Today we continued our study of malaria, transitioning from the biological and clinical basics of the disease to the business of treatment and prevention. We watched an animation of the life-cycle of the plasmodium parasite which can be found
here. We also listened to a podcast about a Doctors Without Borders treatment effort in Nigeria, which can be found
here. The assignment for tonight is based on the reading "What Money Can Buy," from the New Yorker. Post a response to one of the questions below before class Friday.
1. Do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that Bill and Melinda Gates have so much power in Global Health?
2. Do you think that it is a good idea to put large amounts of money into research for a malaria vaccine or should this money be spent another way (i.e. prevention and treatment of malaria through known methods)?
Thank you for your attention and hard work so far in this class! I am enjoying having you all as students :)
2.Do you think that it is a good idea to put large amounts of money into research for a malaria vaccine or should this money be spent another way (i.e. prevention and treatment of malaria through known methods)?
ReplyDeleteThe Gates Foundation has a clear preference- Bill and Melinda Gates tend to support malaria research more than some believe is appropriate. They are critisized for having a 'growing preoccupation with futuristic technology', when the money spent on research could be saving lives right now, today. However, I support the Gates Foundation's tilt towards the research aspect of global health; because Bill and Melinda Gates have the advantage of making a fast decision (as opposed to bureaucracies which 'are often too cumbersome to compete at the speed of a mutating viurs'), as a consequence, their personal preferences must influence the direction of the Gates Foundation. Personally, in a world where malaria sprang back from almost eradication to the most prevalent infectious disease, we must prepare for the future and make long-term plans in addition to treating extant crisises while the situations worsen. As Bill Gates says, 'Genomic data... is the future.' The Gates foundation, in supporting 'far-out' experiments, might just hit upon a world-changing solution. 'Sometimes far-out works.'
Anna Ruth
Also, I want to say I'm very sorry about the letter and I hope you know that the rest of the community knows how lucky we are to have you.
2. Do you think that it is a good idea to put large amounts of money into research for a malaria vaccine or should this money be spent another way (i.e. prevention and treatment of malaria through known methods)?
ReplyDeleteI believe that efforts should focus on both short- and long-term solutions. On the one hand, the health and well-being of people currently living must be a high priority. HIV, TB, and malaria, “fuel each other” with devastating effects: combined, they kill an estimated 5 million people each year. Around 50% of the world’s population is regularly exposed to malaria, a number that could be drastically reduced with preventative measures. Some scientists believe that simply distributing mosquito nets could save the lives of 30-50% of children with malaria.
At the same time, a long-term solution—probably involving a vaccine—must be found. Years and years of efforts to eliminate malaria by mosquito nets and insecticides can be destroyed by just one infected person. A natural immunization occurs in people who are repeatedly exposed to the parasite, meaning that children who survive to adulthood in malaria-ridden areas are less vulnerable to the disease than people who have had no exposure. The author of the New Yorker article notes that “when the parasite returns to a place where success had been dramatic…the consequences can be particularly devastating.” (60)
It is unethical to completely abandon one generation for the hope of helping another; however, if we play our cards right, we don’t have to make that choice.
1 and 2.) I think that Bill and Melinda Gates have done something extraordinary with their wealth, they have single handedly proven that the wealthy elite cares about and will help global health. They have gone far and beyond what other wealthy American’s have done, they have not only donated vast amounts of money but they have kept their foundation up and running; they have dedicated their lives to this cause, not just money. For this I think that Bill and Melinda Gates have every right to be powerful. The two are not only the bank behind the operation, but constantly researching the best and most effective ways to use their money that will save the most lives. They have sparked and ignited hope and results into global health. Their foundation can also work faster and more efficiently because it is not a government tied down to laws, regulations, and multiple priorities. This has allowed them to make riskier decisions, as Bill Gates said in the article, they were allowed to spend one hundred million dollars on a program that might not work and that was ok. They have flexibility that has overall benefitted public health in the advancement of new technologies. Overall public health as benefitted extremely from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and their power is well earned. After all, the power is in the hands of two of the most brilliant minds in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe Gates’s are giving their money away out of their own generosity; they should not be reprimanded for spending too much money on vaccines. The question of vaccines verses treatment comes down to the long debated argument of whether to focus on long term or short term goals. The only good answer to this question is to focus on both, and Bill and Melinda Gates should not be asked to do it all. Bill and Melinda are two of the best technological minds in the world, they should be using their skills to do what they do best; technology. This heavily favors vaccines. The Gates have also given money to treatment, they are not forgoing it all together, and they should not be asked to run the whole of global health. They are doing their part, and a very large part it is, and people need to stop blaming them for giving freely of their time and money and should instead hound some other, lazier, less altruistic American’s for money or at least be happy with what they are given.
