philanthropy

RECENT POSTS

October 22, 2012 | 2:26 PM | By  | 

Nathan Myhrvold: Patent Troll, Inventor and now Global Do-Gooder | 

When folks talk about Nathan Myhrvold, they seldom use muted terms.

Tom Paulson

Nathan Myhrvold, speaking at Social Innovations Fast Pitch 2012

The former chief technologist for Microsoft is a close associate of Bill Gates and now CEO of a business, Intellectual Ventures, which some say holds more patents (about 40,000) than any other company in the United States.

I wanted to talk to Myhrvold about his recent ventures into philanthropy, into humanitarianism, which his firm has dubbed its “Global Good” project.

But first, I should disclose that I once worked for Nathan as one of a number of assisting writers on his mega-cookbook Modernist Cuisine. I helped write the meat chapter. (We sometimes argued over the words. He was difficult, I would say. He might say the same about me. But I think we’re all happy with the book.)

I should also note Myhrvold is frequently accused of being a patent troll — meaning he and his firm buy up patents and then use them to, uh, encourage (some use different words) other companies to pay them royalties or licensing fees. Here’s one such recent news post on GigaOm that talks about the Bellevue-based firm “bleeding billions from creative companies” using threats of litigation and disguised “shell companies.”

The writer goes on to say Myhrvold runs a ‘dark empire’ that stalks its victims! Is this Lord of the Rings or something? Like I said, he does tend to provoke strong feelings.

Myhrvold also provokes strong praise. He is frequently described as a master inventor in his own right, a brilliant polymath, an accomplished paleontologist (as this New Yorker profile noted) and, of course, a gourmet chef.

But the Nathan Myhrvold I’m most interested in is a fairly new one — Nathan the humanitarian technologist. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Science, Intellectual Ventures, malaria, Nathan Myhrvold, patents, philanthropy, poverty, technology
October 4, 2012 | 11:30 AM | By  | 

Seattle talk: Philanthro-capitalism and the politics behind the global health agenda | 

On Friday, 3:30-6 pm, UW Health Sciences Hogness Auditorium, historian Anne-Emanuelle Birn gave the Stephen Stewart Gloyd endowed lecture, “Philanthrocapitalism, Cooption and the Politics of Global Health Agenda-Setting.”

——————————————————————————————————————————–

The words “global health” usually conjure images of health workers vaccinating children in Africa, major initiatives aimed at getting anti-HIV drugs or anti-malaria bed nets out to people in poor communities across the globe or any number of other noble efforts aimed at fighting diseases of poverty.

Most don’t think of global health as a means to also advance corporate or political agendas.

Anne-Emanuelle Birn

But Anne-Emanuelle Birn does and on Friday, at a UW symposium, she explained why.

Birn’s a historian who literally wrote the book on global health! (Well, okay, she’s first author on the 3rd edition of it … known as the Textbook of International Health). The popular narrative of global health, she says, is too often a simplistic portrayal of the field as a charitable enterprise largely devoid of political and economic power or social conflict.

“There’s an incredible amount of naivete and lack of knowledge about all this,” said Birn. “To begin with, it’s important to recognize that philanthropy emerged in the United States in the early 20th century as an alternative to the welfare state.”

That’s important, she explained, because it provides a lens through which to evaluate the strategies and choices made by philanthropists to advance their goals. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Health, Politics, Anne-Emanuelle Birn, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, global health, philanthropy, politics, Rockefeller Foundation, University of Washington
February 10, 2012 | 10:24 AM | By  | 

Update on Greg Mortenson and ‘Three Cups of Deceit’ | 

Wikimedia

Greg Mortenson

Author and philanthropist Greg “Three Cups of Tea” Mortenson is back in the news with his attorneys asking a judge to toss out a lawsuit that accuses him of defrauding readers and donors.

For a quick reminder of what Mortenson is accused of, you can read Jon Krakauer’s devastating critique and online booklet Three Cups of Deceit – or my synopsis of it, Ten Sips from Three Cups of Deceit.

According to the Associated Press, Mortenson is basing his defense on another author, James Frey, who was made infamous on the Oprah Winfrey Show where he was first celebrated and then later exposed for fabricating much of his story.

“Plaintiffs should not be allowed to create a world where authors are exposed to the debilitating expense of class action litigation just because someone believes a book contains inaccuracies,” contends Mortenson’s attorney John Kauffman.

