korrents
Jacob Trefethen

What Jacob Trefethen thinks about innovation

@jacob-trefethen · 14 positions · On ppll ↗

Head of global health R&D at Open Philanthropy, where he directs funding for vaccines, drugs and diagnostics aimed at diseases that get little commercial attention. He writes at blog.jacobtrefethen.com and co-hosts the Hard Drugs podcast with Saloni Dattani.

Jacob Trefethen did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

Filter innovation · Newest first
Topic
All 14AI and science 4innovation 4epidemiology 2behavioural science 1capitalism 1dementia 1design 1
Sort
NewestOldest

Only Jacob Trefethen on innovation. See everyone on innovation

4 dated positions, 2024 to 2025, in their own words. Our reading of what Jacob Trefethen has said — not written or endorsed by them.

4 positions so far — this page is not yet offered to search engines.

  1. Our readingFifty years on, monoclonal antibodies still cannot be manufactured cheaply enough to use them for obvious jobs like preventing malaria in children.

    Their wordsYet the production methods still can’t make them below $10 per gram, so they’re still not cheap enough for some “obvious” applications like preventing kids getting malaria in a rainy season.

    ↗AI will not suddenly lead to an Alzheimer's cureblog.jacobtrefethen.com 3rd of 5 in this piece

  3. Our readingBecause research is concentrated in rich countries, both what we know and what gets made are skewed away from the diseases of poor ones.

    Their wordsResearch predominance in rich countries leads to skewed knowledge and product availability.

    ↗AI will not suddenly lead to an Alzheimer's cureblog.jacobtrefethen.com 4th of 5 in this piece

  4. 18 months earlier

  5. Our readingTechnological progress does not deliver the most important technologies first; what people choose to work on decides what exists.

    Their wordsTechnological progress is not a mystical force that delivers the most important ones first.

    ↗10 technologies that won't exist in 5 yearsblog.jacobtrefethen.com 1st of 2 in this piece

  7. Our readingTen billion dollars over ten years would deliver most of a list of missing life-saving health technologies, so their absence is a funding choice rather than a scientific limit.

    Their wordsWith an extra $10 billion over 10 years I’m pretty sure we’d get to 5 or 6 of the 10 on the list, and millions of unnecessary deaths would be prevented.

    ↗10 technologies that won't exist in 5 yearsblog.jacobtrefethen.com 2nd of 2 in this piece