Saturday, September 20, 2025

 

At least one more governmental seat for Africa: stronger voice, better health


It is time to increase Africa’s governmental representation on the governing board of the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria.



University of the Witwatersrand






Health funders would likely have a better return on investment and a stronger position in the global funding crisis if Africans had greater decision-making influence and voting power in global health institutions.

This is an assertion in an article published on 15 September 2025 in the prestigious BMJ Global Health journal.

Africa carries the burden, but not the votes or the power

Currently, Africa receives 71% of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GTAFM) funds, yet holds only 10% of voting seats on the institution’s governing board.

One additional government voting seat would not only align with global norms and declarations but also strengthen African health policy, accountability, aid effectiveness, and sustainability, through increased participation in decision-making that is of direct concern to their health systems.

“Funding decisions largely affect Africans, and yet their voices are systematically minimised. Beyond having greater representation on the GTAFM Board, we are advocating for a complete shift in the global health institutional architecture,” says Robyn Hayes-Badenhorst, Founder and Co-Executive Director of Supporting Health Initiatives (SHI) at Wits University, and co-author of the article.

This rebalanced global health environment is of critical importance, notably as the GFATM confirmed in July that it is cutting US$1.43 billion in funding already allocated for its current funding cycle. This followed uncertainty and upheaval as the US froze funding and then dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID). More recently, Germany announced plans to reduce its funding for global health aid further. Indeed, GFATM will receive US$117 million less over the coming years.

A crisis moment opens the door for reform

“While these funding cuts happened far too quickly and harshly, it is an opportunity for radical reform in the global health institutional system. If we start doing this by adding at least one governmental voting seat on the GFATM board, we can begin to push for better strategic investments for the promotion of self-reliance, which would meaningfully enhance long-term health and well-being for the most vulnerable,” says Professor Garrett Wallace Brown from the University of Leeds, who led the SHI research.

Sustainable domestic financing is the way out from external financial dependency. However, domestic financing is inextricably linked to the global health architecture and governance. Only purposeful reforms toward balanced decision-making will bring about the change that is not only needed but overdue, says Magda Robalo, who supports the Africa Health Sovereignty agenda initiated by the President of Ghana and was until recently at the helm of the Ethics and Governance Committee of the Global Fund.

Will at least one more seat make a difference?

Hayes-Badenhorst acknowledges that at least one additional seat may not seem a substantial change, but it is part of the urgent movement to build Africa’s self-reliance in healthcare. “This is long overdue. Since 2005, there has been a call for more inclusive governance. When Africa has health security, so does the rest of the world.”

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the Lusaka Agenda, past G20 commitments, and the Accra Declaration on Universal Health Coverage are signals of the need for meaningful African representation, decision-making, and ownership.

Africa’s two voting seats (one for Eastern and Southern Africa, and the other for Western and Central Africa) cover 47 countries with vastly different health challenges. At least one additional seat will reduce the existing seats being overwhelmed and allow for more focused, responsive and meaningful participation, beyond tokenism. “Incremental change matters in governance bodies,” says Dr Lieve Fransen, who was GFATM’s founding chair and Board vice-chair.

The BMJ Global Health article complements a larger report coordinated by SHI at Wits University, titled Increasing African Government Membership on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This report provides compelling empirical evidence that better representation enhances ownership, contextualisation, and sustainability. “These are all critical for aid effectiveness,” said Fransen.

Domestic commitments must be met

Part of the radical reform needed in global health is Africa’s commitment to increase domestic obligations to meet its Abuja Declaration target of allocating 15% of the national budget to health. Currently, only three African countries consistently meet their targets. Increased domestic financing unlocks co-financing incentives with large donors. However, Africa needs to be supported in bolstering its technical, administrative, and leadership capacities, which are currently hindered by power imbalances. Only 57% of GFATM financing flows through public systems, which hinders capacity building and the strengthening of health systems.

“Donors will expect accountability and efficiency, and Africa-first initiatives will do this. Greater African board representation has, however, been shut down. We know that board reforms will future proof the GFATM,” says Brown.

A timely moment for reform

The BMJGH article and corresponding Report are timely and strategic. They have been released just before the G20 meeting in South Africa, where global leaders will be discussing commitments to inclusive governance and resilient health systems.

