill as a step toward socialized medicine. And yet it is intrigued by new incentives, if the patent system stays intact. "It's an interesting idea to add prizes for neglected diseases to the existing system," says Shelagh Kerr of PhRMA, who attended the workshop.

Prize incentives are, however, unlikely to sweep the medical research world. Philanthropic and patient groups may offer new awards, but governments may be more cautious. "We're no longer in the Longitude Prize era. We pay scientists many millions to do research," says David King, former science adviser to the U.K. government. "How do you decide how much money to award?" adds economist Aidan Hollis of the University of Calgary in Canada, noting that governments typically don't know in advance what social value a medical treatment will have.

The workshop itself offered an ironic morsel of evidence that prizes are not perfect incentives. Organizers offered a €1500 award for the best paper on using monetary prizes to stimulate private investment in medical research, but no entries have been submitted thus far. The contest has now been extended to mid-April.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
malaria based test kit
Date:
Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:48:21 +0530
From:
samir somaiya
Hi,

I was a mid-career MPA 2005. At that time, I attended a seminar on
science and technology by Calestous Juma at the Kennedy School.

During that seminar, there was a handout regarding millennium
development goals, and also regarding public health.

Among these, there was discussion on PCR kits, specially for malaria
and other such diseases. Inspired by such discussion,
after returning to India, I sponsored 2 scientists to work on the
development of a PCR kit for malaria, that is specific as well in
determining
the type of malaria. We further partnered with an educational
institution (I am a Trustee here) http://www.somaiya.edu, and we
tested the kits
on the blood samples of suspected malaria patients.

We have since conducted 200 tests, and find that the test is far
superior to the current conventional smear test. The analysis of
the results are enclosed.

Malaria is quite a problem, in Asia as well as India. Do you guys have
any ideas how we can show case this development, so that we can examine
the potential of

making and delivering these tests.

We expect each test to not cost the patient more than $10 (at least in India).

Can you guide? Can this mail go to others in this?

Sincerely

Samir Somaiya

The New York Academy of Sciences announces the New York Academy of
Sciences Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, a new effort to
recognize the most noteworthy and innovative scientists in New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut.

Made possible by the generosity of Len Blavatnik, Chairman of Access
Industries, the Blavatnik Awards will recognize the achievements of
young scientists and engineers who have contributed significantly to
interdisciplinary research. The program will recognize accomplishments
in life, physical and social sciences and engineering with a total of
six prizes of $25,000 in unrestricted funds each. They will be
distributed in the following categories of research:

* Basic: Original investigation meant to create new scientific
knowledge or to increase our scientific knowledge base. This research
does not seek to solve or treat a practical problem.

* Applied: Designed to solve a practical problem that has
specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or
services or that can be made available to humankind for practical
benefit.

* Translational: Research that applies ideas or discoveries
generated through basic scientific inquiry at the bench to the treatment
or prevention of disease or injury in the clinic.

Special multidisciplinary judging panels will decide the winners of the
awards in each category. To qualify, nominees must must have made
important contribution(s) to an interdisciplinary field of science that
significantly advanced their field of interest; have conducted this
research in New York, New Jersey, and/or Connecticut at a public or
private institution; have earned a terminal degree (PhD, MD, DDS, DVM);
and have been born on or after January 1, 1965.

Nominations, which are due to the Academy May 1, can be made by an
institution, department, individual, or self by completion of the
nomination form. Finalists will be announced in late June, and the
Blavatnik Awards will be presented at the Academy's Science & the City
Gala on November 12, 2007.

For more information about the awards, go to:
http://www.nyas.org/about/yiawards.asp.

New York Academy of Sciences has announced its plans for a new initiative, in support of the Mellennium Development Goals (MDGs), to launch an ambitious project entitled Scientist Without Borders.

For details, please see the following links:

http://app.bronto.com/public/?q=message_preview&fn=Key&type=trac...

http://www.nyas.org/programs/borders.asp

Here are the stated goals:

"To generate synergies where they often don’t exist, Scientists Without BordersSM will create a simple but powerful tool—an online database that will consolidate contacts and information about the location, goals, needs, and other attributes of research-based and capacity-building projects, as well as a list of individuals and institutions that want assistance and a roster of experts who are willing to help. In so doing, we will tackle three major under-addressed opportunities in the developing world:

1. Aligning the many capacity-building efforts that take place in close physical proximity to one another, but without meaningful contact, thus losing out on advice and assets that could enhance and/or complement activities.
2. Creating connections among scientists, organizations, and funding agencies to match needs with available resources.
3. Linking individuals with institutions or projects that would welcome their expertise."

