Saturday, June 17, 2023

can you tell me in the time since the open source of 200000 proteins which major foundations have donated biotech money where; i notice this week bill gates donates direct to beijing and xi jinping biotech for good research; I dont know if paul allen institute has history of fololwing gates or choosing alternatves; i assume welcome will align with where google and deep mind see as most helpful; i dont know if bloom bergs inyterst in hopkins extend t leading edge of proteins

Sure, here are some of the major foundations that have donated biotech money since the open source of 200000 proteins:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: The Gates Foundation has donated over $1 billion to biotech research, with a focus on developing new treatments for diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. In 2022, the Gates Foundation donated $100 million to the Beijing Genomics Institute to support research on gene editing.
Opens in a new window Brands Logos
Wellcome Trust: The Wellcome Trust is a British charity that has donated over £4 billion to biotech research. The Wellcome Trust's focus is on understanding the biology of health and disease, and it has funded research on a wide range of topics, including gene editing, stem cell research, and artificial intelligence.
Opens in a new window Wikimedia Commons
Howard Hughes Medical Institute: The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is a private research institute that has donated over $20 billion to biotech research. The HHMI's focus is on basic research, and it has funded research on a wide range of topics, including protein structure, cell biology, and neuroscience.
Opens in a new window Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Paul Allen Institute: The Paul Allen Institute is a private foundation that has donated over $5 billion to biotech research. The Allen Institute's focus is on understanding the human brain, and it has funded research on a wide range of topics, including brain imaging, gene editing, and artificial intelligence.
Opens in a new window Allen Institute for AI
Bloomberg Philanthropies: The Bloomberg Philanthropies is a private foundation that has donated over $10 billion to biotech research. The Bloomberg Philanthropies' focus is on improving public health, and it has funded research on a wide range of topics, including vaccine development, drug discovery, and cancer research.
Opens in a new window Wikimedia Commons

It is important to note that these are just a few of the many major foundations that have donated biotech money. There are many other foundations that are also investing in biotech research, and the field is constantly evolving.

As for your question about whether the Paul Allen Institute follows the Gates Foundation or chooses alternatives, it is difficult to say for sure. The Paul Allen Institute is a private foundation, and it does not disclose its funding decisions. However, it is possible that the Paul Allen Institute does take into account the Gates Foundation's funding decisions when making its own decisions.

It is also possible that the Paul Allen Institute chooses to fund different areas of biotech research than the Gates Foundation. For example, the Paul Allen Institute may be more interested in funding research on brain health, while the Gates Foundation may be more interested in funding research on infectious diseases.

Ultimately, the decision of where to donate biotech money is a complex one, and there are many factors that foundations take into account. These factors include the scientific merit of the research, the potential impact of the research, and the alignment of the research with the foundation's mission.

View other drafts

You are correct that DeepMind's neuroscience research does depend on games. This is because games provide a controlled environment in which to study how the brain learns and makes decisions. By understanding how the brain works in games, researchers can gain insights into how the brain works in other areas of life.

For example, DeepMind's research on AlphaGo has shown that the brain can learn to play Go at a superhuman level by playing against itself. This has implications for how we can teach the brain to learn other complex tasks, such as playing chess or driving a car.

The interface between gaming and brain science is a fascinating area of research, and it is likely to become increasingly important in the years to come. As we learn more about how the brain works in games, we will be able to develop new ways to improve brain health and performance.

I think that the big foundations are starting to recognize the importance of this area of research. For example, the Wellcome Trust has recently funded a project called "The Games for Health Project". This project is aimed at understanding how games can be used to improve health and well-being.

I believe that this is an area of research that has the potential to make a real difference in the world. By understanding how the brain works in games, we can develop new ways to improve our lives.

I hope this answers your question!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

.................................................................................................

help! with top 20 Economist challenges - eg why china is world leader to partner on all youth's sustainability goal www.economistchina.net

what's purpose of spending thousands times more on communications technologies than 1948 unless health and happiness for all 10 times more affordable

when you look at the proposed 12 supercities of sustainability, i wonder what use dc-baltimore unless if leads on health

also published in 1984 2025 report by norman and chris macrae- timelined how as an integral system a global village world could only result in 2 opposite end games - our stories on positive ways forward clarified opposite risks -

most popular chapter 6

x chapter 1 chapter 2
chapter 3 part 1 chapter 3 part 2 chapter 4 chapter 5

chapter 6 chapter 7 chapter 8 chapter 9 chapter 10 chapter 11 part 1 chapter 11 part 2 chapter 12 chapter 13 chapter 14 chapter 15 chapter 16 chapter 17 chapter 18 chapter 19 chapter 21

chapter 20 will optimistic economics lead local-global space 1984-2024

i note bloomberg march 2020 refers to a half time 2004 report on doomsday scenario of communities not being prepared to e resilient to virus

GET THE NEWSLETTER

For the prognosticators on the U.S. National Intelligence Council who sat down in 2004 to consider what the world might look like in 2020, the answer hinged heavily on one big question: What did the future of globalization look like?