“We need a strong voice at the G20 and other high-profile gatherings to advocate for an extra governmental seat. This would further lay the ground for equitable, resilient, and sustainable health systems to improve health globally. Moreover, enhanced representation will empower African governments to share health policies that reflect local realities, improve programme sustainability and reduce reliance on external actors,” says Hayes-Badenhorst.

 

Analysis challenges conventional wisdom about partisan support for US science funding



Summary author: Walter Beckwith




American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)






In the United States, Republican control of the House or presidency has often coincided with higher federal science appropriations, say Alexandar Furnas and colleagues in a Policy Forum. They base their findings – which challenge the conventional wisdom about partisan support for science – on an analysis of decades of U.S. science- and research-related appropriations data. “Overall, our findings highlight the complexity of the relationship between political control and federal science funding,” write the authors. “[The analysis] underscores the importance of framing science funding as a bipartisan priority that advances shared societal goals, while also calling for vigilance to protect science from political interference.” The United States government – the world’s largest research funder – plays a pivotal role in advancing scientific research and technological innovation worldwide. Even so, the connection between partisan control of the U.S. government and science funding has remained murky. This oversight is made more consequential in today’s polarized climate. To address this, Furnas et al. analyzed a detailed dataset of federal appropriations to science-related accounts from 1980 to 2020. Unlike prior studies that focus primarily on grantmaking, the analysis leverages a hand-collected database of 171 appropriations accounts across 27 federal agencies associated with science or research activity, encompassing the full range of science- and research-related expenditures authorized through the annual appropriations process. These accounts include not only grants to universities and external researchers but also contracts with private firms and in-house research conducted by federal agencies.

 

The findings show that federal science funding is far more complex than often assumed, with grants constituting only a small fraction of total appropriations. According to the authors, much of the money flows instead to private firms through contracts or to in-house agency research, highlighting the need to look beyond grantmaking to understand the full scope of federal investment. Notably, Furnas et al. also found that, contrary to the common perception that Republicans are hostile to science, Republican control of the House or presidency has often coincided with higher levels of science appropriations across multiple agencies, often averaging hundreds of millions more per account compared with Democratic control. Importantly, the authors show that, while the scale of funding fluctuates with partisan power, the distribution of grants across scientific fields remains largely stable. However, according to Furnas et al., given growing polarization and declining trust in science among some Republican policymakers, past patterns of support are no guarantee of what lies ahead.

Public confidence in U.S. health agencies slides, fueled by declines among Democrats


Most lack confidence RFK Jr. can be trusted on health, Republicans more confident than Democrats


Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Confidence in Custodians of Public Health 

image: 

ASAPH Survey April 2021 - August 2025

view more 

Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center





Public confidence in the trustworthiness of U.S. health and science agencies has dropped across the board since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, driven by sharp declines among Democrats, according to a new survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania.

The survey, conducted Aug. 5-18, 2025, among a nationally representative sample of nearly 1,700 U.S. adults, finds that members of the public have the greatest confidence on health matters in their own primary health care providers, as they have in the past.

Most Americans lack confidence that Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is providing the public with trustworthy information on matters concerning public health. Just 39% have confidence RFK Jr. is providing trustworthy public health information. By contrast, the public has more confidence (57%) in Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden, even after years of attacks by right-wing critics over his leadership of the U.S. response to the Covid-19 pandemic. [Download the topline.]

Falling confidence in health agencies

The survey finds a broad drop in confidence in U.S. agencies that have historically served as “custodians of knowledge,” in the words of APPC director Kathleen Hall Jamieson, including institutions such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which have helped to explain to the public “what science knows and how it knows it.”

“Although confidence in these agencies remains comparatively high, any drop in confidence, whether warranted or not – during a time when individuals need to make consequential health decisions – is worrisome,” Jamieson said.

The Annenberg survey asked respondents how confident, if at all, they are that the following are “providing the public with trustworthy information about matters concerning public health”:

  • CDC: 64% confident, down from 72% in September 2024. Over a third of respondents (36%) are unconfident (combined “not at all” and “not too” confident), up from 28% in September 2024.
  • FDA: 63% confident, a 10-point drop from 73% in September 2024. Over a third of respondents (37%) are unconfident, a 10-point rise from September 2024 (27%).   
  • NIH: 62% confident, a drop from 68% in April this year, and a 12-point drop from 74% in September 2024. The survey finds 38% are unconfident, growing from 32% in April this year and 26% in September 2024.

