Gates Pushes Open-Source Approach to HIV Research

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.

Comments

Open Source? Not Quite

[eldavojohn]

I read both articles and I don't recall seeing anywhere that they would allow anyone access to their findings and research. I believe that open source means anyone can access it and contribute if they wish. I believe that their findings will still be restricted to the 16 groups involved. That's no more open source than 16 companies banding together to create a software suite and keeping the source closed to only themselves.

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:

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?

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:Should we be happy or sad?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

company does anything it can to stop this kind of progress in the IT field, even though their previous boss apparently knows very well what the consequence of that is....

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.

totally different goals

[nitroamos]

the goal of microsoft is to make money.
the goal of bill gates' charity is to help people.

why should it be surprising if gates uses different methods to accomplish different goals?

Cease fire on Mr. Bill

[hotspotbloc]

I use to hate BG as much as the next person ("Burn [him] like a witch if I wasn't afraid of the fumes" - Drew Cary) but it seems to me that he is placing the same effort that he did into making MS into a "success" now with his foundation. Granted IMO it's being done with stolen funds but still if he can do to TB what he did to Lotus 1-2-3 he has to be thanked. If he's known for anything it's "hell or high water, he'll get the job done".

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:you got it backwards

[theStorminMormon]

Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth.

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