Ok, everyone has heard of the ice bucket thing. Yes, over $10 million was raised for ALS. That money was donated for ALS Awareness and Research. Not, Research and Awareness. That's an important distinction. Awareness will NOT CURE A DISEASE. FEELING GOOD ON SOCIAL MEDIA WILL NOT IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR ANYBODY(I don't think).
I have a larger problem with this whole thing though. No one knows a thing about the organization they donated to. I guarantee it. Unless someone has a close relative that's actually actively suffering ALS, or is recently deceased, it's very likely that they did not put any thought into the not-for-profit that they donated to. That's dangerous. My sole argument, unless someone wants to get into the nitty-gritty of it all, is the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
I donate time and give regular financial support (Though limited, because college) to several charities. Ones that are near to me, that I have researched, that I know have visibly improved peoples lives. I am all for honest volunteering (For 0 reward. Honor points and 'community service hours' do not count. That is not charity), and generous charity. I am against awareness. I am against feel-good social media campaigns (Kony 2012 everybody!).
Speaking as a researcher, your time would probably be better spent lobbying Congress and the Senate to increase NIH funding. Philanthropy typically goes to institutions with the best political connections and the best sales pitches. Charity is not without value, but philanthropy does not, and cannot, fuel a productive scientific community. The cure for ALS isn't likely to come from an ALS lab. More likely, a lab working on another problem will likely stumble upon something that can be translated to ALS. I feel that awareness in this context probably does more harm than good. The take home message for most people is probably that ALS research just got a nice shot in the arm. The truth is that the funding that this kind of research depends upon is drying up, and labs continue to close across the country.
Why can't we do both? I understand where you are coming from: it is frustrating to see trends like this happen, only to subside a few weeks later and everyone going back to their original habits. In the end, it will not accomplish much because people make a one time $5 donation and never think about it again. Furthermore, as you said, they likely did little research into what non-for-profit they donated to. Ideally, we would see people signing up to volunteer their time at a charity that, like you said, makes a visible difference in people's lives. We don't see this however. But is that so bad? You say you are against awareness, but I maintain that awareness is very important in garnering support for research. With the current state of funding for medical research, the most well known diseases are the ones that get the most funding. If the money for research is not coming from government grants, it is coming from private sources*. How do these private sources know what to donate to? Awareness. You are correct in saying that awareness will not cure a disease, but it will certainly help to get funding for research. All in all, a "feel good social media campaign" can in fact have a net positive outcome. $10 million has been raised, which is $10 million more than would have been without this campaign. So what if people donate $5 and move on? Realistically, it is more than they would have done if there was no ice bucket challenge. And if the ice bucket challenge had asked people to donate their time to volunteering, no one would have done it. Humans are passive creatures - if something doesn't affect was immediately, we really don't care. This isn't a flaw, it's just who we are. These campaigns don't harm anybody. They may even help them. * This is one of the many reasons I think an increase in government funded basic science research is important. There are diseases out there that are not 'popular', so research into them gets very little funding.
Well... I guess technically, it was the booze and not the ice that killed this guy : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11291475These campaigns don't harm anybody. They may even help them.
I understand this point. However, I think that by nature, we should encourage people to be charitable, and combine with that a pride in knowing for a fact what your philanthropies are doing, and how your money is used. Cash=Speech these days, and a lot of people end up 'saying' they approve of things that they would otherwise find abhorrent.This is one of the many reasons I think an increase in government funded basic science research is important. There are diseases out there that are not 'popular', so research into them gets very little funding.