Brokering the boundary between science and advocacy: the case of intermittent preventive treatment among infants.

The process of translating research into policy has gained considerable attention in recent years and a number of studies have investigated the nexus between the two 'worlds' of research and policy. One issue that has been little addressed is about the boundaries between research and advocacy: how far scientists do, or should, promote particular findings to policy makers and others. This article analyses a particular intervention in malaria control and the Consortium set up to accelerate its potential implementation. Using a framework that emphasizes the interplay of interests, institutions and ideas, it provides an example of how a network of committed researchers and funders attempted to follow a rational policy process, but faced conflicts and fundamental questions about their roles in generating scientific evidence and influencing global health policy. In an era of ever more and larger researcher groups and consortia, the findings offer insights and lessons to those engaged in the process of knowledge translation.

Improving the health of the global poor.

We analyzed the technical basis for a major global program to reduce disease among the poor. Effective interventions exist against the few diseases which most account for excess mortality among the poor. Achieving high coverage of effective interventions requires a well-functioning health system, as well as overcoming a set of financial and nonfinancial constraints. The annual incremental cost would be between $40 billion and $52 billion by 2015 in 83 low-income and sub-Saharan African countries. Such a program is feasible and would avoid millions of child, maternal, and adult deaths annually in poor countries.