The Politicization of Science: No Good Deed Goes Uncriticized
Labels: Politics in Science
This is unbelievable: Malaria is a terrible affliction that takes the lives of millions. To their great credit, Bill and Melinda Gates, through their foundation, have poured wheel barrows full of money ($1.2 billion) to fight the disease. And what is their thanks? Dr. Arata Kochi, a World Health Association official accused them in a memo of creating a "cartel" for malaria research, criticism echoed by some other scientists! From the New York Times story:In a memorandum, the malaria chief, Dr. Arata Kochi, complained to his boss, Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the W.H.O., that the foundation's money, while crucial, could have "far-reaching, largely unintended consequences."
Many of the world's leading malaria scientists are now "locked up in a 'cartel' with their own research funding being linked to those of others within the group," Dr. Kochi wrote. Because "each has a vested interest to safeguard the work of the others," he wrote, getting independent reviews of research proposals "is becoming increasingly difficult."...
There have been hints in recent months that the World Health Organization feels threatened by the growing power of the Gates Foundation. Some scientists have said privately that it is "creating its own W.H.O."
It is shocking the extent to which politics and ego drive the leadership of the scientific/medical community these days. This seems more about turf protection than anything else. No good deed goes unpunished.


5 Comments:
This is somewhat off-topic, but I'll share anyway . . .
I have had malaria, and I have also watched my father fight (and then die from) multiple cancers. Experiencing both of these intimately has convinced me that cancer is far worse. Sometimes we fear more that which is exotic and rarely experienced than that which is wreaking havoc in our immediate proximity.
. . . which, by the way, is not intended as a criticism of the point you are making in your post, Wesley.
On the other hand, malaria is substantially preventable, and moreover, unlike cancer, it is communicable. That makes research against the affliction important both to those who have it and those who could get it from a misquito bite.
Behind this "cartel" complaint I sense some sort of disagreement among the researchers involved. They wouldn't complain about a lack of independence, etc., etc., if there weren't something the Gates Foundation scientists are doing that they disagree with or some way in which they are taking a different perspective from the W.H.O. So what's the underlying disagreement?
My own opinion is that we need lots, lots more DDT, and Rachel Carson fans can go pound sand. I wonder how many lives have been lost because of the restrictions on DDT use in Africa.
Lydia: At least to a limited extent, as I have written here: http://www.google.com/search?q=ddt&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com
Cartel:
Function: noun
Pronunciation: kär-'tel
Etymology: French, letter of defiance, from Old Italian cartello, literally, placard, from carta leaf of paper -- more at CARD
1 : a written agreement between belligerent nations
2 : a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
3 : a combination of political groups for common action
Now, lemme get this straight...
Bill and Melinda Gates are putting money into getting rid of malaria. They're paying people to do research to help save lives.
WHO is getting miffy 'cause the money isn't going to them, it's being put to use directly by the Gates'.
I see no written agreement between belligerent nations here.
I also see no political groups - well, no overt ones.
So that means they've got an issue with def. #2.
How, exactly, does this enterprise limit competition? The Gates' pay money, people do the research. As far as I've heard, nobody is stopping anybody else from doing malaria research.
So what gives?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home