As we have reported previously, Dr. Priscilla Chan and her husband Mark Zuckerberg founded the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) when their daughter Max was born. At that time, they pledged 99.1% of their Facebook shares or $45 billion to make the world better for children. Dr. Chan is a pediatrician in San Francisco so naturally, sick and terminal children is a cause very close to her heart. On Wednesday, Chan and Zuckerberg announced that CVI will be investing $3 billion over the next 10 years to fight to end disease. Bill and Melinda Gates were there to cheer them on.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and wife/activist/pediatrician Pricilla Chan have announced that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative/CZI will be investing $3 billion over the next 10 years to help “cure, prevent, or manage all disease.” Joining Chan and Zuckerberg at the press conference in San Francisco on Wednesday were experts in science, engineering, health fields, as well as philanthropist and Microsoft founder Bill Gates (of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).
“As a pediatrician I have worked with families at the most difficult moments of their lives. From making a devastating diagnosis of leukemia to sharing with the family that we’re unable to resuscitate their child—in those moments and in many others we are at the limit of what we understand about the human body and disease, the science behind medicine, the limit to our ability to allievsatae suffering. We want to push back that boundary. By investing in science today, we hope to build a future in which all our children can live long and rewarding lives.”
Mark Zuckerberg begins his presentation announcing the plan includes three parts: to bring scientists and engineers together, to build tools and technology and to grow the movement to fund science:
“Part of that money will go to a $600 million investment in BioHub, which will unite researchers from Stanford, Berkeley, and UCSF with world-class engineers to find new ways to treat disease. BioHub will be led by UCSF’s Joe Delisi and Stanford Stephen Quake, known for the expertise in biophysics and bioengineering. BioHub will be located in San Francisco’s Mission Bay district.”
Some are calling CZI out for donating significantly less than others have to fight disease. Others consider their claim that they will eradicate all disease arrogant and irresponsible. I’ll admit that Zuckerberg is a terrible public speaker. Not only is his presentation uncomfortable to watch but he claims that he will put an end to a planet-wide crisis. And his solution seems to be to centered around money, something that hasn’t worked out so well for him in the past. I do think both of their intentions are good and as I have said before, I really hope they have the right advisers at CZI to make sure their money is doing the most good. I believe Dr. Chan when she said if she could do anything about decreasing the amount of times she has to deliver a terminal diagnosis, she will. I also doubt that the Gates Foundation, who have donated $10 billion to disease research, would be represented by its founders if they did not support this. It’s a grandiosely-worded, billion-dollar pledge to help fight disease. I think I’ll cut them some slack.
Investing in research is at the root of important innovations. Incredible news from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. https://t.co/flpFepRRK6
— Bill Gates (@BillGates) September 21, 2016
Photo credit: WENN Photos and Twitter
I think they need to hire a publicist for their charity. But, I do love their passion and dedication to community service! 2 thumbs up from this lady!
+1
I agree. 👍👍
I agree regarding the publicist. I watched their announcement live on Facebook and both were not comfortable with public speaking. That being said, I commend them for their huge investment and trying to make a difference. I wish them success.
Agree With Ya’ll Is immensely admirable to me that they are taking a Page outta Bill and Melinda Gates book and trying to do good with their good Fortune
She needs to donate 160$ to herself to buy a new pair of shoes too. But publicist definitely necessary…
If it’s true good on them. But i’d be checking the fine print. Personally i’d prefer them to put money in to getting a truly progressive party elected. That’d bring about the greater good in the long run.
That would run counter to their interests. They like the low taxes and loopholes and love that corporations wield so much power here
That “irresponsible” article was incredibly stupid. Even if they were able to end “all disease” people still would not be immortal.
Agree. That’s why corporations donating money to charity is only going to be a bandaid if there’s no fundamental systemic change.
At least they are thinking of what good they can do with their money. There are plenty of billionaires who don’t give a damn and spend loads of time acquiring luxury goods.
I think it’s 90% on Priscilla.
Thank the sweet gods of good. Who hooked Mark up with this woman, because who knows what would have happened if he hooked up with someone else. At least the whispers he gets in his ear at night, are the ones urging him to work on charity and humility.
A powerful man, needs a woman. A good woman.
