‘Almost unprecedented’ cuts in malaria funding will hurt UK pandemic planning, leading scientists say

`;
document.body.appendChild(modal);

modal.addEventListener(‘click’, () => {
document.cookie=”mos-plan-select=; Max-Age=0; path=/; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 UTC;”;
});

modal.querySelector(‘.subscribe-link’)?.addEventListener(‘click’, (e) => {
e.preventDefault();
document.cookie=”mos-plan-select=; Max-Age=0; path=/; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 UTC;”;
setTimeout(() => {
window.location.href=”
}, 500);
});
});

An “almost unprecedented” scaling back of funding for malaria science will harm the UK’s preparedness for future pandemics, leading scientists say.

Research targeting malaria has “spillover” effects that improve responses to wider health threats, according to experts polled for the first report of its kind.

The Malaria Science Index, a survey of the UK’s top researchers in the field, is published as world leaders meet in New York for a high-level meeting on pandemic preparedness alongside the United Nations General Assembly on Friday.

Some 80 per cent of respondents said they believed malaria science provided health benefits to the UK public, with the same proportion saying they thought it made the UK safer.

Heather Ferguson, professor of infectious disease ecology at the University of Glasgow, surveyed for the report, said: “Environmental changes are bringing mosquito-borne diseases much closer to home, and our ability to respond to these risks in the UK is strengthened by the training British scientists have from working shoulder-to-shoulder with experts in endemic countries.

“The technologies and tools we have developed together are not only protecting children’s lives in Africa, but will help us protect and respond to similar risks in the UK,” she added.

Professor Ferguson said that the obvious way to protect people in the UK from malaria was to eliminate it from Africa: “If we can control and eliminate malaria from its heartland, everyone benefits.”

The Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine had its roots in research towards a malaria vaccine, and early results suggest antimalarial drug Atovaquone could help in treating some types of cancer.

Malaria is a life-threatening disease that is caused by a parasite and spread to humans by some types of mosquito. In 2024, there were an estimated 282 million malaria cases and 610,000 deaths, the majority of whom were children aged under five in Africa.

Almost all of the scientists polled saw funding shortfalls as a threat to the success of research, development and approval of future tools against malaria. They also identified them as the primary threat to implementing and scaling up those tools, beyond even climate change and extreme weather events

“Funding for global health has always been limited,” said one expert, “but the huge scale back of investment in support for this type of research in the last couple of years is almost unprecedented.”

Public funding for malaria research and development fell from $432m (£324m) in 2021 to $351m in 2024, according to figures from Impact Global Health. In the past two years, countries including the US and UK, both historically major donors in the fight against malaria, have announced widespread aid cuts.

Another scientist warned that continued research was vital to keep pace with a disease that is changing fast. The malaria parasite is evolving resistance to many antimalarial drugs, while mosquitoes are becoming resistant to existing insecticides, and new types of malaria-carrying mosquitoes are spreading across Africa.

“As governments and other agencies look to cut funding…there may be a temptation to cut funding to grassroots research and development to help support deployment of existing tools…This would be a huge mistake as innovation and discovery are absolutely critical to maintain the momentum in the fight against malaria,” they said.

The poll involved 35 of the UK’s top malaria scientists in both academia and industry. It was carried out by YouGov and led by Malaria No More UK, in partnership with Imperial College London, The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and The Innovative Vector Control Consortium. Because of the small size, they said the findings should only be treated as “indicative”.

Asked to point out the most promising tools in development involving UK scientists, 71 per cent highlighted drugs such as single-dose cures, and 69 per cent vaccines.

“With a new prime minister and cabinet in place, we hope the UK’s critical role as a malaria science superpower is maintained, primarily to end the disease for good but also to help protect the British public against threats to their health,” said Gareth Jenkins, managing director of Malaria No More UK.

This article has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project