1.) Though I believe that Bill and Melinda Gates generously enough have devoted much of their wealth and life to the medical aspirations of poor countries suffering, I do not believe being able to hold so much power is necessarily a good thing. For if other entities needed the help of the Gates foundations, they would need to compromise what they needed to get sufficient funding which would cut their opportunities to limited actions. Though without their funding, I suppose their actions would be none. But it isn’t just the money they have put into the entities, its more or less the time, and effort.
ReplyDeleteUltimately speaking I believe having two people being in charge of so much money, and along with that being mentally powerful, isn’t a terrible thing though with more minds put together could possibly be put to better use.
2.) In my opinion, with the large spectrum of possibilities available, the need for a vaccine of Malaria isn’t as important as the prevention steps which come first. For one, the money could be spent on prevention efforts such as using medicine we already know works, along with bed nets, to stop the infection rate of Malaria. Though if we were to pool all of the money together and look for a vaccination then even with the mass amount that are infected with Malaria will need to pay for the shot, which of course will cost much more than the already known medicine. But with the vaccination, comes its downfalls, such as not being 100% effective, and leaving the other percentage to fault, with would lead to another case of Malaria. Also, with no prevention efforts the mosquitoes which are still infected with the disease will still be around breeding, re-spawning even more of the dangerous parasitic protozoa that infect the red blood cells. So with more re-spawning, more chance for spread of Malaria increases. With the death rate at every thirty seconds due to Malaria, prevention, and the medicine that we already know works, should be used if the desire is to first lower the death rate.
2. Do you think that it is a good idea to put large amounts of money into research for a malaria vaccine or should this money be spent another way (i.e. prevention and treatment of malaria through known methods)?
ReplyDeleteWow this is a heavy, complicated question, with no short answer. For once, I find myself unable to have a full, entirely- convinced opinion!
In "What Money Can Buy", for the New Yorker, Michael Spektor does a remarkable job of highlighting the principles and various perspectives on the malaria situation. In countries where governmental spending on the health of each person comes to less than $10, it is impossible to provide each family the commodities (insecticides, bed nets,) needed to reduce their susceptibility and risk to a disease like malaria, much less with the health care they need if they actually contract it.
Treating as many patients as malaria requires each year is extremely expensive, not only the drugs, but paying the doctors to distribute them, as well as the general upkeep of the clinics. Many people wonder if the money and time we have would not be better spent in search of a vaccination, which would ultimately save more lives, and probably be less expensive! Scientists have spent decades trying out possible vaccines, after all, malaria is an ancient disease found throughout history. Last year, for the first time, scientists (funded mostly by the Gates foundation) created a vaccine of sorts- it reduces risk by 58%. This is a great first step- now we just need to take it further. However, even if we can develop a legitimate vaccine, our problems are not necessarily over. If malaria becomes less common but still exists on some level, people will most likely lose their natural immunity which is an extremely dangerous risk to take.
The answer is still not clear in my mind. It is impossible -inhuman- to let the malaria-ridden die and not give all the help we possibly can. But at the same time, when will this end f we don't develop a vaccine?? Obviously there is no avoiding either -we need to concentrate on the entire scene. Who knows, maybe by working with the people with malaria, doctors will make valuable observations needed to ultimately develop a vaccine.
1. With $29 Billion worth of leverage, Bill [and Melinda] Gates is the dictator of Global Healthcare.
ReplyDeleteHypothetically speaking, I would say it is absolutely not a good thing to have one single individual [pair of individuals] have such incredible influence on anything. This is because of the immense potential for catastrophe inherent in the determination of who that individual is. From an ideological perspective, it is not inherently a bad thing for one person to have such incredible power, if the person is a selfless altruistic person who is capable of making the decisions and handling everything appropriately.
Bill Gates, I believe, is such a person. I believe his intentions and goals are spot on. He intends to use the money to truly make a difference in the world, and he is not bound to any restrictions or guidelines on how to spend that money. As he says, nobody else can throw money around like he can. He can spend money on things and have them not work out. This is critical. He can also change direction immediately. He can be convinced to spend his money differently from one minute to the next. This ability to adapt quickly is also critical. To gain funding from Bill Gates, all that is needed is to convince him you are an honest person, and explain how your project will help improve the world. There are no politics to deal with, to ulterior motives to combat.
