backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by flyingpants1.. on Mar 31 at 1:11 AM


  (Source: aaanything.net)
Gates looks to get a rise out of the traditional condom industry

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is offering quite a challenge to brilliant minds everywhere: create a condom that men prefer to use over no condom. 

On Gates' "Impatient Optimists" website for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a blog post describes how condoms are effective at preventing the spread of HIV and unintended pregnancy, but most people don't want to use them. Why? Mainly because it hinders the sexual experience. 

The blog post was written by Papa Salif Sow, a senior program officer in HIV Prevention at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Stephen Ward, a program officer for Discovery & Translational Sciences at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 

"It may seem obvious, but the success and impact of any public health tool hinges on that tool being used consistently and correctly by those who need it," said the blog post. "Vaccines sitting on shelves don’t prevent disease.  New tuberculosis drug regimens won’t help if patients stop taking them halfway through the necessary days.  Likewise, the potential value of condoms is limited by inconsistent use."

It mentions that many other HIV preventative and contraceptive methods are in development, such as fast-dissolving vaginal films and combination vaginal rings. However, many of these alternatives are years from hitting store shelves either due to development issues, regulatory approval, etc.

We have a perfectly good solution already available: condoms. But Gates feels it is time to give the condom a much-needed update so that they're used more frequently. 

"What if we could develop a condom that would provide all the benefit of our current versions, without the drawbacks?" said the blog post. "Even better, what if we could develop one that was preferred to no condom?"

 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is challenging scientists, entrepreneurs, etc. to partake in the Next Generation of Condoms, which is part of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Grand Challenges Explorations. 

Gates' Grand Challenges are always looking for an old idea to redesign and make into a more effective product. For example, last August, Gates awarded prizes to three teams at an event in Seattle, Washington called "Reinvent the Toilet Challenge." Scientists, inventors, designers and students enrolled in the challenge were asked that they create a toilet design that strays from the traditional flush toilet. 

If you've got an idea that will encourage "wrapping" it while making men still want to "tap" it, then submit your ideas to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation here.

Source: Impatient Optimists



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: How about you start by...
By FITCamaro on 3/25/2013 2:15:15 PM , Rating: 5
Catholic institutions are fighting tooth and nail against being forced to violate their faith.

I have no problem with people using condoms or birth control. But they better damn well pay for them. It is also not reasonable to force a business to pay for something it does not want to and that go against its morals. There's this thing called the Constitution that forbids infringing on one's religious beliefs. Forcing someone to spend money, either personally or through their business, is doing exactly that.

Not that I expect you morons to get that.


RE: How about you start by...
By ebakke on 3/25/2013 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not that I expect you morons to get that.
HATE SPEECH!!!!!!


RE: How about you start by...
By tayb on 3/25/2013 3:46:05 PM , Rating: 4
The declaration of independence states that all citizens have the unalienable right to life. This means that all citizens have the right to live and consequently a right to basic health care to help keep them alive. You are more than welcome to hold beliefs in an invisible man in the sky so long as it does not interfere with my unalienable right to live.

Providing contraceptives to others does not violate your faith. You aren't forced to take or use the contraceptives so the idea that this violates your faith is ludicrous. Contraceptives can save lives and often times are not even used to prevent pregnancy. My wife has had to take 'the pill' to fight ovarian cysts. If we lived in your dogmatic world that medication wouldn't be covered by our insurance, which we pay for. And for no damn reason at all really.

quote:
There's this thing called the Constitution that forbids infringing on one's religious beliefs.


I'm so glad you wrote this because that 'infringing' bit is a two way street. My beliefs are none therefore any law or restriction placed on me for religious reasons is strictly unconstitutional.

If there were an islamic organization prohibiting women from holding positions we wouldn't and shouldn't tolerate it. And we won't tolerate this nonsense either.


RE: How about you start by...
By Cerin218 on 3/25/2013 4:02:55 PM , Rating: 5
"and consequently a right to basic health care to help keep them alive."

