rationalskepticism.org

I have known since my early thirties that I was going to give my wealth back to society. The success of Microsoft provided me with an enormous fortune, and I felt responsible for using it in a thoughtful way. I had read a lot about how governments underinvest in basic scientific research. I thought, that’s a big mistake. If we don’t give scientists the room to deepen our fundamental understanding of the world, we won’t provide a basis for the next generation of innovations. I figured, therefore, that I could help the most by creating an institute where the best minds would come to do research.

They share much more than a first name. Both pivoted from spectacular first acts to second careers devoted to tackling some of the biggest problems on the planet. To do this, they have capitalized on their previous roles, their connections, and their brainpower. In Clinton’s case, it turned out that the attributes that make for the ultimate politician work equally well in the service of philanthropy.

As founder of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the former president is a forceful explainer in chief, elucidating what needs to be done to alleviate poverty and treat AIDS. And to the surprise of many who followed Gates as a full-tilt techie devoted to preserving Microsoft’s dominance, he has pursued philanthropy with the same passion he once channeled into software. At the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he approaches problem-solving—particularly the scientific arcana of health and agriculture—with an appreciation of scale honed by years of living under Moore’s law.

Both organizations have made a staggering impact. The Clinton Global Initiative, part of the former president’s foundation, claims to have improved the lives of more than 430 million people in 180 countries. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has by some estimates saved some 6 million lives and delivered a higher-quality existence to many, many more.

The foundations are at the forefront of a new era in philanthropy, in which decisions—often referred to as investments—are made with the strategic precision demanded of business and government, then painstakingly tracked to gauge their success. The Gates Foundation shot to philanthropic heights instantly after its launch in 2000, with the world’s richest man pledging the bulk of his fortune—$28.7 billion so far—and, after 2008, the bulk of his attention. (Gates has challenged other rich industrialists to follow his altruistic lead, most notably his pal Warren Buffet.) Making use of a mind so precise and logical that it once crunched the entire Basic computer language into 4 kilobytes of memory, Gates demands metrics to show that his investments are getting results. “I have been struck again and again by how important measurement is to improving the human condition,” he wrote in this year’s annual progress report. One current priority: Gates is pursuing the world’s remaining cases of polio with the zeal of a Javert. His foundation’s activities include expanding the role of libraries as digital centers, revamping teacher evaluations, promoting genetically redesigned seeds, and devising improved condoms and toilets.

The Clinton Foundation is less a funder than a launching pad for projects benefiting the global good. It organizes its interests in nine separate tracks, encompassing achievable goals that range from improving AIDS treatment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These are often in sync with the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, benchmarks to improve conditions in eight key areas, including combatting poverty and disease. The Clinton Global Initiative encourages its deep-pocketed members to take action, requiring them to make commitments once they figure out what projects to undertake. Each commitment must be original, specific, and measurable. CGI facilitates the projects, often by tapping its extensive networks.