Hacker News Reader

Comment by SEJeff | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

> 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...

They aren't duplicate efforts. You keep missing that point.

"Cure all diseases" is a bit hand wavy just like a static code analyzer claiming to "find all software defects".

What is the point that I'm missing? They don't really want to cure all diseases?

Hey, Bill Gates is pretty excited. Maybe you could tweet him and ask him what you don't get?

“Thank you mark, it’s an honour to join you all after this incredible milestone. The Chan Zuckerberg initiative is already doing some very promising work in terms of improving education for all students (and so) that is a really thrilling thing.

And it is amazing that today they are taking on another bold challenge, this idea of curing and preventing all diseases by the end of the century. That’s very bold very ambitious, and I can’t think of a better partnership to take it on,” Bill Gates said.

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.

Well honestly that's a much easier task. Polio is a solved problem. The vaccine has existed for decades. It's just a matter of money to get it out to enough people.

Curing "all" disease is a bit more ambitious.

Not to say that in the end, Gates isn't helping more people today.

And Bill just walked onto the stage :)

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.

Based on that link, the Gates foundation is providing $2.86 billion. The second biggest donor is the US Government at $2.64 billion.

I'd consider the entity with the most money in the game as the driver of really anything.

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.

Ah I see the semantics of your argument and you're right.

I just think other than the prestige argument (which is likely what this is) they could actually do more work working with someone who literally spends more on this than the entire USG.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com