Here is a very interesting article about the plea of US scientist to the current administration to increase research funding. Most young scientists are turning away from research to the deterimant of US innovation and discovery. This affects young scientist most severly, but business, law, and other fields are enjoying the benefits of this highly qualified talented pool of eager employees.
-----------
New report: America's scientific and medical progress threatened by flat funding for NIH

Leading US universities call for increased NIH funding to protect health, retain nation's scientists, shore up US global leadership in research

(Washington, D.C.) – Years of stagnant budgets outpaced by inflation threaten the progress of biomedical research and could thwart advances in treatments that are within reach, nine of the nation's most preeminent scientific and medical institutions told Congress today. In a new report on the status of U.S. medical research and its funding, the group explained how perennially flat funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has halted promising research in mid-stream, challenged seasoned researchers to continue to achieve scientific progress, and threatened the future of young investigators pursuing careers in academic research. And, if left unaddressed, these problems could undermine U.S. global leadership in biomedical research, the report warns.

"When scientists have to spend most of their time trying to get funded, caution wins out over cutting-edge ideas, creativity sacrifices to convention, and scientific progress gives way to meetings and grant applications," said report contributor and infectious disease expert Robert Siliciano, M.D., Ph.D., at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "Right now, very, very productive scientists are doing too little research. Instead, they are spending their time trying to get their labs funded again," he said.

The report was co-authored by The University of California, Columbia University, Harvard University, The Johns Hopkins University, Partners HealthCare, The University of Texas at Austin, Washington University in St. Louis, The University of Wisconsin Madison, and Yale University.

The group says that to fulfill the promise of previous investments by Congress the country needs to provide more consistent and robust funding of NIH. According to the report, Within Our Grasp—Or Slipping Away? Assuring a New Era of Scientific and Medical Progress, the doubling of NIH's budget between 1998 and 2003 enabled advances in basic research that transformed understanding of diseases affecting millions of Americans. But the NIH budget has been virtually frozen since 2003 and has shrunk by at least 8 percent after inflation is considered, with recent estimates up to 13 percent. Most recently, a small increase approved by Congress in the 2007 budget would be virtually wiped out by the Bush Administration's proposed 2008 budget, continuing the downward spiral in inflation-adjusted dollars. The implications are far-reaching for science, medicine, the economy and U.S. leadership in biomedical science, they add.

The 21-page report says that the country reaped a strong pay-off from previous years of robust funding of basic biomedical research, achieving progress in treating and preventing many devastating diseases and conditions. But the American public will ultimately pay the price for slowing the pace of research as scientists downsize their laboratories and abandon some of their most innovative work.

The report argues that research momentum gains have slowed, and in some cases may be lost, if flat funding continues. For example, in the fight against cancer, "The number of drugs moving into the pipeline that are based on our new, more profound genetic and molecular understanding of cancer is extraordinary—and there's no money to handle the testing of these compounds," said Joan Brugge, Ph.D., who chairs the Department of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School.

A similar situation faces the quest to cure spinal cord and brain injuries. "Ten years ago, the search for treatment of spinal cord injury was a daunting and hopeless task," said Stephen Strittmatter, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of neurology and neurobiology at Yale University's School of Medicine. Today that is changing, in part due to the discovery of NOGO, a molecule that prevents regeneration of spinal cord nerves. Scientists are investigating whether the molecule can be inhibited, allowing the spinal cord and neurons in the brain to repair themselves.

"The neurological sciences are on the launching pad of a revolution," according to Strittmatter. "We are at a juncture where we can begin identifying multiple molecular targets for the neurological diseases that have stymied us for so long. Without funding, they may go undiscovered, and we will have only weakly effective therapies."

The Threat to Future Scientific Endeavor

Despite the great push forward that accompanied the doubling of the NIH budget, subsequent flat funding has put many projects at risk. Today, eight of ten research grant applications are unfunded, according to the report. Those that are funded often require multiple submissions and suffer lapses in funding. Certain NIH institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute, report that they can only fund 11 percent of research project grant applications, rejecting many of exceptional quality.

The effects are being felt by both principal investigators and young researchers new to the field. For young researchers, the decreased funding contributes to another problem: a multi-year wait for receiving their first grant. In 1970, the average age recipient of a first grant was 34.2 years; today it is 41.7.

"Our product is not just our technology or medical breakthroughs," said Dr. Brent Iverson, Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin. "Our College of Natural Sciences alone puts 1,000 undergrads in research situations in labs, most with NIH funding. That is a catalyst for creating innovative new scientists," he added.

Consequently, senior scientists fear that young people will turn away from science because the funding situation is so bleak. Scientists report that many of the brightest young minds no longer see the promise of a career in science, choosing law, business, and other professions. Losing young scientists today will cost the U.S. a lot later, the report warns. "That will have a generational impact that will take 15 years to fix," said Richard Davidson, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In addition, scientists are increasingly having to abandon some of their most innovative and promising research in favor of more conventional projects with more predictable results that are more likely to be funded. Principal investigators also must spend enormous amounts of time fundraising and writing grants rather than conducting research.

Others are following research dollars overseas, to countries in Europe and Asia that are making investment in biomedical sciences high national priorities and actively recruiting star U.S. scientists, according to scientists interviewed for the report.

Said Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel at Columbia University Medical Center, who contributed to the report: "The scientific community is one of the driving forces of the economy. In biology, it helps drive the pharmaceutical industry, and helps people live longer in a productive way. Now, the rug has been pulled from under science in this country. We'll lose scientific manpower to European countries, and to India, China and Japan."

The funding problem is so great that the NIH's 2007 "Fiscal Policy for Grant Awards," urges decisionmakers to consider "the goal of not losing outstanding laboratories," as they allocate limited funds, says the report.

The group says that addressing the funding crisis now is imperative given the demographics of the population. "Medical treatments take decades to develop," says Harvard's Dr. Brugge. "If we wait until the baby boomers retire to find the most effective means for prevention and treatment for diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, we will break the bank."
----------------------------------

The ASM International Microbiology Education Committee (IMEC) is currently accepting applications for the following programs: *International Fellowships for Latin America*. Enable young Latin American microbiologists who have received their Masters, PhD, or equivalent degree within the last five years or who are otherwise in the process of obtaining such a degree, to work with an ASM member in North America who is permanently employed in an accredited US or Canadian institution. Up to five Fellowships granted annually. *Term*: Minimum of six weeks during 2007 *Funding*: $4,000 per Fellowship *Web Address*: http://www.asm.org/International/index.asp?bid=2778 *Deadline*: 15 October, 2006 *International Professorships for Latin America*. Enable Latin American institutions of higher learning to invite an ASM member to teach a hands-on course in the microbiological sciences. Up to five courses funded. *Funding*: $4,000 per course. *Web Address*: http://www.asm.org/International/index.asp?bid=2781 *Deadline*: 15 October, 2006 *ASM/IUSTF Indo-US Professorship in Microbiology*. Sponsored by the Indo-US Science & Technology Forum, this award enables microbiologists in India and the United States to visit institutions in the other country to teach an interactive short course (1-4 weeks) on a topic in any microbiological discipline (Teaching Professorship), or to participate in an interactive short course on a topic in any of the microbiological disciplines, or conduct a research project in partnership with colleague in a research facility in the U.S. (Research Professor). *Funding:* $4,000, with additional funding available if particular need is demonstrated. Up to eight professorships awarded per year. *Web Address*: http://www.asm.org/International/index.asp?bid=2781 *Deadline*: 15 October, 2006 To receive regular notifications of ASM’s international activities, sign up for the International Alert on the ASM web page at http://www.asm.org/subscribe.asp I urge you to forward this notification to any microbiologist who might be interested in submitting an application for one of these grants. Sincerely, Linda J. Kenney Chair, International Microbiology Education Committee

There's an interesting forum at Scidev.net for people to contribute their ideas about how the AU should fund science development in Africa. http://www.scidev.net/ms/ausummit07/?CFID=3812358=24248432 In January 2007, the African Union will hold its 8th annual summit, focusing on science, technology and innovation and organised with support from NEPAD. This autumn, a number of meetings will take place to prepare and discuss proposals including a model law to regulate biotechnology across the continent, the role of the African diaspora and a new financing facility to support African research. SciDev.Net has grouped its coverage of these issues, key documents relating to the summit, links, and an invitation to join our related discussion group.