Slashdot Mirror
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."
(and no, I honestly am not sure if I'm joking, being snarky, or am genuinely worried about WTF that idiot egomaniac may end up blundering us all into...)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I just don't see why everyone thinks that Bill Gates is a Good Person. While I agree that the Gates Foundation (or whatever it's real name is) is a Good Thing, I'm not sure that it exists for the right reason (not that this matters, particularly).
Bill Gates just wants his name to be immortal, because he solved any one of a million world hunger/malaria/etc. problems in the world, and the Gates Foundation is his way of doing that. We'll all love him and put his name on a pedestal, which is exactly what he wants. The Gates Foundation is a calculated move, just like every other he's made. The only difference is, this calculated move has the side effect of being good for the world population.