[jcampbell1]

> A look at major initiatives suggests that the philanthropists’ war on disease risks widening that gap, as a number of the campaigns, driven by personal adversity, target illnesses that predominantly afflict white people — like cystic fibrosis, melanoma and ovarian cancer.

The #1, #2 richest Americans have specifically targeted funding research for diseases that affect only the poor. I think this is a more valid criticism of the NIH rather than philanthropists.

[tsotha]

... diseases that affect the poor in other countries. As an organization funded by US tax dollars, NIH is primarily responsible for advancing the health of Americans. It's not an international charity.

[logicchains]

Unfortunately, the poor in America are more affected by 'lifestyle diseases' (smoking and obesity related illnesses, for instance), which may be more difficult to cure as they need to be addressed from a social angle, not just a medical one.

[tsotha]

More difficult than malaria or AIDS? I doubt it. Diabetes will probably be a much easier nut to crack than either, with or without lifestyle changes.

[logicchains]

Well according to some graphs I found on Google, malaria mortality rates have reduced significantly in the past few decades [1], as have AIDS death rates [2]. Diabetes rates and mortality have however been continuously increasing.

1. http://www.umich.edu/~csfound/545/1995/land05.jpg

2. http://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/images/colorbox...

[tsotha]

So diabetes should be the easiest one to attack.

[logicchains]

How might it be attacked, from a medicinal perspective?