Baldness receives a disproportionate amount of funding when compared to serious diseases. Why? If it's cured someone is going to make a whole ton of money. A quick Google to back up my claim yielded this article[1]. $2bn/y on hair loss, $1bn on HIV, $547m/y on malaria. Contrary to my point I do find the HIV funding interesting: further funding for HIV and an HIV vaccine (as mentioned in the article) is a dreadful route for making money. Just think of all the money that could have been made from a life-long smallpox treatment had we not eradicated it.
I'm not saying that I support that line of thinking, there's just a fair amount of evidence suggesting that this is how funding is allocated in practice.
Throwing down $3bn to "cure disease" is very different from throwing down $3bn to "cure things that are easily taken to market." I'm not sure if Zuckerberg and Chan are taking the former more philanthropic route, but all diseases do not currently receive the same amount of monetary attention.
I'm not saying that I support that line of thinking, there's just a fair amount of evidence suggesting that this is how funding is allocated in practice.
Throwing down $3bn to "cure disease" is very different from throwing down $3bn to "cure things that are easily taken to market." I'm not sure if Zuckerberg and Chan are taking the former more philanthropic route, but all diseases do not currently receive the same amount of monetary attention.
[1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-gates-...