Gates' sincere intent to change the world is most critical. A person with such a knack for organizational leadership, an altruistic spirit, and 29 Billion dollars to throw wherever he deems beneficial, can have a great impact on the world. His money can be used in a trial and error method, a critical component, for without risk of failure, very little can truly change. Gates is in a sense a venture capitalist. He has the money to invest in projects he sees potential in, and hope that they pay off. The difference between Gates and a real venture capitalist is that Gates seeks his reward in better overall global health outcomes. In this case, I believe the power Gates holds to be truly beneficial.
Anyone who donates 50% of their net worth to a charitable cause does not deserve any criticism for it, even if they fail to spend it in the most efficient way possible. In the case of Bill Gates, that’s 29 Billion donates so far that otherwise would not exist for improvement in global healthcare, and much more still to come.
1. Do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that Bill and Melinda Gates have so much power in Global Health?
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think that a single person or couple should have that much power.
I'm not saying that I don't admire all of the amazing work that they've done to improve the Global Health crisis, but it seems like when other organizations are trying to get funding to start a program, when they go to ask the Gates Foundation for money, it seems like as soon as the Gates get involved, they want to run the program. I don't know whether the information we got from the debate the other day was legitimate about how the Gates Foundation acts in actual deliberations, but judginh by that, is why I think that is how the Foundation acts.
As Michael said, no one else has the billions of dollars to "throw" around like Bill Gates does. His money comes with no strings attached, while most organizations that have as much money as the Gates (which are very few) get the money from donors that give the money to be put into a program for a specific cause, like HIV/AIDS or Malaria.
Looking back at what I've written, it seems that I still agree with my orginal statement, but I think that Bill and Melinda Gates are the exception because they are putting the money toward a good cause, and I, personally, believe in what they are doing.
Madeline Allen
1. Do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that Bill and Melinda Gates have so much power in Global Health?
ReplyDeleteThe contributions that Bill and Melinda Gates are making are fantastic, and bound to produce viable results. Especially in the economy of today, aware members of our society are more hard pressed than in previous years to find the billions that would be needed to overcome malaria and other infectious diseases. "Do we really not care because it doesn't affect us? Is that what it is?" The Gates, who have tremendous potential in fighting the global health challenges that face us today, are taking a stance in their beliefs and following through with actions (and money). After battling these obstacles for many years, the fact that a couple of their stature is working so hard to help the causes is hardly credible, mainly because the troubles have no effect on their lives. Although some people disagree with their efforts, and advances, I think this is a forward move in terms of fighting malaria. If the Gates hadn't donated the funds, or taken such an interest, would anyone with similar resources have? In the past, attempts to advance vaccines and cures have not worked as well as expected, or are too expensive for global distribution. The Gates have found away to stop pushing at the pull door, and further the advances, and for that I think they should be credited a large amount of power in Global Health.
Elana
P.S.-As you know, I really wish I was able to take this class, and I'm so excited we figured something out!
Malaria poses an interesting conundrum. The parameters of debate are usually enclosed between using resources to help and treat the individual, and using them to seek either a vaccine or a cure. In the case of most other diseases there seems to be a distinct line separating treatment and ensured prevention, and the beneficial outcomes that stem from each. For malaria, however, prevention can be found within the treatment of the individual; the more people who are treated directly results in a limited spread of parasite. The fewer infected people that mosquitoes bite, the fewer infected mosquitoes there will be to pass on malaria to other people. The answer to a question of effectiveness of one method over another therefore becomes muddled.
ReplyDeleteChoosing to spend much needed money on research as opposed to directly saving lives now is a moral dilemma. On the one hand, eradicating malaria through current treatment efforts is improbable. On the other, money is much needed at present in countries suffering from malaria; a few dollars could drastically improve the quality of a life. Money that may be donated for research purposes could have such a profound impact on various communities immediately.
The issue is not one sided, and I don’t believe that either distribution of mosquito nets and similar prevention and treatment efforts or attention to modern research can be neglected. That being said, I can’t see the problem being solved without a vaccine. Even in areas where malaria has become extremely close to extinction in the past, nearly 90 percent of the population free of the illness, the problem resurfaced and spread starting with that seemingly mere 10 percent. I think increased pressure needs to be put on scientists at the moment, as there is currently only one drug that effectively treats increasingly resistant strains of malaria. There can be no half-way in terms of eradicating the problem and at present I am not sure that scientifically we are advanced enough to confront the issue as a whole in any stead-fast manner. I agree with Bill and Melinda Gate’s bent towards funding research. In the long run, it appears that no secure and sustainable progress can be made until a vaccine is derived.
I would also like to say that I am really enjoying this class, and want to thank you so much for offering it this term! It's a subject that I've been interested in for a while without much access to similar classes.
ReplyDeleteI'm very, very glad for your high expectations as well. They keep me working hard which is always a good thing. Thank you!!