Interesting work, and some smart/decisive decision-making in terms of methodology. There is a trade-off in the effort required to map and data mine funding streams exhaustively, and what you have done makes a lot of sense.
Have you considered spot comparisons of the data included here against existing R&D funding repositories like Policy Cures Research's G-FINDER or NIH World RePORT? (disclosure that I used to work at PCR). For purely product-related R&D expenditure, I think, it supports your approach in that there are only a few funders not already identified in your dataset (Fundació La Caixa and Michael & Susan Dell Foundation of note). I do think there is less meaning in trying to reconcile funding estimates, and more important in identifying the relationships and approximate/relative quantum of funding.
An additional lens of analysis would be to try to map philanthropic biosecurity recipients and sources/magnitude of funding towards these organizations - illustrating to potential funders where resources might be allocated in the philanthropic biosecurity space.
The existing and current efforts are substantial, no doubt, but in a relative sense, AMR is neglected. Relative to the global burden of disease and expenditure on R&D, or relative to the projected costs of mitigation.
I think that the proposal identifies some interesting potential areas of work. A couple of unsolicited thoughts:
In addition to developing generalized plans and associated SOPs, it may be important in phase I to develop assessment tools to identify gaps, and map the existing industry and FDA minimum standards and practices (I think this is referred to within the theory of change)
Globally-relevant partner stakeholders that immediately come to mind are IFPMA and PhRMA
Finding opportunities to improve FDA regulatory avenues is another downstream piece of work
Is the scope of work, at least initially, focused on US and European pharmaceutical infrastructure?
Interesting work, and some smart/decisive decision-making in terms of methodology. There is a trade-off in the effort required to map and data mine funding streams exhaustively, and what you have done makes a lot of sense.
Have you considered spot comparisons of the data included here against existing R&D funding repositories like Policy Cures Research's G-FINDER or NIH World RePORT? (disclosure that I used to work at PCR). For purely product-related R&D expenditure, I think, it supports your approach in that there are only a few funders not already identified in your dataset (Fundació La Caixa and Michael & Susan Dell Foundation of note). I do think there is less meaning in trying to reconcile funding estimates, and more important in identifying the relationships and approximate/relative quantum of funding.
An additional lens of analysis would be to try to map philanthropic biosecurity recipients and sources/magnitude of funding towards these organizations - illustrating to potential funders where resources might be allocated in the philanthropic biosecurity space.
FWIW, the WH after some delay put out a policy position on the Ugandan legislation, with specific language around PEPFAR.
The existing and current efforts are substantial, no doubt, but in a relative sense, AMR is neglected. Relative to the global burden of disease and expenditure on R&D, or relative to the projected costs of mitigation.
I think that the proposal identifies some interesting potential areas of work. A couple of unsolicited thoughts: