[rgo]

I think the article raises some legit questions on how nearly $50B of tax money is being managed, not by the government, but by the criteria of private donors. The author also implies some lack of coordination in between scientists' and donor's priorities. I wonder how the public could measure philanthropy's performance. Having competing or independent research groups a productive thing? Or is it better to centralize efforts? Could it end up raising health care costs due to increased demand on biotech resources? Are there flaws in Gates' education initiatives? How can the public get a better saying on how this money is funneled into public institutions or even politics?

Not that I think government is immune to uncoordinated, flawed spending. Or that we need regulation. Or that we need to tax the rich to the fullest. Charity is a great thing. But imagine the absurd: that private donors donated to road construction foundations, and you end up getting two parallel highways that go from A to B. Wouldn't that be just a plain waste of a country's wealth, even if it belongs to private donors?

This reminds me of the story about how certain NGOs took used clothes from rich countries straight to Africa, only to realize how that was damaging these countries' textile industry. Nowadays many NGOs have adopted a more constructive approach in Africa or countries simply banned these shipments [1].

TGS Management's money is also somewhat exaggeratedly, if not suspiciously, split into many cascading foundations and companies, which also should raise an eyebrow or two whatever their reasons may be. Investigative journalism, and hopefully the transparency and insight it provides, can be powerful for setting long-term, effective goals for donors and charity that are in everyone's interest.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-char...