This should be pretty obvious, but someone thought it was worth writing a whole article about it. Here's the summary: We don't spend much money researching neglected diseases. Well, color me not suprised. If we were spending money on them they wouldn't be neglected would they?
I was actually surprised at how much money is being spend on some of these "neglected" diseases. The related diarrhoeal illnesses had over 110 million spent on them in 2007, doesn't sound neglected to me.
Another (non) shocker "investment decisions...may also be influenced by factors such as the presence of advocacy and fundraising groups". You mean people might raise money for a particular disease and want it to be spent on it? Who would have guessed.
Overall, this article is notable only in its uselessness.