With how depressing this week has been (TeamKids), I am happy to applaud two wealthy people putting their considerable resources towards helping humanity. That’s a win in my book and a nice way to end a crappy week.
There are some strange typos in this article. ‘Allievsatae’… ‘CZI’…
I admire them for this, but wonder at the broadness of “all disease”. That’s just impossible, and I wonder if they might not be better to focus on specific conditions. But, maybe they wanted to make their mission as wide as possible to allow the researchers to come up with their own ideas about what would work.
I’m a bit of a fan of choosing illnesses that kill the most number of kids…diarrhea and malaria etc. (But I’m in Nepal at the moment, so I might be a bit biased!)
I was wondering if $3 billion is really enough to eradicate ALL disease.
Maybe they see all diseases as being linked to each other, I guess.
I used to think he was a dbag, but I’ve really come around on him. For someone who got so rich and famous at such a young age, he has really made a consistent effort to give back in creative and innovative ways- sometimes successful, sometimes not, but the effort is really commendable. This initiative sounds ridiculous the way its worded but it is actually very smart- they are funding basic science research instead of funding research targeted towards curing one disease like most foundations. Since NIH funding has decreased, this is a real need.
They are really the biggest millennial power couple and representative in a lot of ways of millennial ideals I think- highly educated, entrepreneurial, dual career, mixed ethnicity, trying somewhat idealistically to make the world a better place.
Here’s a more specific breakdown of what she plans to do:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/21/chan-zuckerberg-initiative-announces-investment-to-cure-disease/
This is bullshit and makes me angry.
Please pay the full amount of tax in the countries that Facebook operate in. Government spending is not perfect but part of it will go into education, Heath Services and Social Servies.
Good point. Tax dodgers are shifting their tax burden on to everyone else.
Facebook paid £4,327 tax in the UK in 2014/15. That is considerably less than I paid.
It is really fantastic to hear how they want to help with all the resources they have.
I want to know how they will work around the pharmaceutical and medical industrial complex. They have blocked so many things. Wish they would check out Rife Frequencies treating cancer and disease. Lots of modalities truly work, but are not allowed in the mainstream.
Adorable couple who are truly inspiring. Every effort is valid and worth it.
It is a sweet sentiment but sadly it is untrue. Both large organizations and individuals that truly want to help do things that have such negative unintended consequences they would have been better off doing nothing at all. Others manage to not mess things up that badly but still could have done more good with their donated resources by doing research and making small changes.
The most pervasive and insidious example of this is the million different “Stuff We Don’t Want” charities. The aid provided is based entirely on the donor’s desire to give a particular thing, rather than the actual needs of the recipient. Ships full of unnecessary donated crap blocking up ports/slowing down needed medical/food relief (and wasting an incredible amount of volunteer/administrative time sorting through and discarding things. It is referred to as “the disaster after the disaster” by some aid workers. A surplus of free shoes and clothing undercuts local economies in poorly developed areas. There are people there who earn the income from making and buying clothes.
One study, published in The Economic Journal, concluded that charitable donations caused the clothing industry across Africa to suffer a 40 percent decline in production and a 50 percent jump in unemployment from 1981 to 2000. It puts people out of business, is ridiculously inefficient.
There are also cultural ramifications to consider, most of the clothes are Western style because that is the culture of the donors. They begin to adopt this style, types of fabric as it is pushed on the albeit with good intentions.
They are even problematic domestically. Good Will is an AWFUL organization. That company has so many absolutely revolting policies and treats their low level employees so poorly they make Target and Walmart look good. However, it isn’t anywhere near as destructive as sending unnecessary donations overseas.
Earmarked donations, this new belief that the best charities have low overhead, awareness campaigns, the people who drop everything and go unsolicited to a disaster area to volunteer all seem like “good” things but they can result in doing more harm than good. The UN sending in food sounds like a good thing. However, they didn’t do their due diligence and their packaging was very similar in color and shape to a certain type of undetonated explosive devices that were prevalent in the area. Sending baby formula following a natural disaster was also a seemingly “good” act unfortunately they did not educate people about detecting contaminated water sources and the importance of mixing formula with clean and safe water which led to infants getting extremely sick and even dying.
