4 Burst results for "Ken Natasha"

"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist: Babbage

The Economist: Babbage

09:22 min | 1 year ago

"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist: Babbage

"But I the fight against diseases like AIDS tuberculosis malaria could be in trouble two decades ago it was decided that a new approach is needed to tackle these threats to human life a global fund was set up to solicit donations from rich countries and wealthy organization into spend that money on combating disease in poorer countries and it worked since its creation in two thousand and to the Global Fund claims saved thirty two million lives that's great but this success is required constant effort from those involved and the diseases themselves are a moving target get the fun needed to raise at least fourteen billion dollars by the end of this year and in early October they met their target attaches Loder the economists Healthcare editor-in-chief joins me in the studio now to talk about this whole though Natasha Hi Ken Natasha I look at what the Global Fund is and their priorities so the Global Fund to Fight AIDS TB. Malaria was started in two thousand and two and the idea was that the world was facing these Three organic plagues but with threatening to overwhelm a lot of countries and the idea was to sort of create a very efficient Shen way of targeting funding towards the diseases wherever they were in the world and to do so you know in really efficient sort of technocratic way you know even when countries perhaps choose to spend money on AIDS they may not spend it on priority groups for example if you have a drug taking population or a gay population for example a spreading lots of Hov it might not be politically convenient or acceptable focus resources on those groups and so the idea of the fund was really sort of target the money at the best use wherever that might be basically okay and also to bring a sort of size and international expertise for example one of the great things that the fund has done has been to by lots and lots and lots of bednets and you know when you sort of aggregate demand like that you can get them a lot cheaper and therefore by more of them so who is paying all this money to support people in the poor countries the money is essentially given by rich donors some of the big three international donors would be America would be Britain and then there'd be some of the European countries France Norway places like that they're also the gates foundation Shen of course and also private organizations have invested into the Global Fund I mean just to crack to sort of slight misinterpretation the money doesn't always just go to poor countries sometimes it goes to middle income countries also it's not so much just a donation essentially as co Finance sing and so although the Global Fund has raised fourteen billion which it wants to spend on these projects over the next three years alongside that they've had commitments of forty six billion from sort of recipient countries and so in order to qualify for Global Fund money domestic countries themselves have assist make commitments and those commitments will vary in size depending on how welfare they are in Africa sample India made huge commitment this time round and that really committed to doing something about TV which is an enormous problem in that country so what are the factors that we need to consider when we spend this money to make it so effective I think what the Global Fund is always I'm good on is using evidence and data to make really hard nose decisions about where to spend the money and has journalists and politicians they're really good at sort of developing a roadmap press wealth what sorts of innovations needed it's very easy get excited with the sort of latest innovation in this area or area but the Global Fund has been very good at knowing what it needs now and in the future example one of the problems at the moment for the fight against malaria is that there's resistance developing to the insecticides that he used the bednets okay so these bednets created a treated with insecticides and it makes them very effective and what's really needed is somewhere around that yeah well there is a way around the problem and it is to use a second insecticide and that has been already put into place there's now a new had net could intercept g two which is coaching to Insecticides and they will be deployed and so you kind of have to be ready for that eventuality and one of the reasons why the Global Fund needed a boost and financing this time they asked for fifteen percent more than they did in the previous round is going to have to step up effort in many ways and different diseases and if you look at malaria with seeing resistance in Southeast Asia to some of the most widely used anti malarial drugs and so that's a huge problem and if that resistance to these anti-malarial drugs spreads to Africa or even to India it could have a huge and global health impact what I think is so extraordinary about this is surely not the money that matters so much but how it was spent an organized the it seems like there's an interesting story here because if you just collected money that wouldn't give you the innovation that you need it I mean it is it's essentially as a package of money and expertise as that makes it so with wallet sort of like a consultancy with the Fund attached and you could have thrown a lot more money at these problems not gotten nearly as far look it's hard to say what the world would look like without the Global Fund but it says that it saved about thirty two million lives since it's opened in two thousand and two and the number of deaths from these three diseases has solved in the last ten years and they up to save another sixteen million lives by twenty twenty three what's great about this is one of those rare cases where globalism and global cooperation is really working at a time when we need examples of that that's what I think when I look at the Global Fund is I think is a rabbi but not unique example of why the global community has come together to solve big problems and create what our global public health goods and we know if you think about what the world would be like if every country focused on these problems on their own it would be very different because you know if you want to night malaria in a country we face this problem of the sort of last mile problem is at some point the incidence of malaria becomes so low that it's just not a public the priority and if you want to drive onto elimination the has to be asked to broader kind of international public health golden and that's what we've seen with smallpox not what we're seeing with polio is well now amid the success is one of the questions it poses is whether middle income countries should be picking up their own domestic spent ending on these issues rather than looking for a handout from others well I mean that's exactly what has happened and mid income countries very much picking up the spending and they do graduate from aid from other funds the Global Fund tends to continue to fund projects in middle income countries if the countries themselves will step up and that's assertive. requirement receiving finance from the Global Fund is the middle income countries do make movements of their own and what the funds always been very concerned with is this question of additionality and so it's a bit of a a nerdy economics debate it's about the fungibility eight and what that means is that if you give money to a country save for the health budget They just essentially GonNa take money from their own health budget and then spend it on else and you haven't kind of added to the the money that's being spent on health but very simply as far as the Global Fund is concerned they've always demanded that countries step up and so I it's not a hand out really and it works quite differently from how I would guess that a lot of listeners might action it isn't just sort of dollop of money given with no strings tied and and indeed can also come in the form of aggregating demand or fixing supplies chains in terms of you know thirty five million bed nets the global fund combine them a lot cheaper than sale individual country can so it's it's quite the instigated financing mechanism. It's not just a social you know your traditional let's just send money and hope that it goes to the right place Natasha thank you so much I welcome you can read more about the Global Fund's ambitions in this week's edition of The economist and to subscribe the go-to economist dot com slash radio offer for twelve issues for twelve dollars twelve pounds next up many oversee fiddling at our phones as time-wasting but what if you could get something.

Global Fund Malaria Ken Natasha AIDS Loder fourteen billion dollars fifteen percent twelve dollars twelve pounds three years two decades ten years
"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist: Babbage

The Economist: Babbage

15:38 min | 1 year ago

"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist: Babbage

"Up a Russian scientists has announced his ambition to repeat a Chinese, gene, editing experiments on embryos that led to the birth of two babies last year. With modified CC are five genes. It was universally condemned on the grounds of safety and ethics the technology of altering DNA, or crisper casts, editing to help with disease is still at an early stage and there are worries about unforeseen consequences, but the scientists moving rapidly in new developments point the way to making it safer. Natasha loaders the economists health policy editor, Hello Natasha. Hi Ken Natasha. There is a lot happening in the crisper world. Yes, indeed. There is festival. We've got this Russian scientists who wants to repeat, the gene, editing experiment on embryos of last year. We've also got a couple of papers that have just come out which have legit really innovative way of improving on the crispy technology that everyone's been working on since two thousand twelve. And lastly, the foam firm, GS K has announced that it's going to support some pretty fundamental work using crisper to help us really understand when you make changes to jeans, what's going on inside cells. So busy week. So crisper is going from the LA bench to the hospital. Yeah. That's right. A whole raft of firms that are trying to create new medicines using crisper whether it's in heart disease, Beatletella, Samia, or even HOV. I think most of the early applications unlikely to be either in genetic disorders or hops in cancers, one of the options for using genetic thing in creating a therapy is that you can say, take her tesol out of the body. A new could use genetic to reprogram it so that when you put it by in the body, but it targets cancer. And we already actually sort of do this sort of thing right now is the technologies cooled Kartini, but we use viruses to sort of make the changes that we need to make these T cells target council. So, yeah, there's, there's a lot going on commercially Mel for many people think we should back up and just give a little tutorial. What is crisper Cass editing think the easiest way of understanding what crispy cast editing is, is to imagine it is a little molecular machine becomes in two pods on one part of the molecular machine is the sort of GPS, homing device, a programmable system where you can tell it where to go. And then the other part of this molecular machine is a Paris is so very bluntly speaking. This is a pair of scissors. You can send to any part of the genome and cod where you want nuts. It really does look. No. Where to go? How does it know what to cut you tell it? And so when I say it's programmable the crispy part of the molecular machine, you can actually put sequence of DNA. Into that bit of the molecular machine and it will seek a matching corresponding sequence inside the genome, and it will cut when it finds that matching ING it Danny. Okay. So what are the risks of using this technique? There are about three broad potential problems, which are some are very quickly. The first one is that it cuts in the wrong place. That's something that we see often in studies of Crispell though. It's very accurate. It can cut in the wrong place. The second problem is that the act of repairing the cart can go wrong in some way, for example, some random bit of information could be included. We see that when gene, editing occurs, a nurse sorta concerns that this can cool cells to go haywire, or perhaps, even trigger accounts are more problematically with crisper editing. I think is the fact that often we really don't know enough about the gene to make the change. Now. When you're making a medicine for someone who's going to drop data some awful disease, Pabst doesn't matter so much that you don't know everything about the genial changing. But if you're try to make a change to healthy embryo, right say, for example, this CCR five gene, supposedly this has a beneficial impact because it prevents HOV entering the cell, but there's also things we don't know about CR five and recently, it's been tied to higher mortality. And so until we kind of really understand the nature of the changes, we make, I think it's unreasonable to imagine the we can use it on healthy individuals, or healthy embryos to make changes. And I really strongly feel that, you know, this technology needs to remain in the medical sphere, rather than the fertility sphere, where regulates can assess whether the risks of giving this treatment to someone outweigh the benefits that these people are going to have. Is the medical establishment, too ambitious or the regulators too cautious. And how do we set that balance, just right? Crisper cast, gene, editing is really still at the stage of its development cycle, and I mean, hopefully it won't take Lois, gene therapies did. But, you know, we saw in the early stages of gene, therapies that we had an accident someone died. And you know, we would too quick. I think everyone who's working on this technology is being really careful certainly in this country and America, I wouldn't necessarily set in China. I mean, they're all concerns in China with some of the experiments that have been done. The has been clinical worked on. Well, I'm thinking of just that, and if a Russian scientists is now trying to repeat, a Chinese, gene, editing experiment. It seems like the two countries that have some of the least good governance that I know of are doing things that wouldn't be tolerated in the west. So clearly something's amiss I think that's a fair observation can what I would say is that. Since her John quay, actually did the experiment. The Chinese government has very much clamped down on this sort of work. And I think it's unlikely we would see a repeat of this anytime soon with regards to the Russians, the Russian scientist is saying he would like to do it. He isn't saying he is going to do it. He saying he's going to apply to do it. And so there in lies, the nub of a discussion, which needs to be had by the Russian government, which is the extent to which they're willing to tolerate this sort of risky research. Yeah. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder whether you know, culturally and politically, they have a completely different attitude towards this, what I do think is true. Is that the scientific case against doing this kind of work is a strong one? I mean, this is respective of the, the moral case, but I think scientifically, we can say this is not a good idea. It's always incredible to talk to you. Thank you can. No regular Babich listeners know that occasionally on the show, sort of feeling Pissy mood. We decide to run a contest in which we give away a book and other a previous episode we decided to give away the book, the technology trap.

scientist Ken Natasha Russian government China LA editor Kartini GS K Crispell Paris Pabst John quay CCR Beatletella Chinese government America Lois Samia
"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist Radio