In Mortenson’s case, however, the alleged fictional accounts in his books were used to not just sell the books but also to raise funds for his philanthropy, the Central Asia Institute, which builds schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As stated in the AP story:

The lawsuit accuses the Montana resident of being involved in a racketeering scheme to turn him into a false hero, defraud millions of people out of the price of the books and raise millions in donations to the charity. The other defendants allegedly in on the scheme are co-author David Relin, publisher Penguin Group and Mortenson’s Bozeman-based charity, Central Asia Institute.

 

FILED UNDER: Basics, Greg Mortenson, philanthropy, Three Cups of Tea
January 17, 2012 | 8:45 AM | By  | 

China: Philanthropy on the rise but human rights on the decline? | 

Flickr, Peter Fuchs

Two stories out of China:

Bill Gates lauds the Chinese for becoming more philanthropic, though many might say they could hardly have become less so. In Xinhua, Gates says:

Many people he met in China acknowledged that philanthropy was still in its early stages of development in the country, but they already had ideas about things they wanted to do, he recalled, adding that this impressed him very much.

Meanwhile, former Washington state governor and now U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke says China’s human rights track record is getting worse lately. On the Charlie Rose Show, Locke said:

Locke told Rose that the human rights “climate has always ebbed and flowed in China, up and down, but we seem to be in a down period and it’s getting worse.”

FILED UNDER: Politics, Bill Gates, China, Gary Locke, human rights, philanthropy
January 4, 2012 | 12:04 PM | By  | 

BBC looks at “secretive” and powerful Gates Foundation | 

News analysis

Tom Paulson

Bill and Melinda Gates speak at Malaria Forum, with moderator ABC News' Richard Besser

The BBC has done an extensive (40 min) report on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation titled “Fortress Bill.” It is available for six more days online and will be rebroadcast on Sunday, Jan. 8.

The BBC introduces the Gates Foundation as the world’s largest philanthropy aimed at helping the poor:

“Yet it remains an often secretive and hard to penetrate organization, which arouses suspicion on some sectors of the aid community.”

My friend and colleague Laurie Garrett, with the Council on Foreign Relations, is interviewed by the BBC and notes that the influence of private philanthropy in global health and development is on the increase — which means policy is often set behind closed doors by a select group of people:

“What we think is global health, how we define this mission, is increasingly decided by a relatively small number of Americans living in Seattle, Washington.”

The dominance of the Gates Foundation has led to a bias toward scientific, technological and private-sector solutions, says Garrett. Science and technological improvements are needed, she says, but this focus ends up crowding out all of the other — social, political and economic — changes necessary to defeat the diseases of poverty. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, Alliance magazine, BBC, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Laurie Garrett, philanthropy
December 23, 2011 | 11:27 AM | By  | 

End of the year question for you, humanosphere | 

Happy Holidays.

Humanosphere is taking the week off since so is much of the rest of the humanosphere. I feel compelled to close out 2011 with a reminder that humanosphere is, in fact, a real word — coined to describe that part of the planet ‘inhabited or influenced by people.’

Yeah, kinda vague.

That’s why I have a key question for you, you humanospherians. But first, the northern lights ….

Flickr, Beverly & Pack

The northern lights

End of year thought: This is a news blog, or an online news website if you don’t like the word ‘blog,’ aimed at covering what seems to me to be a critical moment for humanity. It’s hard to summarize, but I believe our amazing, wonderful, frighteningly innovative and sometimes highly destructive species is at an unprecedented crossroads.

There’s no question anymore that we have evolved the capability to seriously soil our own nest — what with our nuclear weaponry, our climate-altering industrial practices and a level of hubris that (as seen from outer space … yes, I know ET) threatens to be our undoing.

Planet Earth likely will muster on, as it always has. But the humanosphere may be at risk, of a seriously deteriorating quality of life if not worse.

As someone of Scandinavian extraction, I’m happy to accept such a gloomy prognosis — especially as it fits in with my Norwegian-Lutheran holiday traditions of guilt, anxiety and staring off into cold space.

Yet there is just as much evidence to contradict this fatalistic view. A few observations:

  • In many ways, the world is actually a better place than it was even just 10 years ago with lower rates of extreme poverty, lower maternal and child mortality, more people on anti-HIV drugs and much less malaria in poor countries thanks to major initiatives funded by rich nations.
  • Most world leaders, even top military commanders, say that the best way to achieve global peace and stability is not through warfare but by reducing poverty, fighting inequity and promoting development. (I can’t say we are yet practicing what we preach, but recognizing you have a problem — whether it’s excessive drinking or killing people — is the first step.)
  • Something unusual is happening with young people. They are incredibly aware of global issues and they are leading the way on many fronts in the battle against poverty and injustice.
  • The business community has recognized it has a responsibility and a role to play in making the world a better place. Only the dinosaurs of business now say their only responsibility is to the bottom line. The idea of corporate social responsibility, however imperfectly practiced, no longer sounds so incongruous — or like dressing up a pig in a tuxedo.
  • Some of our past damage is fixable. A local creek I couldn’t have gone swimming in as a boy (unless I wanted to experiment with chemicals and genetic self-mutation) is now brimming with fish.

