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

41–50 of 344 posts

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

#41

Post by xorgar831 »

limeyy wrote: post #24

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 ti…

It's a "me first" attitude, once folks get what they want, then they'll consider others. Pretty normal unfortunately.

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

#42

Post by vegabook »

aphextron wrote: post #28
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…

If you look at pharma company R&D, they know where their bread is buttered: people who are at risk of death are much bigger spenders than brunettes wanting to be blondes. 70%+ of pharma R&D goes towards life-prolonging research.

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

#43

Post by maxerickson »

nenadg wrote: post #34
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...

Also, Polio was near extinction before Gates jumped in and collected the ovations for finishing job. http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ourworl... That's great what they've done, but saying they've eradicated polio is brutal exaggeration.

The table I posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12551250 contradicts them "jumping in". Other major donors have continued to make large contributions to polio intervention over the period where the Gates foundation has made their contributions, the period on your graph where it is nearly gone.

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

#44

Post by vegabook »

United857 wrote: post #21
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.

because Pharma doesn't partner with academia??

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

#45

Post by metaphorm »

tschellenbach wrote: post #36

This is great. Great achievements as a startup founder and now philanthropy. For those comparing this to pharma companies. Pharma companies invest in drugs that they can make money with. It sounds as though this $3 billion is aiming at more general research and making it publicly available.

maybe you should hold off on the praise until there's some results to show for it. making a press statement is not the same thing as curing a disease.

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

#46

Post by limeyy »

xorgar831 wrote: post #41
limeyy wrote: post #24

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 ti…

It's a "me first" attitude, once folks get what they want, then they'll consider others. Pretty normal unfortunately.

Right, I mean there is something dubious too all this. Both Microsoft and Facebook did and are actually practicing enough shady business tactics. Internet explorer, tax evasion, privacy issues, you name it, they are all guilty of this kind of stuff. But then now, we should glorify them once they give away the money they earned this way.

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

#47

Post by HaloZero »

aphextron wrote: post #28
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…

I think that means they were working on it weren't they? I doubt the Ebola outbreak timeline was enough to warrant the research to figure it out. They probably already had projects going but suddenly they got a lot more attention through regulations to get it to market faster.

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

#49

Post by ryandrake »

Not to take the wind out of anyone's sails, but there is a concern to be raised about relying more and more on charities to fund the public good. When a democratically elected government funds the public good, at least in theory, the public at large has a small say in choosing what counts as "public good". When you leave it to charity, you're relying on the morals of individual wealthy donors to decide what counts as a "public good". I don't claim to know which method is more risky in terms of mis-allocation of resources, but it's something to think about.

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

#50

Post by MrSourz »

limeyy wrote: post #24

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 ti…

Here's why:

To achieve what you suggest there would need to be a controlling majority of shareholders that also hold this philanthropic view, otherwise the execs are required to do the normal thing, optimize the returns of their shareholders. (To have this criteria while raising capitol will severely restrict who you can work with / have on your board)

This is often why I feel bad for execs who take flack when their company optimizes / minimizes their tax burdens as its their shareholders who require them to do so and the law that allows it.

For people like Zurkerberg the way they can achieve their philanthropic goals best is to build a massively profitable business with the support of other investors who will share that goal and then take their personal profits and use those to achieve their goals.

Post reply on HN