The Economist Radio

05:41 min | 1 year ago

"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist Radio

"Welcome. Next up disease x last year, the World Health Organization published a plan to accelerate research into pathogens that could cause public health emergencies with one priority being disease ex ex stands for unexpected and represents the concern that the next big epidemic might be caused by something currently unknown. Although identifying the pathogens is important. What is also a challenge is creating new vaccines quickly to discuss this and potential ways. The problem is being tackled. I'm joined by Natasha loader, the economists healthcare editor Hello Natasha. Hi, Ken Natasha. How long does it take to create a vaccine it takes about tissue three years to develop a vaccine from scratch? So imagine you discuss a pathogen that is worrying, and you pathogen on average is going to take about two or three years to get to the point where you have something in a syringe. That you can start testing in human trials the problem with that is that that means that new pathogens emerging pathogens can cause quite a bit of trouble before we can sort of respond and was it takes along. There are a lot of challenges working with live viruses. And it's an old technology as well that hasn't really been optimized for speed. And so how can the process be sped up? Well, if you use a synthetic way of making the vaccine, then that's going to sort of remove the need to have a live virus, and that which is the sort of a laborious part of the process, and there are two technologies that are being funded now that should improve the speed at which we can sort of create these synthetic vaccines for all sorts of diseases where vaccines are useful. So the two groups they will be developing a few vaccines say, for example for influence and one four respect. Trees toll virus? But the point is not necessarily that these groups develop a whole range of fact scenes at the moment, the point is is that they proved that that what they call it platform, which is really just a system they prove their system can produce vaccines very rapidly in this case in any sixteen weeks, which is phenomenal. So that's what's happening is is these two new groups are trying to prove that they're platforms work for so interesting. So what are the ways that they're gonna make these vaccines? The group imperial are trying to make multiple self amplifying RNA vaccines. And so if you think about conventional vaccination you would inject into your body either a little bit of protein from virus will maybe a weakened forest of whole virus? And then your immune system would sort of make antibodies, and that's your vaccine, but you can also get a sort of similar effect. If you inject something could Aren, which is like DNA into the body on its own and aren't essentially. The instructions for making the protein. So if you put those aren't instructions into the body for the protein which codes for the bitch of the virus than essentially, the vaccine will be made by your own bodies cellular machinery, which is pretty cool. If you think about it, and then, you know, the self amplifying bit of the vaccine is that along with that bit of our code. They put a little bit of code that. Basically makes the RA self replicate the second method from the university of Queensland is a way of synthesizing the proteins the found on viral particles with really high fidelity, and you know, when you introduce these proteins into the Bodet the can get distorted and the problem with that is that if you introduce a protein into the body, and it's not quite the way it would appear. If it was on the forest is you don't raise the right kinds of antibodies and the long short of is is your your vaccine went went very well and the university of Queensland. Developed something called molecular clamp, which essentially holds these proteins into the right shape. And so, you know, they stimulate immunity in a better way. So those two technologies that are being developed could both essentially increase the speed at which we can prototype. New vaccines. Once we've proved that these new systems work thought point if a disease comes along we've never seen before we couldn't theory producer to enacting patrol very quickly. This is abuse. And so if there is another crisis like bird flu swine flu, perhaps the world has a way of responding quickly. Perhaps we still have to wait for these platforms to prove themselves. And then you know, there's also a regulatory hurdle. And so at the moment the systems, we use to create vaccines are all very well established. And the the problem we will have is that while these technologies what you would call plug and play in theory. You can just slot in new sequence. If a new virus and then produced a new vaccine in sixteen weeks in practice. The regulatory authorities in this case, probably the W H O a gun to have to get to the point where they can accept that these platforms are acceptable on a safe and applications way of making vaccines. And so once we start seeing vaccines coming out of these new platforms it will be necessary to kind of put pressure. I think on the regulatory authorities to serve a credit these platforms in some way. This was great three Gulati is going to take longer than the vaccines themselves and not necessarily care. No, not necessarily. Always greater child with you. Thank you very much. Thank you can.

university of Queensland Natasha loader Ken Natasha World Health Organization editor Gulati producer sixteen weeks three years
"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist: Babbage

