McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, at the University Health Network and University of Toronto, MaRS Centre, South Tower, Suite 406, 101 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1L7, Canada.
BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2010 Dec 13;10 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S1. doi: 10.1186/1472-698X-10-S1-S1.
In recent years emerging markets such as India, China, and Brazil have developed appropriate business models and lower-cost technological innovations to address health challenges locally and internationally. But it is not well understood what capabilities African countries, with their high disease burden, have in science-based health innovation.This gap in knowledge is addressed by this series in BMC International Health and Human Rights. The series presents the results of extensive on-the-ground research in the form of four country case studies of health and biotechnology innovation, six studies of institutions within Africa involved in health product development, and one study of health venture funds in Africa. To the best of our knowledge it is the first extensive collection of empirical work on African science-based health innovation.The four country cases are Ghana, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The six case studies of institutions are A to Z Textiles (Tanzania), Acorn Technologies (South Africa), Bioventures venture capital fund (South Africa), the Malagasy Institute of Applied Research (IMRA; Madagascar), the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (KEMRI; Kenya), and Niprisan's development by Nigeria's National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and Development and Xechem (Nigeria).All of the examples highlight pioneering attempts to build technological capacity, create economic opportunities, and retain talent on a continent significantly affected by brain drain. They point to the practical challenges for innovators on the ground, and suggest potentially helpful policies, funding streams, and other support systems.For African nations, health innovation represents an opportunity to increase domestic capacity to solve health challenges; for international funders, it is an opportunity to move beyond foreign aid and dependency. The shared goal is creating self-sustaining innovation that has both health and development impacts. While this is a long-term strategy, this series shows the potential of African-led innovation, and indicates how it might balance realism against opportunity. There is ample scope to learn lessons more systematically from cases like those we discuss; to link entrepreneurs, scientists, funders, and policy-makers into a network to share opportunities and challenges; and ultimately to better support and stimulate African-led health innovation.
近年来,印度、中国和巴西等新兴市场开发了适宜的商业模式和低成本技术创新,以应对国内外的健康挑战。然而,人们对于疾病负担沉重的非洲国家在基于科学的卫生创新方面拥有哪些能力还不甚了解。本系列丛书发表在《BMC 国际健康与人权》杂志上,旨在填补这一知识空白。该系列丛书以四个国家的卫生和生物技术创新案例研究、六个参与卫生产品开发的非洲机构研究以及一个非洲卫生风险投资基金研究的形式呈现了广泛的实地研究成果。据我们所知,这是首次对非洲基于科学的卫生创新进行广泛的实证研究。这四个国家案例分别是加纳、卢旺达、坦桑尼亚和乌干达。六个机构案例研究分别是坦桑尼亚的 A 到 Z 纺织品公司、南非的 Acorn 技术公司、南非的 Bioventures 风险投资基金、马达加斯加应用研究协会(IMRA)、肯尼亚的肯尼亚医学研究所(KEMRI)和尼日利亚的国家制药研究与开发研究所和 Xechem 共同开发的 Niprisan。所有这些例子都突出了在一个深受人才流失影响的大陆上,建立技术能力、创造经济机会和留住人才的开创性尝试。它们指出了创新者在实践中面临的挑战,并提出了潜在的有益政策、资金来源和其他支持系统。对于非洲国家来说,卫生创新代表着提高国内解决卫生挑战能力的机会;对于国际资助者来说,这是超越对外援助和依赖的机会。共同的目标是创造具有健康和发展影响力的可持续创新。虽然这是一个长期战略,但本系列丛书展示了非洲主导的创新的潜力,并表明它如何在现实与机会之间取得平衡。我们有充分的机会从我们所讨论的案例中更系统地吸取经验教训;将企业家、科学家、资助者和政策制定者联系起来,形成一个网络,共同分享机会和挑战;最终更好地支持和激发非洲主导的卫生创新。