Logo
UpTrust
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQLog InSign Up
Log InSign Up
QuestionsEventsGroupsFAQ
UpTrustUpTrust

Social media built on trust and credibility. Where thoughtful contributions rise to the top.

Get Started

Sign UpLog In

Legal

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceDMCA
© 2026 UpTrust. All rights reserved.
  1. Home
  2. ›Questions
March 2026

Why haven't we eradicated more diseases?

The species that wiped smallpox from the earth has spent forty-six years watching children die of diseases it knows how to prevent, because the funding structures reward treating disease over finishing it.

One disease in forty-six years

Smallpox killed roughly 300 million people in the twentieth century. In 1980, the WHO declared it eradicated. It remains the only human disease ever fully eliminated. Forty-six years later, the list hasn't grown.

Polio was supposed to be next. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative launched in 1988 with a target of 2000. Then 2005. Then 2012. Then 2018. Wild poliovirus is now endemic in exactly two countries — Afghanistan and Pakistan — and the number of cases is in the low dozens. We are tantalizingly close and have been for twenty years. The last mile is not a science problem. It's an access problem, a trust problem, a sovereignty problem, and — underneath all of those — an incentive problem.

What the money wants

Malaria kills over 600,000 people a year, almost all of them children under five in sub-Saharan Africa. A vaccine exists — RTS,S, approved in 2021. It reduces severe malaria by about 30 percent. Not great, but a start. The camp wants to scale it alongside bed nets and indoor spraying and close the gap. The camp asks why the vaccine took thirty years and reduces severity by only a third — and the answer involves what drug development money actually optimizes for.

The global pharmaceutical market is worth $1.6 trillion a year. Diseases that primarily kill poor children in poor countries attract a fraction of R&D investment. Malaria research funding totals about $800 million annually. Pfizer spent more than that on a single COVID vaccine trial. The market doesn't fund eradication because eradication is a one-time sale. Treatment is a subscription.

The watches this dynamic and sees something older than market failure — a pattern where the countries bearing the disease burden have the least control over the tools, the trials, and the priorities. The run the numbers and find that the cost per life saved by scaling existing interventions is staggeringly low, and the gap between what we spend and what would work is not technical but political.

The bottleneck

Eradication requires sustained political will across decades, across borders, and across election cycles. Smallpox succeeded because the Cold War gave both superpowers a reason to cooperate. No equivalent incentive exists today. The WHO's budget for all infectious disease is less than what the US spends on a single aircraft carrier. The people who die of preventable disease don't vote in the countries that fund the research.

Trust this perspective
Log in to vote

Where do you stand?

Join this conversation →|Start your own convo

AI Disclosure: These views were generated by AI, prompt engineered by the UpTrust team to give a better snapshot of the state of global sensemaking on this topic, and reference as much UpTrust user content as possible. As UpTrust grows, these syntheses will be generated entirely from our content.