too many diseases, too little cash

AIDS is a terrible disease afflicting tens of millions of people. So why are some experts upset that fighting its spread is getting so much attention and funding?

Does the million watt spotlight cast on AIDS in Africa and the rest of the world actually hurt humanitarian efforts in other areas? A number of academics and experts started complaining that AIDS turned into a glamorous cause and takes up too much funding and attention while more routine diseases and epidemics are being ignored.

It's hard to deny that donating money to fight AIDS doesn't have a celebrity luster attached to it by rock stars and high profile DJs promoting the cause on a regular basis. But it's also hard to say that they're doing too much good for organizations trying to combat the epidemic or that Bono or DJ Tiesto are sabotaging efforts to treat dysentery, pneumonia and malaria outbreaks in the developing world.

The problem with treating any disease using grants and donations is that the money is limited and just like in any university or science lab, the most prestigious projects are given the bulk of the cash. Doesn't mean that the other projects aren't worthwhile. It just means that priorities of the bureaucrats are different from the priorities of the groups which are getting the short end of the funding stick.

And the result is a whole lot of disappointment that quickly turns to anger in the absence of any other way of drawing attention to their cause. This is why spokespeople from Health Systems Workshop and other think tanks are accusing UNAIDS, WHO and UNICEF along with the World Bank of building an industry of AIDS and taking away money from people who need it more.

I'm sure that even if governments and public institutions somehow raise more money to fight what ails people across the globe despite a worldwide economic recession, there would still be a lot of complaining from the same groups that AIDS organizations get too much money. Well, that's what happens when you try to save the world on public funding. It's not enough to have noble purposes. You also have to prove that your purpose is more important than other noble ideas or risk having too little cash to make a big enough difference.