Only a handful of UK universities are deeply involved in the fight to improve global health, according to a new array of ranking published yesterday in the UK Houses of Parliament. The idea behind the list, which follows a similar ranking for the US and Canadian universities and another for pharmaceutical companies-is to encourage spending global health research and increase the pressure on latecomers to intensify their efforts.
Oxford University came out on top of the table, followed by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), Imperial College London, University College London, and the University of Liverpool. These five account for 74% of global health research spending in the UK and 78% of spending on neglected tropical diseases, as classified. Of the 20 others listed in the table, eight are classified with a grade of D; only six received a B or above. The University of Cambridge, who shared the No. 2 spot in a ranking of the best universities in the world last year, is 15th on the list with a C-minus rating.
The list received applause from Harvard University Paul Farmer, co-founder of Partners in Health, a research group and aid from the United States. The table helps "illuminate the effects of academic biomedical research on the health of the world's poor, and maintain institutions responsible for the impact or lack of impact that their global health policy," Farmer said in a statement yesterday
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) and Medsin UK, which produced all the table used two key criteria. "innovation" for example, what proportion of research funding is used for neglected diseases and how many papers focus on low- and middle-income and "Access" which gauges how universities do much to make the fruits of their widely available research. "despite most research funds from government subsidies, drugs developed in universities may be priced out of reach of patients in the developing world," Dzintars said Gotham UAEM a statement yesterday.
Deputy Director LSHTM and Provost Anne Mills says she is "satisfied" about the second of his institute. "I think we are a school of global and public health," she said. But Mills said that the methodology of the classification system has limitations. It is partly based on the information and publicly accessible websites, for example, which, according to Mills helps explain why LSHTM only scored a B minus on "access." "not that we do not make our findings available, it is that we do not have statements about our website, "she said.
0 Komentar