Should research in communicable disease be collaborative?

In: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/14134

Open Access

Abstract

Collaboration occurs in many fields and is used as a 'buzz word' that can contextually mean different things. Research collaboration occurs primarily in the form of 'researchers working together on a common research problem or activity' (Rand, 1998: 11). Collaborative research continues to be an increasing phenomenon and there are higher levels of collaboration in the area of health and basic research. Research into communicable diseases is important because they are the second leading cause of death worldwide and have global impact. HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis (TB) and malaria are the 'killer three' communicable diseases, together resulting in about 6 million deaths each year. Without further research these figures are likely to continue to increase. Identifying 'best practice' for research in this area is also important if Millennium Development Goal 6 'to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases' is to be met. Research in communicable disease can be conducted either collaboratively, such as with joint resources or shared data, or non-collaboratively. As such, evaluating the nature and outcomes of research collaboration, and the form in which research is conducted in communicable disease, is important. This study identifies seven benefits and five costs of formal research collaboration . Benefits include to (1) increase access to data, knowledge and resources; (2) increase understanding of research problems; (3) enable access to facilities, equipment and laboratories; (4) enable flow of knowledge between researchers; (5) prevent duplication ; (6) strengthen research capacity, especially relevant with vertical collaboration such as between developed and developing countries; and (7) increase access to funding. Costs identified include (1) additional expenses; (2) additional time costs; (3) additional administration costs; (4) potentially unbalanced roles; and (5) priority diversion. Evaluation of whether research should be collaborative should be based on objectives of the research project. These objectives for research in HIV/AIDS , TB and malaria are broadly broken down into six areas including: to develop effective drugs, to develop vaccines, to increase understanding of the disease, to improve diagnostics, to establish surveillance, and to create new and innovative technologies. The scale and scope of these research problems and objectives is so vast that it can motivate research collaboration. An analysis of five case studies of research collaboration in HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria research, primarily funded through the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) demonstrates the benefits of research collaboration. Each illustrates that collaboration can result in increased access to knowledge and data. The BioMalPar project for example held conferences on an annual basis to facilitate access to knowledge and data to meet its objectives successfully. The CASCADE collaborative project, a consortium between 11 European countries, Canada and Australia, was able to conduct research that would be impossible without such levels of involvement. This demonstrates that collaboration can effectively address issues that cannot be reliably addressed by individual studies or non-collaborative projects alone. However an unforeseen cost of collaboration emerges: that collaboration does not necessarily result in a quicker completion of projects. The European Union's Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technology Development (FP6) has allocated substantial funding for collaborative research projects in areas such as communicable disease. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and United States National institutes of Health (NIH) have also more than doubled funding for research in HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria within the past ten years. Although not directly funding research, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) also provides incentive for research in these diseases through its purchasing power. Despite this, the '90-10 gap', whereby 90 percent of the world's funding for health research is spent on 10 percent of the world's health problems, continues to prevail. To address this gap, funding needs to be allocated to 'best practice' methods of research. Vast amounts of funds are dedicated to research in the form of collaborative activities, without necessarily defining what level and types of activities these entail. Funding structures and levels also differ substantially between countries, institutions and Public-Private Partnerships and are commonly unspecified and complex. In this regard, collaborative research often receives vast amounts of funding without necessarily having structures in place to evaluate the projects, the effects, results or benefits of the collaboration. This is evident for example with Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) collaborative grants. The immense number of institutions, organisations and trusts involved in promoting research in this area makes it difficult to systematise information regarding research collaboration. In general, there are scientific, economic, and political benefits to be gained through international research collaboration, including additional access to resources, knowledge, establishing greater research capacity, and enabling nations to pool funds in order to address issues of global concern. Communicable disease such as HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria are certainly diseases of global concern, which is why a more structured or systematic approach to identify levels and types of collaboration in these diseases would be beneficial. Direct and indirect benefits of research collaboration also exist which indicate that there are several important advantages of research collaboration. Ultimately however, in order to assess whether projects should be collaborative, the costs and benefits of collaboration should be evaluated. importantly, the research objectives of a particular project should be taken into account. On the basis of this study it is concluded that research into communicable disease such as HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and not be exclusively collaborative. Recommendations: • The costs and benefits of collaboration and the research objectives of a project should be taken into account when determining if research should be conducted collaboratively. • Funding organisations and bodies should have a structured approach to policies regarding international collaboration and clarify what kinds of collaborations are funded, and the reasons as to why projects are collaborative. • There needs to be more research conducted in this area that includes both qualitative and quantitative analysis which assesses if collaboration produces improved results.