People had the greatest confidence (86%) in their own “doctor, nurse, or other primary health care provider,” which was statistically unchanged since June 2023. 

The survey also asked respondents how confident, if at all, they are that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are “providing the public with trustworthy information about matters concerning the effects of climate change on public health.” Confidence in both also has declined significantly:

  • NASA: 65% confident, down from 77% in July 2024. Over a third (35%) are unconfident, up from 23% in July 2024.
  • EPA: 57% confident, down from 70% in July 2024, while 43% are unconfident, up from 30% in July 2024.

Declining confidence of Democrats

Annenberg surveys from mid-2023 to August 2025 show that the confidence of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the trustworthiness of all of these institutions on matters of public health has declined since Trump’s inauguration.

The decline in confidence among Democrats comes amid persistent attacks by leaders in the Republican administration about the competence and integrity of the health agencies. Last year, before becoming HHS Secretary, RFK Jr. called the CDC “a cesspool of corruption,” and he recently testified before Congress about the CDC: “The agency is in trouble and we need to fix it…” In June 2025, Kennedy ousted all the 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, accusing them of conflicts of interest and saying, “A clean sweep is necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.”

In an earlier period, from April 2021 to January 2023, Annenberg surveys asked whether the public thought that these institutions were providing the public with trustworthy information about the means of preventing and treating Covid-19, rather than public health matters. While in that earlier period, Republican confidence in the CDC and FDA regarding Covid-19 was declining, now it has risen slightly regarding matters of public health. Republicans’ and Republican-leaning independents’ confidence in the CDC and FDA increased significantly since Trump’s inauguration, but those increases are relatively small – they are just a quarter of the Democrats’ and Democrat-leaning independents’ decreases in confidence in those agencies.

RFK Jr. and Anthony Fauci

Over a third of Americans (39%) have confidence that Kennedy is providing the public with trustworthy information regarding public health, while most of the public (60%) lacks confidence in him, according to the survey. Only 10% are “very confident” in Kennedy, while 37% have no confidence (“not at all confident”) in him.

Confidence in Fauci is 20 points higher: over half of the public (57%) has confidence in former NIAID director Fauci, vs. 43% who are unconfident. Confidence in Fauci, who stepped down from his NIAID post at the end of 2022, is statistically unchanged since October 2023.

An analysis by party, looking at support for RFK Jr. and Fauci, finds that Republican (and Republican-leaners’) support for RFK Jr. is lower than Democratic (and Democrat-leaners’) support for Fauci. Independents are the only group with a significant change this year, increasing their support slightly for RFK Jr.

Annenberg Science and Public Health survey

The survey data come from the 25th wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,699 U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. Most have been empaneled since April 2021. To account for attrition, replenishment samples have been added over time using a random probability sampling design. The most recent replenishment, in September 2024, added 360 respondents to the sample. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey was fielded August 5-18, 2025. The margin of sampling error (MOE) is ± 3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.

Download the topline and the methods report.

The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for four years. In addition to Jamieson, APPC’s ASAPH survey team includes research analyst Laura A. Gibson; Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute; and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research.

See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.



 

Study by IU researchers highlights challenges and gaps in identifying patients’ social needs




A new study examined how accurate healthcare settings are measuring food insecurity, housing instability, financial strain, transportation barriers and legal issues.




Indiana University






A new study from researchers at the Fairbanks School of Public Health examined how accurate healthcare settings are measuring food insecurity, housing instability, financial strain, transportation barriers and legal issues.

The study, led by researchers at the Fairbanks School and Regenstrief Institute, found that simple screening questionnaires performed better than advanced machine learning methods. But no single method was perfect, and each had gaps.

The research team evaluated four approaches: electronic health record screening questionnaires, natural language processing of clinical notes, rule-based algorithms and machine learning models. Questionnaires were most effective at identifying food insecurity, transportation barriers and legal needs, but all methods struggled with financial strain.

“Health systems increasingly recognize that social factors are as important to health as medical care, but it’s not always clear how to identify patients with those needs in routine practice,” said Joshua Vest, PhD, professor of health policy and management at the Fairbanks School, a research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute and lead author of the study. “Our study shows that while questionnaires are a strong starting point, we cannot rely on any single method to capture the full range of patients’ social needs.”

