Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#2Can anybody briefly describe how a 3x funding increase would change things from "may not be able to invent" to "[likely] to be able to be produced in the foreseeable future"? I'm very disappointed that news articles no longer hit on even the most fundamental questions like this. Instead articles now take a position (you should be in favor of donating money to [x,y,z]) and then go from there.
This seems to challenge belief. There are almost always rapidly diminishing returns on increasing allocation of resources once you reach a certain baseline. And almost is a weasel word there -- I can't think of anything where this is not true. Just like 50 programmers won't work 50 times faster than 1 programmer on a given task, 50 times the amount of money dedicated to a task will often provide far less than 50x the return. And the article's premise is suggesting not only a linear return on investment, but a largely exponential one.
Of course this all goes out the window when you're desperately understaffed or underfunded, but if $3 billion a year is anything remotely close to 'desperately underfunded' then it makes one wonder if that may be a product of waste and inefficiency than a lack of funding.
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#3Can anybody briefly describe how a 3x funding increase would change things from "may not be able to invent" to "[likely] to be able to be produced in the foreseeable future"? I'm very disappointed that news articles no longer hit on even the most fundamental questions like this. Instead articles now take a position (you should be in favor of donating money to [x,y,z]) and then go from there. This seems to challenge b…
For some science, the baseline is very high. You can't do X-ray crystallography of organic compounds, for example, without a synchrotron.
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#4This article is seriously lacking. For example this: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget says:
"With the generous support of the American people, the U.S. government has annually committed more than $6.6 billion to bilateral HIV/AIDS programs, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and NIH international HIV research."
And yet the entire world spent 3B on all vaccine research combined, of which the US alone spent half?
The numbers are not adding up, unless most of the research is not for a vaccine, and if that's the case the article should have said so.
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#5This article is seriously lacking. For example this: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget says: "With the generous support of the American people, the U.S. government has annually committed more than $6.6 billion to bilateral HIV/AIDS programs, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and NIH international HIV research." And yet the entire world spent 3B on all vaccine research combined…
> unless most of the research is not for a vaccine
This. Only a small sliver of that would be for vaccine research, probably at a handful of labs.
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#6Can anybody briefly describe how a 3x funding increase would change things from "may not be able to invent" to "[likely] to be able to be produced in the foreseeable future"? I'm very disappointed that news articles no longer hit on even the most fundamental questions like this. Instead articles now take a position (you should be in favor of donating money to [x,y,z]) and then go from there. This seems to challenge b…
Look at all the money thrown into all of wars. Not just the longest-running war in history in Afghanistan and the War on Terror. But the War on Drugs. War on Poverty. What about global warming--how much money is thrown into that? Are we really making progress. Meanwhile every day I see homeless people on the streets, and read about stories of police murdering, beating, or swat raiding innocent people over nothing. How far could giving a little bit of that money to protect people's supposed rights to life and liberty go? Isn't that what we are supposedly going after, anyways? Or do we just donate to who causes based on other factors. Such as who has the best fundraising? The best lobbying? Or the cause that people with money personally care about?
Future generations are going to look back at us like we are psychopathic barbarians.
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#7This article is seriously lacking. For example this: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/funding/budget says: "With the generous support of the American people, the U.S. government has annually committed more than $6.6 billion to bilateral HIV/AIDS programs, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and NIH international HIV research." And yet the entire world spent 3B on all vaccine research combined…
The budget comes from desperation, which is unaffected by futility. Researchers are well aware that funding goes to those who claim that there is hope. Voters demand that we do something, and throwing money at a doomed cause is something, so therefore we must do that.
... and my point is proven by the downmods: nobody wants their hopes crushed, no matter how unjustified
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#8There is already prep, a once a day pill that if taken consistently, is over 95% effective at stopping HIV infection, I've heard some sources say it's 100% effective. While it's not medically considered to be a vaccine, most vaccines for other conditions have a lower effectiveness rate.
There is work being done to turn prep into an injectable chip in the arm, like long term contraceptives, but for HIV prevention.
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#9Can anybody briefly describe how a 3x funding increase would change things from "may not be able to invent" to "[likely] to be able to be produced in the foreseeable future"? I'm very disappointed that news articles no longer hit on even the most fundamental questions like this. Instead articles now take a position (you should be in favor of donating money to [x,y,z]) and then go from there. This seems to challenge b…
A lot of money goes into taking a good idea for a vaccine to syringes ready to deploy. The actual study goes into the real detail:
Re: Vaccines Against H.I.V., Malaria and Tuberculosis Unlikely, Study Says
#10Can anybody briefly describe how a 3x funding increase would change things from "may not be able to invent" to "[likely] to be able to be produced in the foreseeable future"? I'm very disappointed that news articles no longer hit on even the most fundamental questions like this. Instead articles now take a position (you should be in favor of donating money to [x,y,z]) and then go from there. This seems to challenge b…
> This seems to challenge belief. There are almost always rapidly diminishing returns on increasing allocation of resources once you reach a certain baseline. And almost is a weasel word there -- I can't think of anything where this is not true. Just like 50 programmers won't work 50 times faster than 1 programmer on a given task, 50 times the amount of money dedicated to a task will often provide far less than 50x the return. And the article's premise is suggesting not only a linear return on investment, but a largely exponential one.
I see research, especially fundamental research, like a lottery in which we don't know what we will win. State invests X billions of dollars, and a breakthrough will likely happen, but maybe not in the expected problem (principle of serendipity). More X billions means a higher chance of breakthrough, and hopefully on the desired problem. Surely experts and thinkers looked at efficiency in research, but by definition researching is about looking at the unknown, and when there is uncertainty, a lottery model is probably a better way of thinking about it.