Template talk:PATH (global health organization)

PATH

Path employs many researchers who are notable by Wikipedia standards, and PATH projects and products also often are the focus of international news and research. I made this template in the hopes that as more PATH articles are created more of them can be cross referenced to each other and to similar research projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Concept Foundation

Would concept Foundation belong here? I added CIC to the template since as I recall PATH was involved. But on reviewing the article I see that involvement may be indirect via Concept Foundation. I am not up on the organizational particulars, so rather than adding it I will post here as a possibly relevant link for inclusion. Zodon (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Concept Foundation has not been doing work which has entered the English-language media in at least about 10 years. They do not write a lot about their work on their own website, either.

PATH awards a lot of grants and it seems that they awarded one to the Concept Foundation. Through a Google search I found no information which either connected PATH to the Concept Foundation or the Concept Foundation to the CIC. Through a search on the PATH website I found information which said that PATH and the Concept Foundation were partners; see here the section I added to the CF page about a collaboration.

As for the Combined injectable contraceptive, I find no information tying this product to PATH. Do you have a source for this? I wonder if this might be a product by another organization but using PATH's uniject. In any case, I have no sources. Do you? I am removing it from the template pending sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall Path was involved with the CIC, and spun off the Concept foundation as a way of marketing, etc. (at least that was the story on either Path or Concept foundation web site a few years ago). However it is a few years since I researched this. I will have to look through my files for the sources. Fine to remove until sources found. Zodon (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources:

• Concept foundation's Intellectual Property page. "It was established in 1989 through PATH by a grant from WHO's Special Programme of Research, Training and Research Development (WHO/HRP) to ensure the availability of Cyclofem®." (Cyclofem is one of the names for CIC).
• CyclofemŽ Contraceptive: Upjohn, WHO, and the Concept Foundation Which indicates that PATH proposed founding the Concept Foundation in order to produce Cyclofem (which Upjohn & the WHO had developed, but then Upjohn bowed out, so the WHO then asked PATH to come up with a solution). Zodon (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That second report says a lot. I do not doubt that PATH is involved with CICs, but I see no evidence supporting the idea that they originated the concept. Evidently they supported the development of Cyclofem, but the paragraph under "External Factors Affecting Decision Making" makes it clear how separate PATH wanted this project.

I would like to compile a list of major projects which PATH has funded, but I am not sure that the navbox would be the best place to do this. It is not quite right to say that PATH funded Cyclofem, because they did indirectly, and it is not quite right to say that PATH funds the CF, because that PDF report says that now the CF is self-sustaining. How about putting a description of this relationship on the CIC page, PATH's page, and the CF page? Probably the full description should be on the CIC page, and then the two organization pages should summarize and then direct to that, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No claim was made that PATH originated the concept of CICs. They were however involved in the development and marketing. The concept foundation/Path websites used to tout the concept foundation as an example of handling intellectual property.

I figured the navbox would indicate various projects that PATH was closely related to (and conversely that were closely related to PATH) that had articles. The purpose being to give concise navigation among the articles. Certainly the details of relationships, etc. belong on the individual pages. (So yes the coverage you outline seems reasonable.)

Whether either concept foundation or CIC make sense on the template may become clearer as articles evolve, and more references are found. Zodon (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)