Gates Pushes Open-Source Approach to HIV Research 134
dan the person writes that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation "has donated $287m to 16 different research groups around the world to work on developing an HIV vaccine. The catch? They have to share their work even if the groups were previously competing against each other. Sounds like a familiar development model to me, I wonder where I have seen it before?" Besides the BBC's coverage, the Seattle Times has a good story about the grant, with a few more details about how the money will be spent.
Should we be happy or sad? (Score:1)
Re:Should we be happy or sad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the consequence of lack of innovation in the IT field is millions of deaths I think you trivializing HIV/AIDS to try to make a point.
Re:Should we be happy or sad? (Score:2)
And you unwittingly trivialized the impact of greed in the free market :-)
Your attitude, intention, and outlook are really what matter. What fields you apply yourself to is just details. So if you have the intention of helping people and making their lives happier and better, that will naturally affect how you create software or how you search for cures.
Your act
Quality of life or quality of death? (Score:2)
I'd prefer quality of life, I like the idea of working hard for years as life continues to get better and better. I don't like the idea of working hard as life continues to get worse and worse, more dangerous, and shorter.
How many people here actually agree on supporting quality of life?
Technology is the biggest life saver (Score:2)
One question: where are those millions of deaths by HIV/AIDS happening? That epidemy first became widespread in the USA/Canada, but it was contained there about twenty years ago. Yet it still seems to be one of the main causes of death in Africa. So, yes, there is a close correlation between technological innovation and saving lives.
A very interesting example on how proper information management can save lives is in the book "
Re:Should we be happy or sad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Should we be happy or sad? (Score:1)
Just because you don't have a high opinion of Gates or his companies practices doesn't mean that this is a "sad" developement. There is a huge difference between curing a disease and the operation of a private company.
Despite what a lot of people in the "the market will solve it" crowd here think certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
Re:Should we be happy or sad? (Score:2)
Clever you, except for the fact that this IS an example of privatized medical research. The example says the opposite of what you want it to say.
-stormin
Re:Should we be happy or sad? (Score:2)
certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
So - wait. You think Gates shouldn't be allowed to invest his private funds in medical research?
Open Source? Not Quite (Score:5, Interesting)
Either way, I'm never going to be able to see the research or dump the data in to Weka and try to find correlations by mixing and matching data mining algorithms on lab data.
Also, I think it's stupid that the story implied irony that Gates doesn't use the open source model in software: I don't know where you got that quote because I can't find it in either of the linked articles. People's lives depend on a cure/vaccine/treatment for HIV/AIDS. People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god. They are two very different development efforts with very different ethical connotations.
Re:Open Source? Not Quite (Score:2)
Re:Open Source? Not Quite (Score:2)
Sounds like he's trying to make the HIV research community into one big monolithic business. More like Microsoft than Open Source?
Re:Open Source? Not Quite (Score:1)
Hmmm. No, you're wrong. People's lives can depend on software. In my Data Structures class, the TA told us a horror story about a case where an operating system race condition in a chemotherapy machine resulted in people being given lethal doses of radiation.
Now as far as M$ software
Re:Open Source? Not Quite (Score:1)
"People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god."
Ever think that mistakes in software -- even just in poorly designed interfaces -- have been directly responsible for wrong medical procedures or analyses or the like? Or that because of software flaws (some of which can be attributed to MS, but obviously not all), people's ide
Re:Open Source? Not Quite (Score:2)
Open source doesn't require you to share the information you have, or the source.
Even free software doesn't. When you distribute GPLed software, you are obliged to distribute the source too, and pass certain freedoms to the guy that receives it.
But most important, it doesn't say that you have to share it at all!!!
If you have a lab, for example, and
PICK A SIDE (Score:2)
I love this argument.
"Gates deserves his billions, he's had such a HUGELY IMPORTANT impact on the world! Computers have become life-saving technology, our qua
Re:PICK A SIDE (Score:2)
Yes, computers are important. Competition among software vendors is important. Yes, Microsoft has a history of stifling that competition. But the computer industry is business. Businesses try to make money. That's why they're there.
Curing AIDS on the other hand should be thought of as a hum
Re:PICK A SIDE (Score:2)
"Shoehorning" is stuffing something in somewhere when it doesn't quite fit. Like Microsoft technology in a school. [Thats a HUGE generalization about microsoft technology, and isn't entirely accurate, but I'm sure you get the point.]