We have the right to life. Don't see ANYWHERE that it says the RIGHT to health care. Basic or otherwise.

We are all CREATED equal. That about ends our equality.


RE: How about you start by...
By Lifted on 3/25/2013 8:06:22 PM , Rating: 1
So the government could declare health care illegal?

The constitution also doesn't mention your right to reading comprehension, which I see you've taken to mean you can't have any.

Since you still aren't following me, when he said we have a right to healthcare, he meant the right to acquire healthcare, not the right to have it provided to us by the government for free. Health care in his example is birth control pills. One could argue that condoms also fall under health care as they can prevent the spread of fatal and debilitating diseases.

I think you've proven we aren't all CREATED equal, as some of us are clearly mouth breathers while others are intelligent enough to comprehend simple thoughts and ideas of those around us.


RE: How about you start by...
By NA1NSXR on 3/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: How about you start by...
By JonnyDough on 3/26/2013 7:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, we don't also have the right to death.


RE: How about you start by...
By aju on 3/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: How about you start by...
By tayb on 3/25/2013 4:22:58 PM , Rating: 4
I love this. A christian sitting here telling me life isn't sacred and people don't deserve to live.

"If you can't afford health care, die." - christians


RE: How about you start by...
By ebakke on 3/25/2013 4:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Reading comprehension fail.

He didn't say life isn't sacred. And he didn't say people don't deserve to live. He said no one has the right to force another person to "fix them". Fixing someone else requires immense time, energy, and money. If I'm allowed to force someone to perform a task with no benefit to them and only a benefit to me, that person is my slave.


RE: How about you start by...
By ppardee on 3/25/2013 4:19:48 PM , Rating: 3
The right to life means that the government doesn't have a right to take your life and it has a duty to protect you from someone else who is trying to take your life, but it is not guaranteeing you won't lose your life. People who say health care is a right ignore the fact that it takes IMMENSE training, time and money to be able to provide health care. You're saying you have a right to someone else's time? You're talking about slavery.

It seems like the message (especially) the left is sending is "respect MY rights, but YOUR rights are forfeit if it makes my life easier."

As a libertarian, this is offensive to me. Your insurance has a right not to cover certain items. Your employer has a right to purchase insurance that doesn't cover certain items. And you have a right to work for a company that purchases insurance that covers the items you want to be covered AND have a right to purchase these items without insurance.

Where are your rights violated in the above scenario? How is your life being endangered?


RE: How about you start by...
By Mint on 3/26/2013 9:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
People who say freedom is a right ignore the fact that it takes IMMENSE training, time and money to be able to provide national defense and policing. You're saying you have a right to someone else's time? You're talking about slavery.

;)


RE: How about you start by...
By Skywalker123 on 3/26/2013 6:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, health care is not, can u understand that concept?


RE: How about you start by...
By ppardee on 3/27/2013 4:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is that the money that pays for national defense and police comes from the taxes of the people they are contracted to defend AND they are paid for their time while training. THEN we pay them to train in something else later :)

Well, that's not 100% true. The taxes come from HALF the people. The other half get a free ride, which is the biggest problem with national health care. The people who can't afford health care are also the people with the worst health statistically, and they keep popping out chillens because there is no financial incentive not to and we haven't made birth control fun! Maybe they should have Flintstones chewable birth control pills?


RE: How about you start by...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/25/2013 4:58:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The declaration of independence states that all citizens have the unalienable right to life.


Then I demand all food products be free. Why do we draw the line at health care exactly? I can go a whole year or more without needing to see a doctor. But I damn sure need to eat every day, why should I have to pay for that? I have a RIGHT TO LIFE!

quote:
Contraceptives can save lives and often times are not even used to prevent pregnancy.


That's not the issue here. You're using a bunch of emotional hyperbole instead of sticking to the facts. Nobody is against contraceptives here. We just don't think others should have to pay for yours!

quote:
If we lived in your dogmatic world that medication wouldn't be covered by our insurance, which we pay for. And for no damn reason at all really.