The Economist: Babbage

05:41 min | 1 year ago

"ken natasha" Discussed on The Economist: Babbage

"Welcome. Next up disease x last year, the World Health Organization published a plan to accelerate research into pathogens that could cause public health emergencies with one priority being disease ex ex stands for unexpected and represents the concern that the next big epidemic might be caused by something currently unknown. Although identifying the pathogens is important. What is also a challenge is creating new vaccines quickly to discuss this and potential ways. The problem is being tackled. I'm joined by Natasha loader, the economists healthcare editor Hello Natasha. Hi, Ken Natasha. How long does it take to create a vaccine it takes about tissue three years to develop a vaccine from scratch? So imagine you discover pathogen that is worrying new pathogen on average is going to take about two or three years to get to the point where you have something in a syringe. That you can start testing in human trials the problem with that is that that means that new pathogens emerging pathogens can cause quite a bit of trouble before we can sort of respond and was it takes along. There are a lot of challenges working with live viruses. And it's an old technology as well that hasn't really been optimized for speed. And so how can the process be sped up? Well, if you use a synthetic way of making the vaccine, then that's going to sort of remove the need to have a live virus, and that which is the sort of a laborious part of the process, and there are two technologies that are being funded now that should improve the speed at which we can sort of create these synthetic vaccines play for all sorts of diseases where vaccines are useful. So the two groups they will be developing. A few vaccines say for example for influence and one four respect. she's single virus. But the point is not necessarily that these groups develop a whole range of fact scenes at the moment, the point is is that they proved that that what they call a platform, which is really just a system they prove their system can produce vaccines very rapidly in this case in any sixteen weeks, which is phenomenal. So that's what's happening is is these two new groups are trying to prove that they're platforms work, so interesting. So what are the ways that they're gonna make these vaccines? The group imperial are trying to make multiple self amplifying RNA vaccines. And so if you think about conventional vaccination you would inject into your body either a little bit of protein from virus will maybe a weakened forest of whole virus? And then your immune system would sort of make antibodies, and that's your vaccine, but you can also get a sort of similar effect. If you inject something called Arna, which is like DNA into the body on its own and aren't essentially. The instructions for making the protein. So if you put those aren't instructions into the body for the protein which codes for the of the virus than essentially, the vaccine will be made by your own bodies cellular machinery, which is pretty cool. If you think about it, and then, you know, the self amplifying bit of the vaccine is that along with that bit of our code. They put a little bit of code that. Basically makes the RA self replicate the second method from the university of Queensland is a way of synthesizing the proteins the found on viral particles with really high fidelity, and you know, when you introduce these proteins into the body the can get distorted and the problem with that is that if you introduce a protein into the body, and it's not quite the way it would appear if it was on the virus. Is you don't raise the right kinds of antibodies in the long short of is is your your vaccine went went very well and the university of Queensland. Developed something called molecular clamp, which essentially holds these proteins into the right shape. And so, you know, they stimulate immunity in a better way. So those two technologies that are being developed could both essentially increase the speed at which we can prototype. New vaccines. Once we've proved that these new systems work thought point, if a disease comes along we've never seen before we couldn't theory producer sort of a vaccine for trial, very quickly, this is abuse. And so if there is another crisis like bird flu swine flu, perhaps the world has a way of responding quickly. Perhaps we still have to wait for these platforms to prove themselves. And then you know, there's also a regulatory hurdle. And so at the moment the systems, we use to create vaccines are all very well established. And the the problem we will have is that while these technologies what you would call plug and play in theory. You can just slot in and you sequence. If a new virus and then produce new vaccine in sixteen weeks in practice. The regulatory authorities in this case, probably the W H O a gun to have to get to the point where they can accept that these platforms are acceptable in a safe and applications way of making vaccines. And so once we start seeing vaccines coming out of these new platforms it will be necessary to kind of put pressure. I think on the regulatory authorities to serve a credit these platforms in some way. This was great the regular season is going to take longer than the vaccines themselves and not necessarily care. No, not necessarily. Reductio always creates a child with you. Thank you very much. Thank you can.

university of Queensland Natasha loader Ken Natasha World Health Organization Arna editor producer sixteen weeks three years