Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Differing priorities for medical research funding
  1. M A Patton
  1. Correspondence to:
    Prof. M A Patton
    Department of Medical Genetics, St George’s Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 0RE, UK; mpattonsghms.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on the paper by Hawkins and Law (see page 1107)

Advocacy can be a powerful force for change and those who work with children are the best advocates for the next generation. Drs Hawkins and Law have surveyed the pattern of research funding available for child and family health and have looked to see how this correlates with the government priorities for children set in the National Service Framework for Children and other government policy documents.1 Using a web based search of funding organisations they have found that the overall proportion of funding devoted to children is approximately 3%, and even lower proportions of funding are devoted to government priorities such as health inequality and adolescent services. By comparison the National Institutes for Health in the United States devotes about 11–12% of its budget to paediatrics.2

Children are not small adults. The research on adults will not necessarily be applicable to children. For example, they will have a different range of diseases and children have …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: the author is Medical Director of Birth Defects Foundation UK

Linked Articles