Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 344 posts

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#21

Post by United857 »

vegabook wrote: post #17

Very nice. Some context: Mark Zuckerberg is worth 55 billion dollars. This is 5% of his net worth. Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment. The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone. Total pharma sector R&D is circa 200 yards. Every singe year. They aren't anywhere near "curing all diseases". This intiative wo…

I wonder how much of that 42 billion is duplicating each other's work due to competitive/secrecy concerns.

That wouldn't be an issue with this initiative, and I think it's very significant that they're partnering with academia on this.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#22

Post by SEJeff »

onewaystreet wrote: post #20
SEJeff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it would have been much better for them to simply partner with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where they're actually curing diseases. They've literally almost eradicated polio globally[1]. [1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Polio

> I suspect it would have been much better for them to simply partner with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Based on what? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has plenty of money. Better for the Zuckerbergs to focus on other areas.

Based on the Gates foundation's existing accomplishments on eradicating diseases, of which Malaria and Polio are shining examples.

While we've had Polio vaccines and Malaria pills for years in much of the western world, much of the poorer parts of the world aren't so lucky. So instead of duplicating something that already exists and works well, partner with them and get it done faster together.

References:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Negl...

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development...

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Health/Mala...

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#23

Post by stanleydrew »

nenadg wrote: post #15
dewitt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange reaction. Hasn't the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation been one of the most successful philanthropic organizations of all time? I thought they've saved millions of lives fighting malaria alone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...

There is literally nothing on that article about how many lives their initiative saved. Just standard corporate propaganda about how much they spent on this and that. If I've spent 80 millions on Vaccines does that mean that I've saved hundreds of lives? No. I don't want to be a truther here, nor I'll paste links that would confirm partial statement wrapped inside my question, but it would be great if one could be op…

I think your opinion is probably interesting and potentially valid, but your tone in the original comment is limiting your ability to communicate effectively.

Less sarcasm would serve you well.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#24

Post by limeyy »

I wonder why, all these billionaires first want to make billions, and then do philanthropy. How about making their services/business/products more affordable with which they are making all this money with in the first place?

For example: MS Office used to cost 4-500 euro for the average home user a few years ago. That was ridiculous.

If you have a small shop and 2000 Facebook page likes, Facebook rips you off each time you want to reach them.

Maybe market dictates these prices but then again, they would be in the position to dictate the prices in the first place.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#25

Post by [deleted] »

nenadg wrote: post #15
dewitt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange reaction. Hasn't the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation been one of the most successful philanthropic organizations of all time? I thought they've saved millions of lives fighting malaria alone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...

There is literally nothing on that article about how many lives their initiative saved. Just standard corporate propaganda about how much they spent on this and that. If I've spent 80 millions on Vaccines does that mean that I've saved hundreds of lives? No. I don't want to be a truther here, nor I'll paste links that would confirm partial statement wrapped inside my question, but it would be great if one could be op…

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#26

Post by nenadg »

stanleydrew wrote: post #23
nenadg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is literally nothing on that article about how many lives their initiative saved. Just standard corporate propaganda about how much they spent on this and that. If I've spent 80 millions on Vaccines does that mean that I've saved hundreds of lives? No. I don't want to be a truther here, nor I'll paste links that would confirm partial statement wrapped inside my question, but it would be great if one could be op…

I think your opinion is probably interesting and potentially valid, but your tone in the original comment is limiting your ability to communicate effectively. Less sarcasm would serve you well.

sarcasm is better part of life, it's not limiting it's enriching :) I fail to understand why people hate it?

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#27

Post by jonknee »

vegabook wrote: post #17

Very nice. Some context: Mark Zuckerberg is worth 55 billion dollars. This is 5% of his net worth. Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment. The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone. Total pharma sector R&D is circa 200 yards. Every singe year. They aren't anywhere near "curing all diseases". This intiative wo…

> Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment.

That's not how it works. Whatsapp was an investment, Chan Zuckerberg Science is not an investment. If he had announced a new for-profit drug company with $20bn of Facebook's money you would have a point. It still doesn't work out as a personal commitment though, Mark's shares of FB weren't suddenly worth $5.6b less (in fact shares have surged since!).

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#28

Post by aphextron »

vegabook wrote: post #17

Very nice. Some context: Mark Zuckerberg is worth 55 billion dollars. This is 5% of his net worth. Mark Zuckerberg spent 20bn on Whatsapp. At his 28% shareholding in facebook that's a 5.6bn USD personal commitment. The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone. Total pharma sector R&D is circa 200 yards. Every singe year. They aren't anywhere near "curing all diseases". This intiative wo…

>The top 5 global pharma companies spent 42 billion USD on R&D in 2015 alone

But how much of that spend was actually targeted at curing diseases, versus things like hair loss treatments, erectile dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, or other first world problems? It's well known that big pharma corps generally ignore the low hanging fruit of curable third world diseases because there is no monetary incentive for it. See why there was no viable Ebola vaccine until the latest outbreak, even though we've been dealing with it for decades.

Re: Zuckerberg and Chan aim to tackle all disease by 2100

#29

Post by melling »

SEJeff wrote: post #18
melling wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know that the vaccine for polio has existed for decades.

I did. Did you know that much of Africa didn't have access to said vaccine due to funding shortages? This was one of the efforts where the Gates foundation literally just threw money at the problem until it went away.

Sure, I know that. The point of the new effort is trying to cure diseases. That's a completely different type of effort. Getting people together to travel to different parts of the world to make sure people are vaccinated, for example, requires a different group of people than scientists researching cures for diseases.

Both groups are needed, of course. But you giving the example of "curing" polio as an example of what the Chan Zuckerberg foundation is trying to accomplish is inaccurate.

Post reply on HN