Gates Foundation Vs. Openness In Research

An anonymous reader writes "There have been complaints within the World Health Organization of some oddly familiar-sounding tactics and attitudes by the Gates Foundation. Scientists who were once open with their research are now 'locked up in a cartel' and are financially motivated to support other scientists backed by the Foundation. Diversity of views is 'stifled,' dominance is bought, and Foundation views are pushed with 'intense and aggressive opposition.'" The article tries hard for balance. It notes that the WHO official who raised the alarm on the Gates Foundation's unintended consequences on world health research is "an openly undiplomatic official who won admiration for reorganizing the world fight against tuberculosis but was ousted from that job partly because he offended donors like the Rockefeller Foundation."

Comments

Re:Monopoly Philanthropy

[sakusha]

I don't buy his products. But many people do, and they pay inflated prices because of Gates' monopoly. That is how Gates acquired his wealth, through illegal means. Do I need to remind you that Gates is a convicted monopolist? You may earn your money selling products in a manner similar to Gates, but I suspect you earn your money honestly. Bill Gates did not.

Furthermore, I frequently have no choice in how my government spends the tax dollars I contribute to the treasury. My money is wasted on inefficient, insecure, and overpriced monopoly products sold by Microsoft. They're installed in my local governments offices, even down to the local library. Money spent on those overpriced MS products diverts funding from other projects that provide tangible services to taxpayers. I do not pay my taxes so that Bill Gates can siphon off funding for his monopoly on philanthropy.

Re:Business as usual

[dedazo]

Evidence that the UN is an inefficient, top-heavy bureaucracy? To disprove what is nothing more than an opinion piece with no substantial backing whatsoever?