What? No, that's ridiculous. Are you retarded? Nobody is trying to take away your stupid birth control pills covered by insurance!! What the hell? This is about Obama trying to force the Catholic church health plan to cover them. You obviously don't have insurance through the church soooo - connect the dots here - THIS DOES NOT AFFECT YOU!!

quote:
If there were an islamic organization prohibiting women from holding positions we wouldn't and shouldn't tolerate it.


That violates her civil rights as well as is being prejudiced against. That's not even close to being the same thing here. You don't have an "unalienable" right to free condoms and pills lol. Get out of here kid


RE: How about you start by...
By TSS on 3/26/2013 11:00:10 AM , Rating: 1
What the church covers under it's health plan has no bearing on your beliefs either. It's a monetary issue. Wether or not the church offers contraceptives for free, against payment or not at all - this does not prevent you from refusing to use them.

If anything you could see it as a test of your faith. Are you saying you need to have contraceptives banned from the church or otherwise you couldn't resist the temptation of using them? That's a faith question which relates to you, and thus is constitutionally protected. Nobody can prevent you from asking this question or exploring it's options. But it still does not have bearing on wether the church actually offers them or not, it has bearing on you being able to handle the church offering them or not. And you should really talk to your lord about that one.

Anyways that's not really why i wanted to respond. This is why:
quote:
Then I demand all food products be free. Why do we draw the line at health care exactly? I can go a whole year or more without needing to see a doctor. But I damn sure need to eat every day, why should I have to pay for that? I have a RIGHT TO LIFE!


That might very well be *The* most sensible thing you've ever said on this entire website. Even if it was in jest....


RE: How about you start by...
By FITCamaro on 3/25/2013 7:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
Uh no. It means they have the right to be alive. Not do whatever the hell they feel like.


RE: How about you start by...
By FITCamaro on 3/25/2013 7:22:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Providing contraceptives to others does not violate your faith. You aren't forced to take or use the contraceptives so the idea that this violates your faith is ludicrous.


Please tell me where I say I want to stop other people from being able to take contraceptives. I say the EXACT opposite.

If people want to take contraceptives, that is absolutely their business (provided a state doesn't pass a law blocking their sale which a state has the absolute right to do if it so wishes while the federal government does not). What IS my business is me or anyone else being forced to pay for them for someone else. If employers, for ANY reason, don't want to pay for that, the federal government has NO right to force them to do so. Nor does the federal or state government have the right to tell anyone, individual or business, that they must violate the faith and principles on which they operate. That is as blatant a violation of the first amendment as they come.

If your wife needs the pill to fight a disease, fine. Get insurance that covers it. That doesn't make it your right to have it though. It is a product that costs a company money to develop and produce. If you want to take the path that anything needed for life is a right to have, well then I guess you can legally steal food.

quote:
My beliefs are none therefore any law or restriction placed on me for religious reasons is strictly unconstitutional.


Completely false. There is no separation of church and state. There is only the constitutional block to the federal government ESTABLISHING a FEDERAL OFFICIAL RELIGION. There is no such constraint on states. States HAD official religions when the constitution was signed. If the founders meant to block that, why would they not have addressed it? There wasn't even the discussion unlike the discussion on slavery.


RE: How about you start by...
By LordSojar on 3/26/2013 3:01:29 AM , Rating: 1
it's called population control. Making contraceptives available reduces crime rates, reduces homicide rates, reduces poverty rates and reduces the number of people on welfare/government assistance programs, as it essentially is a form of sterilizing the poor. I know that sounds harsh, but it's the truth, plain and simple.

So, all this moral talk, totally irrelevant. No one cares what your moral standings are, since their based on some book that's thousands of years old and outdated by modernity. So, that argument is removed by virtue of science, evolving moral systems and logic.

