Arguing for a disease's share of a research programme
A disease community can argue for research funding through programme allocations, policy commitments, estimates of research spending, and proposals for coordinating research. The European diabetes alliance EURADIA's 2012 case for Horizon 2020 illustrates these parts of a funding argument.
Programme allocations
In 2012, EURADIA was awaiting legislation for Horizon 2020, expected by the end of 2013, and working with the European Commission to secure adequate diabetes research funding. The planned programme ran from 2014 to 2020 with an €80 billion budget and implemented the Innovation Union's goals of European competitiveness, growth and jobs. Its Excellent Science – Research Infrastructure and Societal Challenges – Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing pillars addressed infrastructure and funding for chronic non-communicable disease research. Academic institutions and advocacy groups, including EURADIA, contributed position statements to its development.
The preceding Seventh Framework Programme provided €55 billion for science and research in 2007–2013; Horizon 2020 increased the total to €80 billion, but health research's proportional allocation fell from 12% to 10%. The Alliance for Biomedical Research in Europe campaigned for 20%, aiming to speed translation of basic discoveries into healthcare delivery.
Policy commitments and research spending
EURADIA urged that healthcare research allocations reflect chronic disease burden and population ageing, in line with the Commission's stated priority for research contributing to chronic disease prevention and treatment. In March 2012, the European Coalition for Diabetes, of which EURADIA was a founding member, drafted a European Parliament resolution calling for a targeted EU diabetes strategy, through an EU Council recommendation, covering prevention, diagnosis, management, education and research.
EURADIA brought together non-governmental organisations and pharmaceutical companies to promote European diabetes research funding through advocacy and communication. Its Commission-funded DIAMAP project estimated diabetes research spending in 2008 at €0.5 billion. The alliance argued that without greater investment in research to improve diabetes prevention and care, care costs would continue to rise with population ageing and increasing comorbidity, including heart disease, stroke, blindness, amputation and kidney failure.
Coordination and sustained funding
The Alliance for Biomedical Research in Europe proposed a European Council for Health Research, loosely modelled on the US National Institutes of Health, to provide coordination, common resources and science policy; EURADIA supported the proposal. Its intended benefits were greater European scientific competitiveness and excellence, and better health and quality of life for EU citizens.
EURADIA argued that Europe's loss of clinical research excellence partly reflected limited training and professional opportunities, while unequal access to clinical studies deprived citizens of opportunities to improve their health. It proposed disease-focused clinical research infrastructure under the council, including a European Platform for Clinical Research in Diabetes to share resources, training and standardised protocols. The diabetes platform was under consultation in 2012.
The alliance called for longer-term funding instruments, arguing that unsustained funding under the preceding programme had reduced research returns and showed a need for long-term scientific planning and policy. It proposed extending the research-road-map approach from DIAMAP for diabetes, FUTURAGE for ageing and ROAMER for mental health to the whole health research field. These road maps would give the proposed council a basis for coordination and the Commission a benchmark for measuring subsequent developments.