Microresearch: great idea but tough to execute

I read with pleasure and excitement MacDonald and Kabakyenga's editorial proposing a “microresearch” model to foster local, outcomes-based clinical research in developing countries.1 This model has the potential to produce a real impact in communities in resource-deprived regions of the world.

However, having had a brief exposure to microfinance during my MBA studies, I have several concerns. First, who would contribute to the start-up fund? Unlike a microfinance fund, which can generate a return on investment, a microresearch fund is essentially a nonprofit initiative that provides grants to fund small-scale research projects. Given the uncertainty of the outcomes and impact of the projects, it may be hard to convince donors to support such a fund. Second, who would mentor the researchers in developing countries who receive the grants? It takes time, infrastructure and trained personnel to develop a research program. A volunteer-based mentorship system will not suffice, given that most researchers in the developed world are already stretched thin. It may be more beneficial to have a dedicated research group that can travel to different regions to train community and university groups. A hub-and-spoke model, with local leading universities training smaller groups in their region, may be more sustainable. Third, what is the broader impact of these microresearch projects? Although the goal of microresearch is to produce a local impact in local communities, the differences in community demographics may be such that it may not be possible to share data from one local area to develop best practices in another community. This may be the Achilles heel for funding microresearch: most large foundations will see that these research projects will not have a broad impact, whereas research projects on malaria and tuberculosis will. Nonetheless, I applaud the editorialists' article and their idea.