Next! The cost argument. Fine, it does in fact cost more in the short term to make contraceptives available to the public for free. There is no denying that. However... long term savings after 14-20 years are inconceivable. We saw the largest crime rate drop in the history of the recorded world 16-21 years after Roe VS Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Why you ask? Simple! Those children were not born into a continued cycle of poverty and necessitated crime, and as a result of them not being born into that culture, they and those around them didn't develop into sustenance criminals; crime rate goes down, as does the rate of lethal and non lethal violence, due to the impoverished ideologue of banding together, aka gangs.

What's hysterical about this entire situation is the fact that most people can't see past their own nose, much less 4+ years into the future, let alone 14+. So here we debate things that are really so abhorrently simple, and why? So we can save a few million dollars of taxpayer money that will end up equating to trillions? Yes, that's intelligence defined right there. /sarcasm

Oh, and healthcare isn't a right, but under a capitalist system, a healthy and happy bourgeoisie is a necessity. For being capitalists, you certainly don't understand the backbone of the system you so heavily espouse to be god's gift onto mankind do you? Pity that once the poor are so destitute they die off that no one will be there to clean the toilets of the rich... either that, or it will be the French Revolution 2.0. Either way, when you mix a system based entirely around the concept of pure, unadulterated greed at the expense of basic humanity and compassion for others and a democratic system of voting... you get odd results. The US was founded on a higher moral system than what exists today, and the real tragedy is that while society is to blame as a whole for degrading to the point it has, it's really those who hold such a corrupt and immoral system to such high regard that are to blame for the toxic effect the poison of greed has had on our culture. Shamey shame.


RE: How about you start by...
By tjacoby on 3/28/2013 9:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
So funny reading your response, you refer to the aborted cysts as children! So funny... I see your irony. You are just a grown up cyst who could potentially commit a heinous crime one day. Should someone take the same liberties with you?


RE: How about you start by...
By Shadowself on 3/25/2013 6:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's this thing called the Constitution that forbids infringing on one's religious beliefs.
Wrong. The exact, relevant part of the First Amendment is
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Note that is does not, in any way, say that governments can't *infringe* on religion. It does say 1) that the government can't set up a state religion. Virtually every relevant Supreme Court case has taken that to mean that the government cannot promote one religion over another, i.e., if you want to have a stereotypical Christian Nativity Scene in a government building, you can't refuse to have a stature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster there too.

The second part is taken to mean that the government can't keep you, personally, from exercising your personal religious beliefs. Church owned/run insurance organizations are businesses. Those businesses don't inherently have a religion. It has yet to be clearly shown by the courts whether the business owned by a human legally inherits the religion rights of that human. If I believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster can I set up a business and require all persons who work for me to be active, dutiful members of my church? What if the seed money to start the business comes from my preaching gigs where I talk about the greatness of the FSM? And if they stop being dutiful members, can I fire them?

Clearly, in the exercise of my religious beliefs, I can choose who is and is not a member of any church I start -- and this has been upheld many times in the courts.

However, in a business that is merely owned or run by a church the law is not quite clear. The Supreme Court has yet to make a clear ruling on this issue. There are federal laws prohibiting job discrimination due to religious beliefs. The courts are not 100% consistent on how these laws pertain to businesses owned by a church. It seems clear, due to these inconsistencies, that a church's rights are different from a those of a business *owned* by a church.

So while the U.S. Constitution cannot promote one religion over another and cannot restrict you, personally, in following your personal religious beliefs... there is no explicit statement or final, definitive, clear ruling from the courts on the "infringing" concept.


RE: How about you start by...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/25/2013 7:50:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Note that is does not, in any way, say that governments can't *infringe* on religion.


Exactly what do you think it means when it says "shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of"? Seems pretty clear to me. It's a well established fact we have freedom of religion FROM the Government.

quote:
Church owned/run insurance organizations are businesses.


Wrong. They are non-profit organizations. Businesses make money, they technically don't.

quote:
there is no explicit statement or final, definitive, clear ruling from the courts on the "infringing" concept.