End of year question: So what do we call this trend, this new phase for humanity?

As a journalist attempting to cover this phenomenon, I often find myself at a loss for adequate words to describe what is happening and who is making it happen.

This isn’t really about charity, or just philanthropy. We seem to have entered a new phase of human development in which many, if not yet most, recognize global inequity and injustice threatens all of us. We have a much stronger sense of connection to each other today, I think.

But the language used to describe this new phase for humanity is horribly squishy and soft. Advocates often sound like one of those late-night TV pitches asking you to sponsor a starving child. And calling the people who work at making the world better ‘humanitarians‘ sounds a bit floofy. I don’t mind the simple clarity of ‘do-gooders,’ but many see that as slightly pejorative if not smart-ass.

So what do we call you people? What do we call this new phase in the evolution of the humanosphere?

I await your thoughts. Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah and here’s hoping for a Joyful New Year.

Tom

FILED UNDER: Basics, charity, corporate social responsibility, do-gooders, humanitarian, philanthropy
December 20, 2011 | 12:56 PM | By  | 

More Fighting Over (the meaning and purpose of) Philanthropy | 

Question: Is philanthropy a means for reducing inequity in the world or just another vehicle used by the super-rich to justify the inequity?

Gates Foundation

Bill Gates in India, checking on polio eradication

Answer: It depends upon what you mean by philanthropy.

Oddly enough (or maybe not), there is wide disagreement about some of what many would see as the most basic assumptions and characteristics of philanthropy. I’ve written about these confused semantics before, such as this argument between two experts over whether philanthropies should seek profits — a debate which ended up promoting an even more heated exchange of words.

The battle has been rejoined in a debate going on between the advocates of the more business-oriented, profit-seeking approach they’ve dubbed “philanthrocapitalism” and those who think philanthropy needs to be more precisely defined by its ability to effect positive social change.

Stanford

Kavita Ramdas

Leading off in the debate online at the Stanford Social Innovation Review is Kavita Ramdas, former chief of the Global Fund for Women now based at Stanford University. Ramdas opens with a tale of Bill and Melinda Gates in India seeking more billionaires for their Giving Pledge initiative.

The problem here, writes Ramdas, is that such well-intended acts of charity usually do nothing to solve the fundamental problems they are trying to solve:

In fact, as a recent Wall Street Journal article suggests, the same factors that helped create the billionaires may have also exacerbated social injustice and inequality, malnutrition, and dis-empowerment for millions of poor people cross India.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Justice, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Global Fund for Women, Kavita Ramdas, Matthew Bishop, philanthrocapitalism, philanthropy
November 29, 2011 | 12:05 PM | By  | 

Worries about for-profit and policy-making philanthropy | 

Flickr, by AMagill

Circle of money

First off, you should know that philanthropy in the United States is a growth market.

As the New York Times noted recently in an analysis piece on philanthropists using their foundations to push policy changes:

Over the past 30 years, as the gap between wealthy and poor grew ever wider, total philanthropic giving almost tripled….

This was one of a number of articles this week that looked at how philanthropists are increasingly putting their tax-sheltered money behind for-profit or personal ventures — sometimes aimed at achieving a social good and sometimes not.

The New York Times led the examination starting with an excellent article by Stephanie Strom (published on Thanksgiving Day) entitled To advance their cause foundations buy stocks.

Strom opened her article with an example of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation investing in a biotech company that works on vaccines — a portfolio management strategy known as “program-related investing”:

A growing number of foundations are using such investments, known as P.R.I.’s, to connect with profit-making ventures that advance their missions. But as they become more popular, some officials in the nonprofit field worry that this and other newer mechanisms are blurring the lines between profit-making businesses and charitable work.

Strom quotes Jeff Raikes, CEO at the Gates Foundation, as saying the idea is to make sure their investments serve the same goals — improving health, fighting poverty — as their philanthropy.

This is an interesting about-face for the Gates Foundation, which in response to a high-profile critique in 2007 by the Los Angeles Times had taken the position that its stock investments would be based solely on their financial attributes and were not selected with respect to the philanthopy’s humanitarian missions. Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Basics, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, investments, philanthropy