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

51–60 of 344 posts

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

#51

Post by hsod »

metaphorm wrote: post #45
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.

I'm comfortable praising someone for giving away 3 billion dollars to fight disease, even before the results are in.

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

#52

Post by patall »

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.

It still does not work out. I am working at a major cancer center with 2.*00 employees incl. 1200 scientists. We have a budget of ~250 million. So you could pay for this centre for 15 years with Zucks money. Hardly enough time to treat all diseases or even "just" cancer, and I can assure you, we are not slacking off.

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

maxerickson wrote: post #12
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

Largely by funding the effort. http://www.polioeradication.org/Portals/0/Document/Financing... Which I don't mean as a criticism, it's just that they aren't really driving the effort, they are participating by providing a lot of resources.

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by patall »

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…

I rather wonder why those philanthropists think they are the best to decide what to do with the money? If I understand it correnctly, neither Zuckerberg nor Gates have given up much control over their money, they just cannot use it anymore for themself.

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

#55

Post by xorgar831 »

limeyy wrote: post #46
xorgar831 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

... they are still redeeming things to do, but yeah, ideally you'd skip the scamming part. The Rockefellers made their money flatout on scams, but their name is fairly redeemed at this point.

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

#56

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #49

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…

[deleted]

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

#57

Post by JBReefer »

patall wrote: post #54
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…

I rather wonder why those philanthropists think they are the best to decide what to do with the money? If I understand it correnctly, neither Zuckerberg nor Gates have given up much control over their money, they just cannot use it anymore for themself.

And who is more qualified?

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

#59

Post by melling »

ryandrake wrote: post #49

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…

As someone has already pointed out the NIH's budget is $31 billion dollars a year, for example, so we are still spending a lot of public money, for example.

I really don't understand your worry. I'd like to see more public and private money put to work.

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

#60

Post by dmix »

SEJeff wrote: post #22
onewaystreet wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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://ww…

It's possible for them to work together through open research and collaborative efforts, if their work ends up crossing paths.

But it's not clear there's any reason or benefit for them to be under the same central organization.

Plus they will be greatly incentived when working under their own label 'Chan Zuckerberg Institute' to make their own lasting impact on the world. Just pumping more cash into Bill Gates existing project isn't a very exciting driver. And motivation/morale is important with any big project.

Post reply on HN