Where are you getting this stuff? There is a huge list of precedents of the lower courts and the Supreme Court consistently upholding this. Protecting religious organizations from being infringed upon by the Government.

Religion aside, because it causes people to become irrational bigots for some reason whenever it's discussed, I'm generally against second-guessing and redefining the clear mandates of the Constitution. We must always, in ALL things, seek to interpret it in a way that leads to the least Government oriented solution. And involves it the least in our daily lives. As was the true intention of the Framers, obviously.

This isn't a sporting event where you should cheer when the Government smacks down a group of people you don't like, because you'll be the first one to cry foul when the same happens to you. And there might not be anyone left to listen.


RE: How about you start by...
By thurston2 on 3/25/2013 6:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no problem with people using condoms or birth control. But they better damn well pay for them.


Yes, because it's much cheaper to pay for unwanted children than it is to provide free birth control. Fucking idiot.


RE: How about you start by...
By ebakke on 3/25/2013 8:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
Logical fallacy. I don't have to pick one or the other. Don't pay for either for someone else!


RE: How about you start by...
By thurston2 on 3/25/2013 9:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you do have to chose one or the other civilized society does not let babies starve to death.


RE: How about you start by...
By ebakke on 3/25/2013 11:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently they also don't expect individuals to provide food for their own kids. Or at least you don't expect people to.

You might be surprised how much humans can accomplish when you stop making excuses for them.


RE: How about you start by...
By thurston2 on 3/25/2013 11:37:57 PM , Rating: 1
I expect people to provide for their own children but the reality is that some people are pieces of shit and don't care enough about their children to provide what they need.


RE: How about you start by...
By ebakke on 3/25/2013 11:49:59 PM , Rating: 3
No amount of "free" money or "free" stuff will make those individuals become better people, or turn them into caring parents. All it does is encourage more crappy behavior.


RE: How about you start by...
By Skywalker123 on 3/26/2013 7:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Does'nt matter, the kids are still gonna have to be fed and cared for.


RE: How about you start by...
By ebakke on 3/27/2013 10:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say kids shouldn't be fed or cared for. I said I shouldn't have to feed and care for your (or anyone else's) kids. It's really that simple.


RE: How about you start by...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/25/2013 8:45:28 PM , Rating: 1
The problem I have with this premise is that we're to assume people get pregnant because they don't have access to birth control.

To which I will respond in a very calm and mature manner with...ummm.. BULLSHIT!

Also the birth rate in America and Europe right now, as well as other nations, are at 50 year lows currently. Just a fact, interpret that as you will.


RE: How about you start by...
By nick2000 on 3/25/2013 7:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Catholic institutions are fighting tooth and nail against being forced to violate their faith.


Actually no. The health care insurance is part of an employee's salary really even if it is not clearly presented as such. As such, it is technically the employee's money. Are you saying that it would violate their faith if hey could not force their own employees to abid by the employer's belief? This is in fact what we are talking about. Well, then a company requiring all it's female employees to buy and wear veils would be great too?

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, not freedom to impose YOUR religion...


RE: How about you start by...
By Kurz on 3/26/2013 2:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
However the state has imposed that Employeers purchase the insurance instead of the Employees.

Why can't we just remove the whole Employeer Based Insurance system and replace it with a system like Car Insurance? Employeers have their rights not infridged, and Employees have much more choice when it comes to Insurance plans.


RE: How about you start by...
By Black1969ta on 3/25/2013 9:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
institutions are not people!

Catholic institutions should not be able to dictate what is available to individuals.

The constitution does protect against infringing, but it specifies that it is meant to protect the minority from the majority. In this case the institution is the majority and the individual is the minority. Obamacare says nothing about forcing an individual to do something. Have you even read the obamacare bill, or are you just fearmongering from hearsay and the FUD spread by those who oppose Obama, yet fail to come up with a viable alternative.


RE: How about you start by...
By Skywalker123 on 3/26/2013 6:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
The only morons are the religious fools


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki