Slashdot Log In
Gates Foundation Funds "Altruistic Vaccine"
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu May 14, 2009 02:46 AM
from the needles-with-a-heart dept.
from the needles-with-a-heart dept.
QuantumG writes "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded a $100,000 grant to the University of Queensland, Australia to develop a vaccine against dengue fever, a disease spread by mosquitoes. Unlike other vaccines, the 'altruistic vaccine' doesn't specifically protect the individual being bitten, but instead protects the community by stopping the transmission of the pathogen from one susceptible individual to another. The hope is to do this by effectively making their blood poisonous to mosquitoes, either killing them or at least preventing them from feeding on other individuals. Professor Paul Young explained how his work fell outside current scientific traditions and might lead to significant advances in global health — he said he could envision the vaccine being used around the world within 10 years, and it would be designed to be cheap and easy to implement."
Related Stories
[+]
Gates Foundation Plans To Invest $10B Into Vaccines 477 comments
Endloser writes "Bill Gates is going to invest $10 billion to provide vaccines to people worldwide. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation believes that vaccines are the way to a better future for the world. So they have decided to make 'the largest pledge ever made by a charitable foundation to a single cause.' This 10-year, 10 billion dollar project is expected to save 8.7 million lives."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A vaccine? (Score:4, Funny)
Is this a vaccine that prevent you from getting infected with that anti-captialist altruistism?
Is this yet another attempt for Microsoft to destroy the Free Software movement?
The Giving Plague (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this a vaccine that prevent you from getting infected with that anti-captialist altruistism?
Hey, altruism is serious business [davidbrin.com].
Parent
Is that really enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't want to sound ungrateful or anything but is $100K really all that much considering how expensive it must be to do this kind of research?
I could presume it is enough money to pay for the salary of the one researcher that was awarded this grant. It's not a lot of money, but Microsoft has spread their grants to other researchers working on other projects as well.
Re:Is that really enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill Gates != Microsoft
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bill Gates != Microsoft
In VB6, it it might well be!
Re:Is that really enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Is that really enough? (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly,
Unlike other grants such as the NFS, the Gates foundation is very results driven. In essence Bill Gates is using the money just like in a business with the only exception the goal isn't to make more money to to have the best effect on humanity. So 100k grant to do some research (And this guy probably has other money, Money from the university that pays his salary and facilities) The 100k pays for tools and grad students (Who work cheap) to help with his research. Now with further study if it shows more of a success then he may get more. But if it is a dead end research the Gates Foundation is only down 100k vs. More.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't want to sound ungrateful or anything but is $100K really all that much considering how expensive it must be to do this kind of research?
I feel somewhat qualified to answer this accurately as I've been in the throes of grant proposal writing over the past six months, and have put together 4 large proposals, along with 6 smaller ones, all with budgets. I would not refuse $100k if someone were to offer the sum; far from it, as I would accept $100k with grateful humility. However, that does not mean it's a very large amount of money.
$100k of direct costs gets you almost nothing. It's a pittance. It will cover the salary of one researcher for
Re:Is that really enough? (Score:5, Funny)
Really he should up this to 640K. That should be enough for anybody.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This message has been sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
There goes another five bucks.
YIDRC (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, go on. Tell me precisely how market dominance in a desktop computer operating system has kept the desperately poor of Africa from becoming "not poor". Perhaps it has to do with increased electrification of the African countryside? Brought computers and wireless connections to those people?
Basically, Windows design is so poisonous, it rots brains of people who are trying to advance science and technology whenever they try to build anything that has to work under Windows and therefore they have to internalize this insane design. With progress in technology being slowed down and misdirected, the whole world does not get benefits of better technology, medicine, infrastructure development, art, etc. that would be developed if Windows did not exist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your last post hasn't answered the question: how did Windows domination has caused these people (we are talking 3rd world people) to be poor?
It did not make them poor, it prevented them from ceasing to be poor. The same way how Catholic Church kept European peasants poor over Middle Ages -- by shitting up and suffocating all scientific development.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, 2 decades of non-windows usage would have had reversed centuries-old poverty?
Of course. In the rest of the world it already happened at various points in history, so there is no reason to expect that it wouldn't be the same in Africa. We see it as "centuries-old poverty" only in comparison with our own societies' conditions, however not long ago our societies were at the same level, just without a point of comparison to make them look this bad.
Explain me the economics of it, IN DETAIL, not with slogans passed as hypothetical.