You can have the purest heart and the genuinely best and purest intentions and still end up making things worse than if you had done nothing at all. Good intentions have to accompany careful, diligent actions. This makes me nervous because I think you need to have a clear vision and goal. The Clinton Foundation is very admirable in their model, outline a plan, helping connect you with other people and organizations that can contribute to support you and help you be a successful as possible, setting benchmarks along the way to keep you on track and accountable as well as breaking it down into less daunting challenges that you will continue to build on, and honoring your commitment and fulfilling (usually exceeding) your goal.
My other concerns are charity fraud is so hard to detect anyway. I can’t even imagine the nightmare that comes with such a vague goal. People have been throwing money at diseases for decades but few if any major breakthroughs for cures have resulted from philanthropic endeavors. He has a lot of great minds working on this hopefully it is not a waste of their time, efforts, and talents or three billion dollars that could have been put to much better use.
Interesting post. But you lost me at Clinton Foundation.
This was a great post, Lindsay. Thank you for putting so much thought and research into it.
Good for them. Actually it’s an amazing gesture and makes me hopeful for humanity to see people with such kind hearts.
Kind of sad that this kind of post generates 20 comments but every Brangelina post generates 300 and every Tiddleswift Kim K. post hits 100+. And Amal Clooney’s daily fashion blunders are more popular.
She’s an amazing individual. For those who do not know, Dr Chan does not work at a private hospital, she’s a physician at San Francisco General. A large part of SF General’s clientele is the under served, those on public assistance and those in dire need. Nevertheless, SF General is at the cutting of edge of research, they were, and are, the leading authority on HIV. When that disease hit SF community a few decades ago they stepped up research and became one of the leaders in fighting the disease. They are also one of the leaders in regards to developing the cure for Hepatitis C. A few years ago, Chan/Zuckerberg donated a hefty sum to SFG to improve the hundred year old campus, so this latest pledge is a continuation of their commitment to helping those in need. They are truly a power couple worthy of praise.
I just read an article on the Hollywood Reporter about a rich socialite married to some beverly hills plastic surgeon, and the millions she spends on couture dresses every season. These people have so much money, it’s bad manners to ask for the price and dresses average 100 000. She buys maybe 4 or more, everyday, for the duration of Haute Couture fashion week. Then her husband and her analyse the dresses to predict upcoming plastic surgery trends for the season (saggy knee lifts, breast reductions or replacements). I tried not to throw up while reading the article. People like that just make me appreciate the Zuckerbergs all the more. They’re not ostentatious, highly educated and are using their wealth in constructive ways. Let’s please have more Zuckerbergs and less Kardashian/Kardashian clones.
Diseases will never be eradicated completely and it’s ridiculous to think that any amount of money will achieve that unachievable goal. I’m sure a lot of this is a tax dodge. BUT they can do a lot of good with $3 billion…hope they invest in things like clean water supplies, childhood vaccinations, etc. And Priscilla Chan deserves a lot of credit; she could have ditched her studies when it became obvious how much money Zuckerberg was going to make. But she continued and is now making a big difference to an underserved population.
Hey baby brother:
I want to hang with the two of you.
Much love Sonya
Notice the careful wording of their statement. They are “investing” $3 billion in this project. CZI is NOT a 501(c)(3) charity. It is a limited liability company and as such, it is not bound by the strict state and federal tax rules for charities. While this “investment” may seem charitable in nature, because CZI is a privately held LLC we do not know how this money will be transferred to entities like BioHub and what benefits or rights CZI will get in return for its infusion of cash. I also have not seen anything that suggests that CZI or its members will not be able to access and/or use data, treatments, techniques, tools, or other things developed as a result of this investment for personal, for-profit gain. Zuckerberg is many things, but he is not an idiot and his past behaviour strongly suggests that if he can make money and avoid taxes by doing something, his self-interest will always win out over other concerns. This is not to say that their flinging money at diseases is bad. Rather, I just side eye his ulterior motives.
It’s a nice thought, but do people like this ever think things through? Like, where are you going to put everyone if people stop dying of disease, and the lethal struggle for resources among an increasing population that such an eventuality would bring about? Do they not know that nature will keep coming up with new diseases as others get knocked out, that disease and death are nature’s way of pruning so newer stock can get established? They’d do better to pump that money into stopping the overuse of antibiotics, and into developing new ones that work. Do they know that cancer, for example, is not one disease but many?
She’s a doctor. I think she knows.