Year Published
- 2008 (0)
- 2009 (1) Apply 2009 filter
- 2010 (9) Apply 2010 filter
- 2011 (5) Apply 2011 filter
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- 2013 (5) Apply 2013 filter
- 2014 (3) Apply 2014 filter
- 2015 (1) Apply 2015 filter
- 2016 (2) Apply 2016 filter
- (-) Remove 2017 filter 2017
- 2018 (1) Apply 2018 filter
- 2019 (0)
- 2020 (0)
- 2021 (0)
Research Topics
Populations
- Countries/Governments (0)
- Rural Populations (0)
- Smallholder Farmers (0)
- Women (0)
Types of Research
- Data Analysis (1) Apply Data Analysis filter
- (-) Remove Literature Review filter Literature Review
- Portfolio Review (0)
- Research Brief (0)
Geography
- East Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Global (1) Apply Global filter
- South Asia Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Southern Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
- Sub-Saharan Africa (0)
- West Africa Region and Selected Countries (0)
Dataset
- ASTI (0)
- FAOSTAT (0)
- Farmer First (0)
- LSMS & LSMS-ISA (0)
- Other Datasets (0)
Current search
- (-) Remove Environment & Climate Change filter Environment & Climate Change
- (-) Remove 2012 filter 2012
- (-) Remove Literature Review filter Literature Review
- (-) Remove Technology filter Technology
- (-) Remove Research & Development filter Research & Development
- (-) Remove 2017 filter 2017
The share of private sector funding, relative to public sector funding, for drug, vaccine, and diagnostic research & development (R&D) differs considerably across diseases. Private sector investment in overall health R&D exceeds $150 billion annually, but is largely concentrated on non-communicable chronic diseases with only an estimated $5.9 billion focused on "global health", targeting diseases that primarily affect low and middle-income countries (LMICs). We examine the evidence for five specific disincentives to private sector global health R&D investment: scientific uncertainty, weak policy environments, limited revenues and market uncertainty, high fixed and sunk costs, and downstream rents from imperfect markets. Though all five may affect estimates of net returns from an investment decision, they are worth examining separately as each calls for a different intervention or remediation to change behavior.
This report investigates the potential environmental and socio-economic benefits and costs of glyphosate resistant cassava. Glyphosate resistant crops (also referred to as glyphosate tolerant) have been rapidly adopted by a number of crop producers because they simplify and/or reduce the cost of weed management. Glyphosate resistant crops also provide external environmental benefits by promoting reduced tillage agriculture, decreasing erosion and increasing soil health. However, glyphosate resistant crops also have some environmental costs, potentially leading to increased use of herbicides and environmental contamination. Because transgenic glyphosate resistant cassava is not currently in use, literature on its potential environmental and socioeconomic costs and benefits is limited. Therefore, this report draws on the literature for glyphosate resistant crops that are in current use, including maize, soybeans, sugar beets and canola (rapeseed). We find that socioeconomic and environmental impacts of glyphosate resistant crops differ by crop-type, agroecological conditions, production systems and local regulatory structure. Therefore, some benefits and costs associated with other glyphosate resistant crops may not be applicable to glyphosate resistant cassava.