- \n
- Fund the bottleneck others overlook.<\/strong> Many promising ideas stall between concept and generating the evidence larger donors often need to act. Philanthropy can choose to occupy that space.<\/li>\n
- Define impact realistically<\/strong>. Early-stage work may be best measured by evidence generated and follow-on support secured, not immediate reach.<\/li>\n
- Be honest about risk.<\/strong> Clear expectations about uncertainty can strengthen donor relationships.<\/li>\n
- Build alignment, not ownership<\/strong>. Expanding the table to include different kinds of funders can sustain work that no single donor wants to carry alone.<\/li>\n
- Focus on the next step.<\/strong> Small grants tied to a clear milestone can unlock far larger results.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
That sequence is the model that Cures Within Reach has spent 20 years refining: a small proof-of-concept clinical trial, a clear signal about whether the idea is worth pursuing, a much larger investment unlocked, and movement toward a potentially life-saving intervention for those who need it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The nonprofit backs early clinical trials for drugs that are already approved by regulators, testing whether they might work for diseases beyond their original purpose. The approach, known as drug repurposing, moves faster and costs less than developing new compounds from scratch. But big pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to invest in them either because the drug’s patent has expired and any manufacturer can sell it or because the new use simply isn’t lucrative enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPatients don’t really care if a drug is on- or off-label or on or off-patent,\u201d says Barbara Goodman, the group\u2019s CEO. \u201cThey just want treatments for their disease. They want them to work.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even when the science is compelling, the studies often don’t happen because no one will pay for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The result is that good ideas fall through multiple gaps at once \u2014 too commercially unattractive for industry, too preliminary for most government funders, too far along for the academic grants that favor basic laboratory research. In philanthropy, this is sometimes called the \u201cmissing middle,\u201d where promising ideas stall not because they\u2019ve failed but because no one has stepped in to help test their readiness for larger investment. For Cures Within Reach, that gap is its sweet spot. It\u2019s a problem that any organization working in a neglected field is likely to recognize.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n \n\n - Define impact realistically<\/strong>. Early-stage work may be best measured by evidence generated and follow-on support secured, not immediate reach.<\/li>\n