Nobel peace prizes are not normally awarded to philanthropists. But I'm just going to leave this link here. It's a photo of Bill Gates with Prime Minister Stephen Harper announcing funding for HIV vaccine research in 2007.
Another option would be to name the actual vaccine after the funder.
What makes you say that? Improve the human condition and eliminate much suffering, absolutely, but do much for world peace?
Has there ever been a war fought over HIV?
> Another option would be to name the actual vaccine after the funder.
Or, we could name it after the thing it vaccinates against.
Dealing with HIV, a general explosion in commodities prices, end of the Cold War, and hands-off Chinese infrastructure investment (tied to commodities, but without trying to influence the government, and thus acceptable) has gone a long way to help Africa. Urbanization, IT/Communications (and access to regional/global markets), and foreign direct investment helps a lot too.
Not implying this is the case here, but what if the research is trivial, but requires billions of dollars?
If you have a group of researchers truly dedicated to this cause that are out there working long hours and struggling to get the resources they need to solve this issue than yes they should be rewarded when their work comes to fruition.
On the flip side if you're just some lab rat making a salary and don't really care one way or another what genes you're slicing today as long as you're getting paid then what makes your contribution greater than someone that gave up a significant portion of their personal wealth to make something happen.
The real test here should be if someone has made a material contribution here because the thought it was the right thing to do.