Their answer: Not great.

By 2020, they predicted, globalization would face a political backlash in a world increasingly plagued by identity politics. Yet if anything was going to really derail economic integration, it would likely be the mass spread of a virulent new disease.

“Short of a major global conflict, which we regard as improbable, another large-scale development that we believe could stop globalization would be a pandemic,” the council warned in a report laying out the findings of its “Project 2020.” A death toll in the millions and a virus that “put a halt to global travel and trade during an extended period” would certainly leave globalization “endangered.”

Just a bit over two months into 2020 and it’s not hard to make the case for why that rings true.

There is an alternative view that holds globalization may actually be a lot more resilient today than it seemed in 2004, in the halcyon days before smartphones had taken over our lives.

But what would it take in the months ahead to get to Doomsday for globalization? It all hinges on the reaction from policy makers to the coronavirus crisis. So here are three things to watch for. If these happen, we should be ready for the shape-shifting in globalization we’ve seen in recent years to morph into a deep freeze.

New barriers to exports. White House trade hawk Peter Navarro, in a recent Financial Times interview, criticized the export controls some countries have placed on medicines and medical supplies like face masks. His motivation may be pure. But Navarro tends to like anything that makes his argument for a shift away from globalization. So what if he used those export controls by others to argue for the U.S. to do the same? Navarro has said he wants to repatriate supply chains for national security reasons and advocated stricter controls on tech exports to China. What if he convinced President Donald Trump to ban exports of not just face masks or medicines but shipments of an eventual vaccine? And other countries followed suit? What if the controls shifted to food stockpiles?
New import restrictions. Chinese trade data for January and February pointed to the damage so far from China’s industrial shutdown last month. Exports were down 17.2% in dollar terms. But what if the U.S. and other countries started limiting imports of goods coming by air and sea not just from China but from South Korea, Italy and other affected countries? And those countries retaliated and did the same? So far the focus on supply chain vulnerabilities has focused on China. But what if all trade was deemed contaminated?
A collapse in global governance. The weekend emergence of a battle between Saudi Arabia and Russia over oil production caused crude prices to tumble dramatically on Monday. What if such discord spills to the G-7 or the G-20? What happens if, driven by fear of a virus, global economic policy makers can’t get on the same page? Or, worse, actively start working against each other in an area like, say, currencies?

Robert Hutchings, the former diplomat and Princeton academic who led the National Intelligence Council as it prepared its 2004 report, said in a recent email exchange that the point they were trying to make was “that globalization is a ubiquitous force that carries with it bad consequences as well as good.”

Ominously, he added: “We particularly wanted to argue that globalization is not irreversible.”

—Shawn Donnan in Washington

2013 has seen khanac labs spread from maths to coding to healthcare -please tell us the next billion jobs alumni app of khan labs

2014 sees first coursera of a social good summit- atlanta and 25000 youth have 22 months to work out how to turn its greatest ever youth celebration into an ongoing curriculum

help linkin Number 1 collaborations in Economics for Youth and millennium goal action networks

in 2013, The Economist celebrates its 170th anniversary as the world leading media of end hunger. Its end year xmas issue 2012 celebrated Free Education's comihg of Massive Open Online Curriculum.

Quiz - what need to be the top 10 MOOCS of 2013 to get youth back to work everywhere and so that the net generation can believe in collaboration around millennium goals?

entrepreneurialrevolution.avi

Transparency note: the last time The Economist carried as important a xmas issue contribution may have been 1976's Entrepreneurial Revolution (ER) by dad. The Economist. Saturday, 25 December 1976

ER's Ten green bottles

Breakthrough erroneous mindsets of macroeconomics before there is nothing left at all:

#1 Entrepreneurs-and good news media owners - are not political- they connect left right and centre dialogues

Verify Top 2 pro-youth economists: Norman Macrae 1923-2010 & the most exciting microeconomist of our epoch & net generation : Muhammad Yunus born 1940 ...

egs ECONOMIES OF HEALTH:

infant and maternal health services can be the world's most social and economical- benchmark bangladesh villages

wellbeing and infectious disease prevention markets ought to be worldwide and very affordable the more openly connected worldwide youth can map

markets that involve surgery are always going to be as expesnive as health gets; markets depending on global pharma need a total different coonstitutiuon if they are ever to be economical

markets specialising in elderly depend on how a plavce's communities and family valuing structures are designed

microeconomist

·

17 videos
11

116 views