I'm surprised someone with such an unbelievable intellect, disgusted by slang and CAPITAL LETTERS, would have such tr
Re:Open Source? Not Quite (Score:2)
Actually this matches the GPL quite well. The GPL does not require you to make the source code publically available. It requires you to supply the source code to whoever you give/sell the program to. Thus there is no reason for the public to be able to see the code if all the parties agree to share only with themselves.
[The GPL also requires you to allow the person receiving the program
Re:Open Source? Not Quite (Score:2)
Re:you got it backwards (Score:1)
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
No, I'm saying that we should spend our limited resources carefully, so that we can save the maximum number of babies (and adults).
Any baby born today with HIV is very unlikely to benefit from vaccine research. And there is a good chance that no vaccine will ever be developed, or even that if it will be developed, it will still take many decades. That's why we need to allocate our fun
Re:you got it backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you help me a little with that one? Oh and if you can figure out how sick and dying people can be good workers and entrepreneurs without medication. Bill Gates already has the money (whether he got it fairly or not). Would you rather he keep it?
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Come on, use your head.
The fact that 1/3 of the adult population in some countries is infected, while it is at most a few percent in many other countries, tells you that there are other factors that cause the high HIV infection rates.
Furthermore, the only way these people would be helped is if you could develop a cheap, effective, therapeutic HIV vaccine that needs to be given on
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
And where did you come up with this little tidbit of information? The reports I've heard indicate that, given access to anti-HIV medications, people in the third world are very good about following whatever medical routine the people at the clinic recommend. After all, their lives depend on it.
I'm especia
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Failure to comply with medication regimes is a major problem in developing nations. It's not because people don't want to, it's because they often can't. For example, it may take them several hours to get to the hospital and back.
In any case, you're focussing on a small part of the statement a
Re:you got it backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true for adults, but not for the children of people infected with HIV/AIDS. I'm all in favor of personal responsibility and the obvious solution the spread of AIDS does seem to be "stop having sex outside of marriage", but it would still be a fairly massive world-wide problem just in terms of those who already have the disease - especially those who have the disease through no fault of their own.
What's frustrating is the way it seems as though this has to be an either-or. Either we ask people to keep their sexual drives under control OR we try to save those who catch the disease. Pity we can't do both.
-stormin
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the obvious solution is to use condoms, but the idiot Catholic church said condom use is Evil(tm), and the desperate people listening to the church followed. The result is that HIV is spreading like wildfire all over Africa and some parts of Asia.
Its amazing to me that we'll have people use disease to back up thier so-called morals, nevermind the fact that most disease spreads other ways besides through sexual
Don't blame the Catholic Church... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get this. The same Catholic Church that is against condoms, is also against sex outside of a monogamous marital relationship. If everyone is in strict adherence to the laws of the Church, AIDS wouldn't be the issue it is. Actually, your problem with the Catholic Church is not that they are against condom use, but that they spend their money to convert people instead of spending money to hand out free
Re:Don't blame the Catholic Church... (Score:3, Insightful)
So all we can say is:
Thanks Church, for showing once again that you understand how the real world works.
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence to back-up that assertion? It should be easy to prove.
HIV is spreading like wildfire all over Africa and some parts of Asia
Despite the fact that only a small minority of Asians are Catholics. In fact the Philippines, the only majority Catholic country in Asia has a low prevalence of AIDS [aidsmap.com].
There would be plenty of evidence if you were right. Catholic parts of Africa would have higher AIDS rates, Catholic individuals should be more likely to have AIDS, Catholic countries in E
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
2. Its amazing to me that we'll have people use disease to back up thier so-called morals, nevermind the fact that most disease spreads other ways besides through sexual contact.
While it is possible for AIDS/HIV to spread through non-sexual contact, are you seriously suggesting it wou
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is pretending anything. We all know that HIV is transmitted by sex, and that there are lots of people engaging in risky behaviors. In my mind, the debate is over whether we should write off people because they don't strictly adhere to one individual's moral code. Those who argue that we can do
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I recently read a compilation of studies of illegitimate children. The statistics ranged anywhere from 2.5 up to 20% of children in marriage are the product of infidelity. If there's that many fathers out there raising someone else's kid, even if you only take the 2.5% statistic, imagine how many women are able to cheat and not get pregnant. Now remember that it's widely accepted that men cheat more frequently, so take whatever estimate you have in your head and double it.
