Example collocations logo

Donors in sentence

690 examples of Donors in a sentence

Reports that just 158 wealthy donors provided half of all campaign contributions in the first phase of the 2016 US presidential election cycle highlight the worry that income inequality can lead to political inequality.
UNAIDS and the Kaiser Family Foundation estimate that in 2010 donors gave $6.9 billion for HIV prevention, care, treatment, and support – down 10% from 2009.
By highlighting the effectiveness of some options – or pointing to policy choices that require further research – the new research and Nobel laureate findings can assist donors and catalyze optimal choices about where funding should go.
But, while donors and their taxpayers might be willing to make long-term commitments for such a purpose, there is likely to be rather less appetite for making commitments which would seem to be never-ending.
Its proximity to the Middle East and Africa – where the European Union and its member countries are the most important aid donors, trading partners, and security actors – will ensure the partnership’s continued relevance, as will the common values and deep economic integration that underpin transatlantic relations.
In Zimbabwe, after 4,300 people died in the 2008-2009 cholera pandemic, the AfDB and other donors supported the $43.6 million Urgent Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation Project, which made emergency repairs to wastewater systems in urban areas, helping 2.5 million people.
Donors have trained police and prosecutors and built courts and detention centers.
Others consider this wise, as compensating individual tissue donors could block scientific progress and technological development.
Finally, why should tissue donors be entitled to compensation, as they or their progeny may benefit in the long run from the technological advances to which they contribute?
Moreover, the model is unwise to the extent that tissue donors could block the development of knowledge and applications.
Tissue can be removed only with donors’ prior consent.
Thus, prior to giving their consent, tissue donors can negotiate acceptable compensation.
In addition, the model bears an arbitrary element, as the sharing of benefits is not subject to control by the donors of tissue, much less to democratic control, and may prove self-serving for universities and industry.
Instead of allowing donors to claim individual compensation for their tissue, a tax would be imposed every time a tissue-based application actually yields a profit.
This would be fair , as it would ensure collective compensation for the use of tissue in general, rather than for individual tissue donors, and it would be wise in that it would not block scientific and technological progress.
While universities and industry may be wary of taxation, they might prefer a tissue tax over endless negotiations with countless tissue donors over the sharing of uncertain future benefits.
That is why I am calling on international donors – philanthropic and governmental alike – to work with the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance to create a new fund to support R&D in this important area.
Support for parallel research in the same areas reduces the efficiency of each investment, and such herding behavior by donors may even preclude some of the most significant advances, which often come as a result of combining the results of seemingly unrelated research.
France, like most European countries, has a problem with reproductive tourism: a yearly shortage of about 700 egg donors sends some couples over the Pyrenees to Spain, where private IVF clinics pay providers more in “expenses” than the UK allows.
The IFFEd would bring together bilateral donors, the World Bank, and regional development banks in a coordinated manner, enabling them to pool their resources and leverage idle capital where appropriate.
To that end, I founded The Life You Can Save, an organization that gathers evidence about which charities give donors the most bang for their buck and encourages people to donate to them.
The Life You Can Save recommends proven interventions because we think donors are likely to do more good by helping individuals with unmet needs than by aspiring to eliminate the root causes of poverty without a realistic strategy for achieving that goal.
The Life You Can Save, like GiveWell and similar organizations, seeks to influence individual donors, encouraging them to think about where they can direct their donations to do the most good.
No reasonable person expects Greece ever to be able to pay off its debts, but the country has become trapped in a seemingly endless cycle of payments and bailouts – making it dependent on its donors for its very survival.
With foreign infusions of cash easing the need for tax revenues, politicians are likely to spend more time courting donors than caring for their constituents.
The irony is that donors then respond with very expensive emergency food aid, which typically proves to be too little and too late.
But donors have not yet implemented this obvious and basic lesson.
Yet donors continue shipping expensive food aid while ignoring Malawi’s desperate need to grow more food.
Second, and simultaneously, donors should help impoverished countries to invest in roads, ports, rural electricity, and diversified production (both agricultural and non-agricultural), in order to promote higher productivity and alternative livelihoods in the longer term.
Power Africa takes a “transaction-centered approach,” creating teams to align incentives among “host governments, the private sector, and donors.”
BackNext