JDCA Report: Funds to Cure Type 1 Diabetes Shrinking
The JDCA’s latest report, Shrinking Funding Of Type 1 Cure Research By the Four Major Non-Profits highlights a declining trend in cure research funding. Although the diabetes community continues to give their time and money to the diabetes non-profits and to campaign for a cure for type 1 diabetes, the major foundations are using less, not more, of that money for cure research than they did in 2008.
According to our findings, combined annual funding of type 1 cure research grants by the four major nonprofits decreased by 44% from 2008-11. The report takes an in-depth look at how much money the four major organizations we analyze (the JDRF, ADA, Joslin, and DRIF) allocate toward cure research labs.
There are different reasons for the downward trend. One of the biggest ones is that the JDRF (who raises the most money and spends the most in terms of all research), made the decision to allocate more of its funds in recent years to non-cure research, such as Glucose Control and Diabetes Complications. The other three organizations maintained relatively steady (but still trending downward) percentages, though their financial contributions toward cure research are significantly smaller.
The main point is that the primary fundraising messages which focus almost solely on a cure are inconsistent with actual research grant allocations and recent funding trends. Put in other words, a dominant reason for giving is not being realized.
This is something that we need to change and that we all can advocate for. We need to continue supporting the foundations searching for a type 1 diabetes cure, but make it know that we want more of the allocations to be used precisely for that purpose.
-Stoyan
Hi Stoyan,
Thank you for this write up and all the information you put out there on fundraising agencies. I’m a diabetic myself and am involved with volunteering for the JDRF in Canada for about 7 years now. Good to check in and make sure I’m doing work for an organization that puts it where it counts most.
In this case, where JDRF has chosen to spend more on control and complications, I’m okay with that. These kind of innovations make my day-to-day life better. While a control is the ultimate goal, there is so much work to be done until it’s at that point. The conspiracy side of me also thinks that there is a lot of money to be made off diabetics and getting a cure to patients may be a slightly difficult task. So if I can get some tools now to help with day-to-day life, cool!
Thanks again for everything!
I don’t see much discussion here about the relationship between these stats and the state of the economy, how the stats were obtained, resources for the stats, or a discussion of what PWDs and their families want from research supported by their contributions. Many within the DOC would like to see funds / research devoted to producing better tools for glucose control and prevention of diabetes related complications in addition to cure focused research. Understandable when considering stagnation in BG meter technology etc. There is also no mention of JDRFs re-branding and dual focus commitment to cure research as well as improving treatment for existing T1. This is largely due to the growing adult T1 population, which we wouldn’t see if morbidity and mortality for type 1 had remained stagnant.
I agree that we can create change in the allocation of research funds, but this post feels biased towards a cure and intended to foster angst directed at the four major nonprofits. It seems generating dialogue between readers and those organizations might create a more positive climate in which ideas are exchanged, and collaborative discussion on which research goals to focus on.
I am truly enjoying following your posts. I am absolutely one for the biological cure –and a huge JDRF supporter. I think it’s important to note how much JDRF contributes to DRI, Joslin and others, when it comes to research. And look at the progress in the notion of regeneration. I have to think that had JDRF not put a ton of money toward it and pulled in dozens of researchers to work in unity, we might not be seeing forward progress. As for “therapies,” I will never think of a “bionic pancreas” as a cure. However, two things. 1) We are going to need excellent tools to get us through human clinical trials for a biological cure. There is no doubt about that. 2) If this was 1923- 1990′s, would you be questioning the JDRF (and other org’s) decision to put research $ toward things like meters and glucagon and pregnancy planning and more? Again, I am ALL FOR the biological research but I have come to realize that some ‘Non bio” steps are going to be necessary to get to where we want to be.