Unless you propose to eliminate in
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
But the real problem I have with what you're saying is that you act as though it has to be either-or. I think that advocating traditional values is the best solution. People like you obviously di
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Sure they are. They establish that infidelity is a reality. The difference is, if someone cheats when the couple is still using condoms the chance of transmitting a disease is greatly reduced. But if someone cheats in a commited relationship and catches something it's practially guaranteed that they'll pass it on. I'd say even if you go by the 2.5% statistic that infidelity is extremely common; I doubt more tha
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
You're saying "people behave in this way, we can't change it" - and then you advocate condoms. So why is it that we can change one type of behavior but not another? Why is fidelity just a given - we can't influence it - but condom use is variable? It seems like your argument hinges not on the statistics, but on your assumptions about which types of human behavior can change and which can't.
All I'm saying is that - assuming all types of human behavior can
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I'm looking at this from a purely selfish viewpoint; if everyone did the same this problem would not exist. Condoms are a great way to protect yourself, and that's it. I don't expect to change any behavior, in fact I expect that most people have way more unprotected sex than they admit to.
Traditional morals? I'll bet you dollars to dohnuts that in the '50s cheating was at best half of what it is to today, and 90% of the white dresses sold should have been pearl.
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
if everyone did the same this problem would not exist
vs.
I don't expect to change any behavior
So, in other words "if people changed their behavior..." but "I don't expect them to". You're saying "If X then Y", and also saying "not X". That's the logical equivalent of saying nothing at all.
Also - you're saying the infidelity rate was 1/2 todays rate 50 years ago? And that doesn't mean anything? Seems like doubling the rate is pretty significant to me.
Look man, I don't kn
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I forgot you were a Mormon--nevermind that last paragraph.
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
What's frustrating is the way it seems as though this has to be an either-or. Either we ask people to keep their sexual drives under control OR we try to save those who catch the disease. Pity we can't do both.
That's flamebait if ever I heard it. Can you god-botherers please explain what's so wrong about sex? Do you assume that all of us that have had it outside of marriage are promiscuous, engaging in unprotected sex with vast numbers of strangers possibly of the same sex? Do you assume that we're all in
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
You know very well that most religious faiths believe marriage is not a man-made institution. So how is assuming your premise (religions are wrong) a legitimate argument? It's logically vacuous and serves only as flamebait.
In any case: I never said anything was wrong with sex. I happen to like sex. A lot. I'm a fan. I just also happen to believe that sex is best enjoyed between by a married cou
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
You've got this weird vision where there's a chaste women with a philandering husband (and therefore apparently some philandering women to help him along). What's the relevance?
You've got an axe to grind, alright, but that's not really very informative or relevant.
-stormin
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I'm not talking about "personal responsibility", I'm talking about basic reprodutive rights and basic sex education. The problem with HIV isn't one of failing to choose abstinence or safe sex, it's that women in many of the hardest hit countries simply don't have the choice to abstain
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Explain that to me. It sounds like you think women are inherently weaker creatures then men in more than just the physical sense. If we're talking about rape or sexual slaves, then I'm with you 100%, but it sounds like you mean non-coercive factors. In that case, I ask why is that you single women out as being vulnerable to po
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
That style of argumentation is inflammatory and unproductive, and I suggest you'll get along better in the world if you stop these "when did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.
In any case, rather than try to explain to you the link between women's rights and HIV/AIDS, I refer to article [hrw.org] that explains the link. There are lots more articles on it on the Internet if you both
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I gues the discussion of women's rights is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm certainly not acusing you of being a wife-beater or abusing women. I do think that many people engage in various forms of reverse-discrimination or cultural imperialism when they talk about 3rd-world nations, however. I really haven't seen enough of what your opinion is to know if that's what you're doing or not.
-stormin
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
A cure is even less likely than a vaccine. To date, there is not a single viral disease that can be cured using drugs, and most viruses are far simpler to eliminate than HIV. Over the next several decades, HIV infection, at best, will become a manageable chronic disease for people in wealthy nations. And if HIV ever gets cured, it will likely be by gene therapy, which simply does not work for third world nations.
