RE-TWEET IT!
Tweet
A paper in today’s issue of the medical journal Lancet raises questions about the governance of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The Gates Foundation is among the biggest charities in the world that funds, and thereby drives much of biomedical research, globally. I heard about it from this article in our daily newspaper, “The Hindu”.
With regard to child health research, the article says:
“With regard to child health research in particular, the analysis found that funding for the development of technologies was disproportionate in comparison to support to overcoming barriers to the use of existing technologies.”
A few weeks ago, I wrote this email to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (and received the standard ’stock’ email reply a couple of days later!) – and it seems I was not alone in thinking that way:
= = =
“Dear Bill & Melinda Gates
I deeply appreciate your non-profit work, and noticed
your offer for research grants to Indian scientists
for exploring preventive health strategies in specific
areas, like malaria and diarrheal diseases.
One reason for the minimal interest from Indian
researchers in the past might be that today’s reality
for most doctors and healthcare workers is providing
TREATMENT initiatives that work right now to save lives,
as against the deferred benefits that come from primary
research.
I would love, as a pediatric cardiac surgeon,
to explore genetic linkages with congenital heart
defects, with a view to early detection and even
prevention.
But the fact that 50,000 children in my state alone
will die or suffer without immediate surgery directed
my choice to focus my non-profit effort to innovative
funding models based on my Internet business.
47 children have received heart surgery as a
result. http://www.DrMani.org
It is my earnest appeal that the Gates’ Foundation,
in addition to investing in much needed research,
also focus a tiny portion of its grant money to encourage
initiatives that act in the now, like funding
projects that deliver life-saving services to
children and adults who cannot afford it on their
own.
All success
Dr.Mani
= = = =
Worrying, too, is this part:
“Gates Foundation is not a passive donor,” observes the paper.
“The Foundation actively engages in policy making and agenda setting activities; it has representatives that sit on the governing structures of many global health partnerships; it is part of a self-appointed group of global health leaders known as the H8…”
Echoes of the old Bill Gates, who insinuated Windows onto 85% of the world’s computing machines?
But then, is healthcare the same as technology?
I doubt it will ever be possible to have such a dominant influence on this arena, because end points and goals of medical endeavours are fundamentally different from the other. And this disparity lies at the core of why doctors won’t ever see eye to eye with technology purists!
People – sick people – are a different kettle of fish from glitchy software programs!
{ 3 comments }
Very interesting. I am glad to see people who do make sizeable charitable contributions. On one hand I can see them wanting to specify how the funds are appropriated, but, as it is not their particular area of expertise would it not make sense to have someone appropraite within the charitable community to at least have input to the use of the funds? Not all things can be run on a strict business model.
NA Sharpe
http://nasharpe.blogspot.com
Of course they have an agenda.
Every organisation has an agenda.
That’s pretty much the definition of “existing to achieve a purpose”.
I’d be far more disturbed by an organisation that randomly distributed billions of dollars around the world.
Having read the article you linked to, there is little of substance to it.
Do you have a reference to the original paper?
I would expect a “disproportionate” amount of funding to go to the US for example because the Gates live there, many of the largest and best known organisations are based there, native english makes it easier to apply for grants, …
I’d like to see the discussion of bias relative to the grant applications by geography. That would be far more liekly to be accurate.
Yes! Roger
– - – - “Every organisation has an agenda.”
How often are these implemented?
- – - – “Do you have a reference to the original paper?”
Doesn’t the references given in the original suffice.
- – - – ” would expect a “disproportionate” amount of funding to go to the US for example because the Gates live there, many of the largest and best known organisations are based there, native english makes it easier to apply for grants, —”
- – - – have look plrease, into the ‘Guiding Principles’ of the
funadation.
—————————-
Comments on this entry are closed.