Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42729360›Full record

ArticleMinerva2026

The World Health Organization and the Struggle to Coordinate Global Health Research.

George Weisz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Minerva, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

George WeiszCotton-Hannah Chair in the History of Medicine, Department of Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4158-4685

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of its mandate as the normative authority over Global Health, the World Health Organization is responsible for research to improves health worldwide. Since the 1970s, the organization has sought to find ways to promote scientific collaboration and coordination among actors who fund and do research. It has been hampered in this task by its own institutional weaknesses, fragmentation of the huge medical research field and, since the 1990s, the appearance of major funders like the World Bank and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with far greater resources and different understandings of coordination and research priorities. With each passing decade, research has become increasingly visible and central to global health activity, bringing with it pressure to expand research funding and impose greater order and direction on the Global Health research enterprise. Such pressures come from different directions, including large donors like national research agencies in the US and UK and private philanthropies like the Gates Foundation, who defend donor autonomy, as well as organizations and advocacy groups advocating for legally binding international regulations and public funding of research. Such divisions led from 2012 to 2016 to a failed effort to create an international research funding mechanism independent of the patent system. More recently, they have led to negotiations for a binding Pandemic Treaty, one of whose main goals is equitable access to the products of global health research.

Indexed as

Bill and Melinda Gates FoundationGlobal Health researchPandemic treatyPharmaceutical product developmentProduct development partnershipsWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID42729360
PMCPMC13562118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.