Medicine sim
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I should have been more careful with my words. I suppose we can talk of three general drugs: a "cure" (which makes the condition go away), a vaccine (which prevents the condition) and treatments that mitigate the symptoms. We've made great strides with treatments, and it's possible (I think) that with time our treatments could reach the point of allowing people with HIV/AIDS to surive and live as healthy people. This is the type of "cure" I was referring to.
The o
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Well, that's not a cure, and our treatments are already almost to that point. But that's not an option for third world nations.
I'm not sure about only. If it was the only response, we'd give up our drug and vaccine research, wouldn't we? Are you suggesting we do so?
Drug a
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I don't. I never did. You took something I wrote the wrong way and haven't listened to me since. No one here is talking about discriminatory viewpoints being the same as discriminatory action. I can't state this any more clearly than I already have.
(I find it ironic that a Mormon would want to "oppose discrimination", given the discrimination that the Mormon church actually practices against all sorts of groups. Of course, you have the legal
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
They aren't "snide comments". You make judgements about supposed discriminatory speech by others; that makes your own morality and ethics very much an issue.
You may contest all of this as you wish, of course, but in the end I just have to ask why we would be so careful to come across as non-racist and non-sexist if we truly were?
You attempt to establish that your church doesn't discriminate simply by redefining the terms to s
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
What on earth are you talking about? Ordinarily when someone critcizes my church I don't take them very seriously because I've almost always heard it before. I have to admit, though, that you sound like you've got some fascinating new spin I've never heard of. I'm shocked that anyone that knows anything about the Mormons would claim they have a troubled past in their dealings with third world nations. There are a lot of things to criticize in the history
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Yes, and why do Mormons collect all this money and use it in this way? Among other things, because it helps the organization grow, because church members are pressured to do it
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
But the real problem here is that you're attacking a straw man.
1. The Mormon church exemplifies charity according to your definition. I know of many, many examples of charity from the Mormon chuch
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
You keep supplying evidence for the statement "many Mormons are good and the Mormon church does good". I agree with that statement. Like any large population, the Mormon church has its share of good people, and it causes the others to behave themselves. And Mormon practices probably actually produce large numbe
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
What I was responding to was your contention that Mormon charity was derived from self-interest. But I'm happy to set that aside to concentrate on the issues around Mormon theology.
No, it is a fundamental flaw of Mormon theology (as well as of many other religions). The Mormon Articles of Faith specifically tell people that they will be rewarded or punished, and therefore utilit
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
You are proving that there exist non-utilitarian aspects to Mormon theology, which is obviously true, but it's irrelevant to this argument. The point is that Mormon theology contains offers of utilitarian deals to its followers. Since M
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
You asked a direcct quesiton and it deserves a direct answer. I promise I'm not trying to evade what you're saying, so please just do me the favor of reading my entire (direct) response to your question.
The question: Will God actually reward me for charity, punish me for sin, and assign
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
After a careful study of Mormon theology, however, [...] The Book of Mormon explicitly states that those who do not end up in God's presence are only those people who would suffer more from being in his presence than from being wherever they do end up. God IS the reward, not the reward-giver. The same analog works for punishment.
Well, since you manage to express this concept that you arrived at after careful stu
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Let me paraphrase that. You're saying "One ought to legislate pragmatically in order to promote behaviors which conform to the Mormon view of what constitutes moral behavior."
What I can't figure out to begin with is why you even want to bother to apply your principle. Is it because you can't think of another principle? Or is it your wish to force me
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
OK, I completely failed to make my point. Let me try again, with a fresh start.
Actually, there is another way: you legislate pragmatically to maximize the ability of people to mak
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I assume anybody who isn't Mormon, but you tell me. Are there any other religions that Mormons respect enough not to attempt to gain converts from them?
