Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have invested at least $3 billion to cure all diseases by the end of the century.
This is the latest effort by their company, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which Mark and Priscilla unveiled last December following the birth of their daughter, Maxima. At the time, they pledged to give away 99 percent of their Facebook stock over their lifetimes.
“Today, just four kinds of diseases cause the majority of deaths. We can make progress on all of them with the right technology,” Zuckerberg wrote on Facebook after announcing their latest goal. “This is about the future we want for our daughter and children everywhere.”
To accomplish this, they invested the $3 billion into scientific research over the next decade, including a $600 million investment into the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub — a research center that is being formed with the Standford University, the UC San Francisco, and the UC Berkeley, that will work on building new tools to fight diseases.
“Mark and I spent the past two years talking to scientists,” said Priscilla, who is a doctor. “We set a goal: Can we all together work to cure, prevent or manage all disease in our children’s lifetime?” ~Natalia Makarski
Good! Now if ALL the worlds richest people would do this, and create a more environmentally friendly industrial culture, we could have a great long life and everyone would be healthy inside as well as outside.
And yet all we can talk about is Brad and Angelina...
Wow, this will really help with the world's overpopulation issues.
If only every one was as philanthropic the world would be a better, healthier place.
No cure will be found while it's more profitable to treat them.
Amazing! Good on them!
They should start by first spaying and neutering people who breed like flies in third world countries. Obviously, they have no willpower, or concern about the many babies they bring into a harsh world, to live off of handouts from people they hate in foreign countries. Fewer starving people, fewer related diseases, fewer wars, more chance at people figuring out how to survive without the burden of a gaggle of starving babies hanging off their mothers. Fdewer natural resources wasted jetting "rescuers" and supplies from place to place, fewer arms needed for control of resources, fewer mentally unstable inbred terrorists running around the world slaughtering innocent defenceless men, women & children- using pretense of some archaic religion telling them to steal life from people just in wrong place, at wrong time. Fewer historic sites and buildings ruined by ignorant, malnourished, mentally deranged narcissitic psychopaths. Fewer taxes on everyday working people by ego driven government leaders trying ot pad votes.
I think "thy protesteth much too loudly" though there is a kernel of truth in too many babies in 3rd world countries. Would that proper education and the necessary medical assistance could help in these hapless or war torn areas!
@Mike Hunt You clearly don't have a clue about sociology, and your bigoted point of view hidden behind "making the world better" is offensive. There are a number of reasons certain cultures have many children, and almost all of those reasons change with education, and access to health care and contraception. Non-industrialized societies rely upon their children to assist in the family businesses/agricultural endeavours, and in maintaining the older members of the family, as they age and can no longer work. When there is infant mortality rates, and death due to disease, accident, or starvation, people have more children, as there is a high risk some, even many, will be lost before adulthood. As mortality rates drop, couples have lower numbers of children. It happens in just about every country as health care improves. However, there is always a lag, and this is why, for instance, that Mexico's average age is about 19 years of age, because a large group of children were born about 19 years ago, and as their medical and health programs improved, most of those children survived into adulthood. Lastly, education, particularly of women is critical in controlling populations numbers. As women become educated, they take a personal interest in reducing family size, even going against religious practices. Your response is simplistic and shows not only bigotry, but ignorance. Want to do something meaningful about the problem, offer your time teaching or mentoring in some developing countries. Otherwise, try to recognize that most of the people you speak about are victims of powerful forces that they may follow to survive, as places with minimal resources are forced to rely upon the powerful within their community, which may include warlords or religious leader. Until you have walked a mile in their shoes, don't be so quick to judge.