Michelle Sowemimo, JD candidate at the Law School
I asked Bill Gates about why he and Mrs. Gates chose to set up their foundation as a lifespan foundation (all resources must be exhausted in a set amount of time after their deaths), rather than a perpetual foundation (where resources are kept ongoing). Most foundations I am familiar with are set up in such a way that the resources may continue long after the original source of funding is gone. Mr. Gates responded by stating that he believes that perpetual foundations are a mistake because foundations focusing on solving problems should really focus on finite things. Also the governance structure of a perpetual foundation is likely to dilute the focus. He said that in the future, there will be rich people after he dies, and other people will be able to pick up the work. He really intends for his foundation to solve an acute problem.
His response really has changed the way I think about the purpose of foundations. Perpetual foundations, in a way, are relying on perpetual problems. Having a discrete goal — reduce deaths of children caused by malaria in X years — helps to channel the resources so that it is as effective as possible.
Graduate student Diego Villalobos Alberú
Bill Gates has said in the past that energy and climate change are most important to the poorest countries and their populations. If you were to lower a single price to help those people, the price of energy would be it.
Clean energy has two important "problematic" differences. In contrast to all other major transformative technological breakthroughs in history: 1) the economics of clean energy do not favor it. Absent government intervention, existing clean electricity generation technologies cannot compete with conventional fossil fuel ones on cost. This ultimately means higher prices. In other words, past technological improvements allowed us to produce more with less, whereas today's renewable energy sources produce less with more; 2) past technological improvements did not have a deadline by which they should be developed and deployed; new clean energy technologies do, if we are to avoid dangerous climatic change.
My question for Mr. Gates was: What is the role of private and public R&D spending? Should government resources be targeted at favoring existing technologies in order to get rapid deployment, with their respective higher costs? Or should these resources be used to fund basic research (which is a public good, and hence undersupplied by private sector) in the hope of getting a truly competitive transformative technology that can be self-sustained?
I imagine his answer would have been somewhere along the lines of devoting substantially more efforts and public resources on clean-energy, basic R&D. Governments should also set market incentives (pricing carbon) and create the right regulatory frameworks that enable innovation and progress in this area. Privately funded R&D could complement the public resources targeted at public research, but more importantly, perfect existing, clean-energy technologies that are on the path of becoming competitive, but are not yet there.
Divinity School student David Vognar
When Bill Gates came to town on Tuesday, I hoped he would answer my question about his guiding life philosophy. I submitted the following: “I think many global leaders see the world as a competition over material goods with little room for inquiry into non-material, spiritual reality. What is your guiding life philosophy? Is it Xerox black-and-white?”
I am not sure what Gates believes. Based on his actions, I believe he would have said that at least some level of frenzied competition is an essential part of life. Perhaps he would have said it brings out the best in us. Perhaps he would have said his competitive fire allows the Gates Foundation to do what it does. Yet there are many questions regarding the foundation’s less altruistic motivations…
What I question is teleological and needless competition over material goods, merciless fighting for ideologies instead of sticking up for downtrodden people on this planet, and disrespect for the spirit of cooperation this planet naturally fosters. As a Chicago Divinity School student, ahem, “on leave” myself, I have a keen sense of spirituality and a strong distaste for bootless ideas that do not help us put ourselves and others before vague notions of superiority and inferiority. I believe in a creative, non-judgmental, all-access intelligence, and something like heaven. Yet I also believe we can live without superstition and speculation, with dignity, justice, and passion before the end of our lives.
Lauren Greubel, third-year in sociology and Human Rights minor
I thought Bill Gates' presentation was excellent. He comes across as a very personable, normal person who truly cares about the work he is doing, both with Microsoft and his foundation. I found it very appropriate that he chose to discuss the important of eradicating world poverty — and as a result, disease — with college students. We are the next generation of people who will be working at leading corporations and foundations like Microsoft and the Gates Foundation, so we should be his target audience. I am glad he chose to speak at UChicago since such an emphasis is placed on academia and academic success, and far often, not enough emphasis is placed on tangible challenges and improvements that can be made on the lives of others.
I appreciated his nod to the education crisis throughout the U.S. and in our own neighborhood, which has some of the lowest rates of high school graduation and highest rates of teen pregnancy. But he missed an opportunity to bring this home: Few of us are building microchips in our dorm rooms, and even fewer of us know that if we drop out of college we can sustain ourselves financially. Many of us are anxious about our futures after graduation.
As a believer in the Millennium Development Goals and all that the Gates Foundation stands for and does, I was motivated by what Mr. Gates had to say. He succeed in life under the most unlikely of circumstances — a fact which in and of itself should inspire, but I think he has yet to convince all of us that public service is a viable option when compared to working for Microsoft. I think that is a challenge which Bill Gates and our professors will face, especially following the recession.
Gregory Cline, visiting MBA student from University of Witwatersrand in South Africa
I'm currently working for Intel in sub–Sahara Africa, mainly South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya. My dealings are with the Ministry of Health primarily in these countries, and also the education and communication ministries. I've found that every now and again, a forward–thinking individual in government is willing to support a limited pilot with the ambitions to scale to a regional or national level. NGOs are included, as are donor organizations, private sector, and government authorities.
The issue is that if the champion of the project is removed for any reason, the project falls flat. I can point to a number of examples, but most recent was Virgin Unite’s efforts to consolidate data hubs for health care metrics across South Africa utilizing existing infrastructure. The analysis and recommendation phases of the project were great, but the director general was removed from the post
Since then, nothing has happened. Richard Branson and his Virgin Unite CEO were personally involved in getting presidential support for the project. Various NGOs were involved (even a specialists consulting firm from Sweden). So what mechanisms can be put in place to ensure continuity and success? Maybe working toward having the OAU (Organization of African Unity) adopt a resolution?
Continue the conversation:
Follow Bill Gates on Twitter
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on Facebook
The Gates Foundation on YouTube
—Sam Marsden