The main reason is what I referred to earlier as the milk before meat principle. The most superficial, and therefore the most readily accessible, interpretation of human morality starts with action. The most crude understanding of morality starts with thi
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I think this further highlights the vast gulf between what you think about Mormons, and the truth about Mormons. Mormon missionaries are overwhelmingly 19 - 21 year old kids. Kids. For American missions they have 3 weeks of training. For foreign-speaking missions they have 8 or 11, and it's
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Well, you say one thing, but the actions of your fellow Mormons speak another language. For example, consensual sodomy has remained against the law in Utah, one of the small minority of remaining states, until the US Supreme Court finally overturned all sodomy laws in 2003. And as recently as 1997, the Utah legi
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I think it's a bad idea to have so many Mormons in one place. I think it would be a bad idea to have so many Buddhists, Catholics, or Baptists in one place too. Or
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
-stormin
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
I myself, am not
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
That's a trap, and you should know it. The problem is that you keep trying to prooftext Mormon scriptures. This means you are taking exact quotes out of context and then trying to hold me accountable for what without context they seem to mean to you. There is no lack of commitment on my part. I hav
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
even those made by Joseph Smith
I'm assuming this referred to my refusal to acquiesce to your interpretation of the Articles of Faith. If there's something else Joseph Smith said that you think I'm not standing behind, let me know. But before you accuse me of not standing behind Joseph Smith maybe you should study the things he actually said. (Again: it's all about context.)
Richard Bushman is a foremost expert on that topic. Two of his books are Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (http://w
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
What is to stop us doing both?
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
On the other hand, a lot of the people most opposed to AIDS also react to traditional values as though there are inherently sexist (what is sexist about telling men AND women to only have sex wi
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
2) You are assuming that all of Microsoft's profits are somehow coming from the "public works" budgets of federal, state and local governments. This is a staggeringly incorrect assumption.
3) You forget the AIDS is killing an entire generation of Africans, with 20% of some countries' population being infected with HIV. You can tut-tut all you want about how AIDS is avoidable, but it isn't so s
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
You know, I was poking around /. the other day and I heard of this really cool new thing called Linux... I don't really know about it, but it has something to do with penguins and being free... I don't know if that's something you might want to look into or not...
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Odd. So companies aren't taxed on profits then?
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Re:you got it backwards (Score:2)
Not just rape, but general suppression of women and women's rights. And that is precisely why investing in education, development, public health, and women's rights in those nations is what needs to happen right now.
Maybe you can explain to the millions of people in Africa that all they needed to do was stop by a 7-11 and pick-up some condoms.
Maybe you can explain how you're going to deliver complex drug therapies or
Wrong title (Score:1, Funny)
since we're talking about AIDS, shouldn't it be "Open Sores", and not "Open Source" ?
Re:Wrong title (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong title (Score:2)
Re:Wrong title (Score:2)
Re:Wrong title (Score:3, Funny)
I guess whoever rated it as flamebait missed the irony - the history of Microsoft calling Open Source a virus ...
mod parent up (Score:1, Insightful)
totally different goals (Score:5, Insightful)
the goal of bill gates' charity is to help people.
why should it be surprising if gates uses different methods to accomplish different goals?
Re:totally different goals (Score:2)
Re:totally different goals (Score:2)
Re:totally different goals (Score:2)
Precedent (Score:1, Interesting)
"Joshua Pushes for Jericho to have Open Wall Policy"
Greeks Push for Trojan "Open Gate" Policy.
Cease fire on Mr. Bill (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill Gates reminds me of William Bulger: Brilliant, cunning, a great person to have on your side and a devastating enemy to have against you. Glad those guns are pointed towards HIV and TB.
Maybe it's time to separate the BG of MS and the BG of the Gates Foundation. It's seems he has.
Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill (Score:2)
Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill (Score:2)
"[He] says his plan is to reach one million people with medicine by the end of the decade. Another way to read it: he's locking in a trade system that will effectively block the delivery of medicine to over 20 million."
Killing Africans for profit and PR [gregpalast.com]
Re:Cease fire on Mr. Bill (Score:2)
money vs selfish attitudes (Score:2)
simple economics (Score:2)
or
Spend 3 billion of your own money to develop a treatment.
100 million people with AIDS (total guess) X $10 / week = $1 Billion dollars per week for the rest of their lives, and you ensure a new generation of "customers."
Yes, there are people doing research that would love to find a cure, but it takes a pharmaceutical giant to engineer, manufacture, and distribute. I wish him luck, but don't expect anyhting monumental from it.
Re:simple economics (Score:2)
Re:simple economics (Score:2)
Re:simple economics (Score:2)