U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic

SoonToRetire · 11-20-2007, 07:50 AM

The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.
...........
"Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS."
............
"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda,"
..............

Gee, I'm glad that never happens with global warming

washingtonpost.com

ERD50 · 11-20-2007, 10:32 AM

There was a very interesting Science Friday podcast a while back about AIDS relief in Africa. The relief workers phrased their responses carefully, but they basically were saying that the focus on AIDS in Africa was resulting in an *increase* in deaths.

The problem was, all these big $ were going to things like expensive AIDS drugs, and that money was not going to more basic problems. They would hand out pills, and the poor people literally had no source of clean water to take the pills with. People were dying due to lack of basic needs.

The money spent to increase the life span of one AIDS victim could be spent to save maybe hundreds of lives of others, by providing basics like sanitary water.

That is my exact fear with GW - the money is going to go towards solving the wrong problem.

-ERD50

SoonToRetire · 11-20-2007, 07:06 PM

I'll have to listen to that podcast, Science Friday is one of my subscriptions. The problem with big science is not that researchers aren't trying to do the right thing, but that money talks. It's the same as any other human endeavour. The NSF is supposed to take care of money bias by making grants subject to peer review, but even there there is bias towards established paradigms.

11-20-2007, 07:50 AM	#1
SoonToRetire Full time employment: Posting here. Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Virginia, and Caribbean snowbirds in winter Posts: 853	U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement. ........... "Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS." ............ "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," .............. Gee, I'm glad that never happens with global warming washingtonpost.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hearing Aids	nwsteve	Health and Early Retirement	15	04-15-2008 11:22 PM
Tax estimate	piano88	FIRE and Money	6	06-25-2007 05:22 PM
The Hidden Epidemic on PBS	cube_rat	Health and Early Retirement	0	02-15-2007 02:46 PM
The obesity epidemic	TromboneAl	Other topics	319	10-10-2006 01:26 PM

11-20-2007, 10:32 AM	#2
ERD50 Thinks s/he gets paid by the post Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Northern IL Posts: 3,687	There was a very interesting Science Friday podcast a while back about AIDS relief in Africa. The relief workers phrased their responses carefully, but they basically were saying that the focus on AIDS in Africa was resulting in an increase in deaths. The problem was, all these big $ were going to things like expensive AIDS drugs, and that money was not going to more basic problems. They would hand out pills, and the poor people literally had no source of clean water to take the pills with. People were dying due to lack of basic needs. The money spent to increase the life span of one AIDS victim could be spent to save maybe hundreds of lives of others, by providing basics like sanitary water. That is my exact fear with GW - the money is going to go towards solving the wrong problem. -ERD50

11-20-2007, 07:06 PM	#3
SoonToRetire Full time employment: Posting here. Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Virginia, and Caribbean snowbirds in winter Posts: 853	I'll have to listen to that podcast, Science Friday is one of my subscriptions. The problem with big science is not that researchers aren't trying to do the right thing, but that money talks. It's the same as any other human endeavour. The NSF is supposed to take care of money bias by making grants subject to peer review, but even there there is bias towards established paradigms.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)