The study also revealed unfairness in how well each method worked across age, race and gender groups. For example, some tools were more likely to miss needs among Hispanic patients and older adults.

“We should be very mindful that the tools we use to identify social needs don’t inadvertently widen healthcare inequities,” said Christopher Harle, PhD, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Fairbanks School of Public Health, chief information officer at the Regenstrief Institute and an author of the study. “This work highlights both the promise and the limits of data-driven approaches, and the importance of combining them with human-centered engagement.”

The authors said the findings underscore the need for health systems to use a mix of approaches to better understand patients’ circumstances and connect them with resources. By combining data-driven tools with direct patient engagement, providers can more effectively address the social factors that influence health outcomes.

The study, “Performance of 4 Methods to Assess Health-Related Social Needs,” was published in August in JAMA Network Open.

Gender, language and income biases limit contributions to scientific, English-language journals




Women from lower-income countries with non-English first languages publish 70% less, but including non-English journals flips the script




PLOS

Gender, language and income biases limit contributions to scientific, English-language journals 

image: 

Scientific productivity gap based on English-language peer-reviewed papers. Shown are the maximum % differences in the number of peer-reviewed papers published by female native English speakers from a high-income country (-45%), female non-native English speakers from a high-income country (-60%), and female non-native English speakers from a lower-middle income country (-70%), compared to male native English speakers from a high-income country (red flag).

view more 

Credit: Tatsuya Amano (CC-BY 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)






Women, non-native English speakers and those from lower-income countries published fewer English-language peer-reviewed papers than men, native English speakers and those from higher-income countries, according to a study published September 18th in the open-access journal PLOS Biology by Tatsuya Amano from The University of Queensland, Australia, and colleagues.

UNESCO posits that “all scientists … have equal opportunity to access, contribute to and benefit from science, regardless of origin or circumstance.” However, research reports rampant inequities; for example, women are less likely to hold a tenured position, scientists from lower-income countries are less funded than their higher-income counterparts and non-native English speakers experience language-related rejection up to 2.6 times more often than native English speakers. While science undoubtedly benefits from diverse people, ideas and approaches, few studies have assessed how gender, language and income affect scientific productivity.

To quantify barriers faced by scientists identifying as women, non-native English speakers and those from low-income countries, Amano surveyed 908 environmental scientists at varying career stages across eight nationalities: Bangladeshi, Bolivian, British, Japanese, Nepali, Nigerian, Spanish, and Ukrainian. Amano measured each scientist’s productivity, defined as their total number of English and non-English publications.

Results revealed that women — especially early-career women — published 45% fewer English-language papers than men. Women with non-English first languages published 60% fewer papers, and women with non-English first languages from low-income countries published 70% fewer, compared to men with English as the first language from high-income countries.

When the researchers factored in English and non-English scientific publications, they noticed the proportions change. Non-native English speakers at early to mid-career stages published more peer-reviewed papers than native English speakers. Additionally, scientists from lower-income countries published more papers than those from higher-income countries. Even with English and non-English papers combined, women still published fewer articles than men.

The researchers write that these statistics could be erroneously used to position women, non-native English speakers and those from low-income countries as less scientifically productive. They call for an explicit effort to consider gender, income and native language and support incorporating non-English-language publications when assessing scientists’ performance.

The authors add, “This study highlights how language, economic status, and gender combine to create a significant and often overlooked productivity gap in science, especially when measured by English-language publications. We believe that this gap is not a true reflection of individual productivity. Rather, as a growing body of evidence shows, it stems from systemic barriers that continue to limit fair participation and full contribution to science by historically and currently underrepresented groups.”

 

In your coverage, please use this URL to provide access to the freely available paper in PLOS Biologyhttps://plos.io/4mJfCGw

Citation: Amano T, Ramírez-Castañeda V, Berdejo-Espinola V, Borokini I, Chowdhury S, Golivets M, et al. (2025) Language, economic and gender disparities widen the scientific productivity gap. PLoS Biol 23(8): e3003372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003372

Author countries: Australia, United States, Germany, Colombia, Nepal, United Kingdom

Funding: This work was supported by the following grants: Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT180100354 (TA, V.B.-E.), Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP230101734 (TA, V.B.-E.), University of Queensland strategic funding (TA), and German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816) (SC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.