Ah, the dilemma of Hope vs. Hype. I reported earlier this week that medical researchers and global health activists (including many at PATH in Seattle) are feeling a bit of success in the latest test of a malaria vaccine. It appears, so far, to be the best hope for protecting people living in malaria-infested areas. Malaria kills about a million people every year, mostly children in sub-Saharan Africa.
What I only mentioned, but didn’t have time in my radio report to explore, was the fact that the vaccine is still barely more than 50% effective. There’s no telling whether it will be better or worse than 50% once it gets into a less controlled context, in a final field trial that starts next year. It likely will leave roughly half the population unprotected.
There are other potential malaria vaccines in the pipeline. If any of them proves practical and at least partially effective, then you might combine two vaccines, and maybe make a big difference. This would be like creating the “cocktail” of drugs that are helping AIDS patients survive.
Other researchers say we need a vaccine that’s at least 90% effective, ore else we’re going to allow malaria to remain the scourge of Africa. But, there are vast challenges (scientific, technical) in creating a vaccine that good. One candidate comes from Stefan Kappe’s lab at Seattle Biomedical Research Institute. You can listen to my profile of him from last year, or read a recent profile by Luke Timmerman at Xconomy.com.
And, there are entire websites devoted to debunking all this as hype.
I think it’s great for science and possibly for human welfare that the Gates Foundation and others are funding this research into malaria. But, for the next decade at least, it looks like old-fashioned remedies will have to do.