The whole study of economy is basically a set of slogans, so I would rather omit it altogether and focus on things that are comparable and me
And 20 years from now... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And 20 years from now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it is also possible that evolution will take another path and mosquitos stop feeding on humans and switch to animals, but not any more possible than the prospect of mosquitos becoming vegetarians.
Parent
Re:And 20 years from now... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, mosquitos has many other food sources than humans. Resistance to humans might not be important enough to give potentially immune mosquitos an evolutionary advantage.
Parent
Re:And 20 years from now... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is, for mosquitos to stop feeding off humans would mean developing some sort of mechanism to differentiate between a human and an animal.
Uh, how did you infer that was the goal from the GP's post? The point isn't that mosquitos will evolve to avoid humans. The point is that they probably *won't* evolve a resistance to this "vaccine" because it won't act as a sufficient evolutionary pressure to select mosquitos with that resistance, as the ability to feed on humans isn't sufficiently advantageous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more serious note, though. Some time from now, if this vaccine is developed and becomes widespread, the mosquitos will adapt to the poison in it (this is what evolution is all about), and we'll have mosquitos that are resistant to the poison.
This is probably true, as it is with antibiotics and bacteria. But just like we can't stop prescribing antibiotics for certain infections, we can't just not explore the possibilities of this vaccine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just wait until Bill Gates releases those into the audience.
Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th (Score:5, Informative)
-- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, I'm pretty sure Benjamin was talking about "public provisions made for the poor" and not merely public provisions made for the commonwealth.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndrome [thedailyshow.com]
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=the-stockholm-syndrome-pt.-2 [thedailyshow.com]
Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th (Score:5, Insightful)
A reason that the Founding Fathers get so much credit is because there was another group around the same time with similar ideas who launched a revolution and set up a government based on those ideas as well. That group didn't work out so well (it was the group behind the French Revolution). So, the Founding Fathers of the USA obviously had some insight or something that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, the Founding Fathers of the USA obviously had some insight or something that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't.
They had an existing working local government that never was destroyed. The American revolution got rid of the authority of a non-local governmental entity, but by and large left the day-to-day governance intact. The French revolution did not. There, the whole of the government was destroyed, leaving a power vacuum that was not truly filled until Napoleon managed to get a firm enough grip to keep the country together.
Isn't this what governor huey did.. (Score:3, Interesting)
in Distraction?
Made genetic modifications to the humans to make their blood poisonous to the mosquitoes..
Re: (Score:2)
in Distraction?
Made genetic modifications to the humans to make their blood poisonous to the mosquitoes..
Maybe Bill is really looking for a new angle on multi threaded software.
Re:Isn't this what governor huey did.. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Will this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if it won't help against infection it's little consolation that you won't spread the fever.
Of course - it's better than nothing, but even better would be to figure a way to take out diseases like Dengue Fever completely.
Many diseases are spread by mosquitoes and if you can take out them from the equation it may help against several diseases. Pheromones are one important factor when the mosquitoes are mating and if you can attract the males to a trap you can either kill them or replace them with genetically modified ones that are less able to spread diseases. The modification may range from sterile offspring to offspring that aren't able to work as a carrier or even offspring that are shunning humans as blood source.
Re:Will this help? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mosquitoes certainly have their role in the ecosystem and killing them will certainly have unforeseen consequences. More like in the Mao and sparrows story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sparrow_Campaign [wikipedia.org]
And besides, Sparrows are too cute to kill.
Re:Will this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mosquitoes certainly have their role in the ecosystem and killing them will certainly have unforeseen consequences. More like in the Mao and sparrows story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sparrow_Campaign [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
Humans are part of the ecosystem, and not allowing natural checks and balances to occur on the human population also has devastating effects on the environment. I'm not advocating culling humans however.
Parent
Re:Will this help? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't live in the USA, and I don't live in Israel. If they "got ahold" of some nukes, how many does Pakistan have? Last I read, about 60, and they aren't all on missiles, and the military people in PAK have enough sense to no let these lunkheads get access to the codes. So, they would have to use them as something put on a boat and floated into a harbour. Let's pretend that they do get some missiles with nukes, do you think they're going after Western Civ first? No. They'll go after Western Civ's proxy, India (IND). Let's further pretend that they get as many as 20 (roughly 1/3 of the stockpile) in usuable order on missiles, which AFAIK, is extremely unlikely even for PAK today.
So, they use some nukes on IND first. Bombay, New Dehli, a few other big cities disappear. Grossly wounded, there are still hundreds of millions of Angry Indians left, and they collectively march across the border and commence slaughter, with the approval and sanction of the UN. Game over. Did Western Civ end? No.
So, let's say they go for another Western Proxy, Israel. Let's say they dump all 20 on Israel, somehow (even though they don't have a delivery system). What happens? A devastated Israel responds with its own nukes and it has dozens more than PAK and PAK is reduced to a glowing parking lot. Game over. Did Western Civ end? No.
So, let's say they go for the gusto, and somehow get all twenty - fuck it - ALL SIXTY nukes into the USA and set them off. The USA military responds and with one submarine turns PAK into a glowing parking lot. Millions die, in the USA and PAK. But not in Europe or Japan, or Germany or France or Italy or Finland or Russia. Did Western Civ end? No.
So, kindly quit with the fear mongering bullshit.
The apocalypse is NOT a year away. There will be no apocalypse. There is way too much money to be made and too much power to grab for something as self-absorbed and self-indulgent as an apocalypse to occur.
The USA is bankrupt, and will have to retreat from unipolar status fairly soon. When that happens, it will become less of a target.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will this help? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Useless (Score:5, Interesting)
This won't do much good unless all warm-blooded suppliers of the mosquitoes are so treated. A handful of humans killing/disabling a few thousand mosquitoes every year won't put a dent in the total population. This kind of thing tends to have unfortunate side effects as well. A similar treatment for dogs and cats to kill fleas has been around for years, and I don't see any reduction in the flea population. I have had a couple of really sick animals as a result of the treatment before I gave it up, though.
Re:Useless (Score:4, Insightful)
If every human with dengue fever is so treated, the mosquitoes will not have a chance to spread the fever any further if they do bite you. I don't understand the disease, and the article itself was light on detail, but if the disease spreads from ...mosquito->human->mosquito->human..., you would be removing the human->mosquito leg of the cycle.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe that for this to work, a very, very high % of the population would have to be inoculated.
I hope we are not risking creating a "strand" of mosquitoes that can "smell" the poisonous blood from a human and prefer to feed on the next one that is safe.
Re:Problem (Score:5, Informative)
You can eliminate it if you hit the herd immunity threshold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity [wikipedia.org]
That requirement is essentially the same as for regular vaccines.
As for risking mosquitoes evolving to smell the poisonous blood -- isn't that a best-case scenario? Where the immunity to spreading the disease is converted to an immunity to getting the disease because the vectors avoid the innoculated.
The worst-case scenario basically leaves us back at square one with no loss and only a temporary gain.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Teh horrors! (Score:4, Funny)
I hope it can be mixed in food (Score:4, Interesting)
Typically there are many more animal than human hosts, since the former usually do not go to hospitals or use cloth/house/DEET to protect themselves from mosquitos. So your altruism will likely protect a chimp or an antelope rather than another human. But mass vaccination of wildlife through baits dispersed from planes can really make a difference.
More on "altruistic vaccination" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since a lot of people think the whole mercury and autism thing was invented out of whole cloth because their government told them so, you might also talk about how in order to receive any vaccinations from the Gates foundation you have to provide patent protection to pharmaceutical companies. No IP law? No vaccinations. This would not be true if they were genuinely trying to stamp out certain diseases; you can't stamp them out as long as you leave ground unstomped.
Re:Repercussions? (Score:4, Informative)
> In the more immediate, what does this do to your liver?
Well I guess that is what the research is for, right?
> Longer term, what impact might this have on other insect populations?
Well, since mosquitos can also feed on animals, most of them will never come in contact with the poison. I don't know how this will affect their natural predators (eating multiple poisoned mosquitos might have a negative effect on them, depending on the poison), but I assume they will investigate that too before they start handing out the stuff to everyone everywhere.
> And will this impact negatively effect human populations?
Well I guess that is what the research is for, right?
> This approach is dangerous.
Maybe. If we don't research we'll never find out. The whole thing would be dangerous if we were to give this stuff to everybody before having some idea to what the answers to your questions might be. But since thas hasn't been the way to do these things in science for some decades now, your whole post seems somewhat overrated, this last bit in particular.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the problem is that people have been trying for years to make standard vaccines against Dengue, and failing. If I remember properly, there are several different subtypes of the virus, and protecting against all is difficult, while protecting against only some has turned out to do more harm than good (Dengue is a disease that is more likely to have serious consequences the second time you get it, and an incomplete vaccine was found to function like a first infection in this regard).
Yet Dengue is a very