On stage at Davos in the Swiss Alps earlier this year, Bill Gates, before an audience of the global do-gooding elite, announced a $50 million partnership between his foundation and an unlikely new ally, OpenAI, aimed at improving healthcare in Rwanda.

Just a month earlier, the Gates Foundation had released a harrowing report about widespread global health cuts and collapsing foreign aid infrastructure, documenting a rise in child deaths for the first time this century. But at Davos, even as the US hemorrhaged funding for vaccines, maternal healthcare, and HIV treatment, the Microsoft co-founder struck an optimistic tone. 

“Using innovation, using AI,” Gates told Reuters, “I think we can get back on track.”

As it turns out, the partnership was just an opening salvo for what’s become a wholesale embrace of AI by the world’s largest global health philanthropy. A $200 million partnership with Anthropic came just a few months later. And then, on Tuesday, the Gates Foundation announced a plan to dole out a jaw-dropping $1 billion over the next two years for scaling up AI interventions across healthcare, education, and agriculture around the world. 

The sense that AI will soon change everything, and mostly for the worse, has perhaps never felt so pressing and alarming as it does right now. But this hefty new commitment is premised on the idea that AI could eventually make our lives much better too. In a country like America, AI requires massive investments and buildout — in the grid, in power, in technology, in water. In many parts of Africa, already infrastructure-poor, the foundation is effectively betting that AI can compensate for some of the infrastructure that isn’t in place or that has been lost — and offer a new layer that can help in education, in delivering healthcare, and more. 

The Gates Foundation’s new commitments include projects to improve how farmers analyze their crops, how doctors diagnose patients, and how students learn. Some have already proven to be quite effective, according to the foundation, with one tool improving the accuracy of medical diagnoses by 16 percent across several Kenyan clinics. “In poorer countries with enormous health worker shortages and lack of health systems infrastructure,” Gates wrote on his blog earlier this year, “AI can be a game-changer in expanding access to quality care.” 

Last year’s foreign aid cuts were unfathomably destructive for some of the world’s poorest countries, shuttering thousands of clinics and perhaps hundreds of thousands of classrooms in places where critical workers and supplies were already stretched thin. No, AI cannot deliver a baby, administer a vaccine, or manage a classroom — not yet, at least — but it can, the Gates Foundation hopes, help ease the burden and augment the quality of care for nurses and teachers now tasked with serving far more people than any one person should. 

“This is the most transformative technology of our lifetime,” Mark Suzman, CEO of the Gates Foundation, told me, and while there are “very real risks and challenges” surrounding AI, it also presents genuine opportunities to tangibly improve many people’s lives.  

It is a tantalizing premise: We can’t afford to build clinics, hire teachers, or lay new power lines, but perhaps AI could create the digital infrastructure needed to help billions of people do more with what they have — or rather, with what’s left. The question is, can the right layer of innovation help bolster a buckling system, even as the physical and logistical infrastructure surrounding it crumbles?

Is AI really what global health needs right now? 

Most Americans have yet to see AI improve their lives in meaningful ways, much less those living in poverty or in countries where only a sliver of the population has ever used ChatGPT. 

But those numbers in the developing world are slowly changing, a shift enabled in part by other global health funders convinced that as foreign aid dries up, AI could soon help the world do more with less. The Trump administration itself is on board with this thinking, so long as it benefits American tech companies. Last year, the State Department announced a $150 million partnership with the drone company Zipline to transport medical supplies in several countries.

To Zipline’s credit, an NPR reporter in Rwanda last month found that the company’s drones were already saving lives in places with poor road infrastructure, where driving to the nearest hospital can take hours on winding hills, but where drones can deliver crucial blood transfusions within minutes. 

And yet, for Rwandans to benefit fully from these high-tech deliveries, they need staffed clinics to visit. As a result of foreign aid cuts, some of those literal landing spots are now on the verge of closing in some of the nation’s most vulnerable rural corridors. “Without the underlying infrastructure, like roads, energy and power and unless there is accessibility, rural and otherwise,” Enoh Ebong, president of the global development department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told NPR, “then all of these solutions will stop short.”

But just as medical delivery drones still need a clinic to fly to, most of these interventions require some layer of physical infrastructure — roads, schools, power, and quite obviously, broadband  — to function. Satellite imagery shows that some rural communities in sub-Saharan Africa quite literally went dark in the aftermath of USAID cuts. It will be much harder for their kids to prompt an AI math tutor, or for a local farmer to download a weather app. 

“We’re seeing this very much as a both/and,” Suzman told me, calling more traditional funding for education and healthcare “the bedrock for long-term economic growth,” which AI is meant to supplement, not replace. But, in practice, foreign aid cuts have left serious cracks across much of that bedrock, which could make it harder for state-of-the-art solutions to function as intended.  

It is obviously not incumbent on the Gates Foundation to pay for all of this alone – nor would it even be feasible for them to do so. And for the record, plenty of the foundation’s other grant programs are not AI-related at all. But this tension does speak to a broader question that may be felt most acutely in a context like global health, but ultimately one that touches us all: Do we spend our scarce resources on the digital infrastructure of the future at the peril of our needs right now? Could you justify buying the new $1,999 folding iPhone if you can barely afford to buy groceries? 

The answer is not actually always an easy one. It is not for us to say, for example, that just because a community lacks reliable running water, its people should be excluded from the benefits (and encumbrances) of the smartphone, especially if that smartphone can connect them to health advice they could never access otherwise, or guidance that could help them survive a drought. 

In some parts of the world, digital forms of banking arrived long before local brick-and-mortar branches did, instantaneously connecting countless people to a cheap and secure way to save and send their cash to family and friends in need. It is certainly possible that AI, or at least the kind of applications the Gates Foundation funds, could one day have a similarly transformative effect on how people access personalized levels of care, education, and other services in places without the resources to do so otherwise. 

That is the hope, but it is also hard right now to believe uncritically in a technology that, as Gates himself blogged just last month, “will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice,” ushering in “one of the most turbulent times in human history.” 

In an interview with the New York Times soon after, he seemed convinced that AI will likely do more harm than good. “I don’t like bringing bad news to people, and I don’t like saying that innovation may be a net negative,” he said. “But that’s where we are.”

Now he wants billions of people around the world to use it? Yes, Suzman said, because if not, then inevitably the best parts of AI — the potential for exponentially better cancer treatments, for example — will go only “to those who can pay for it,” while the worst parts of it will fall, as they so often do, on those who benefit the least. “These decisions are being made now,” he said, “and the decisions being made now will then probably shape the following two decades.” Here’s hoping they’re good ones.

This story was originally published in The Highlight. To get access to member-exclusive stories like this every month, become a Vox Member today.

Every day it seems scientists are making breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s disease. 

New treatments that actually slow the disease’s progression — lecanemab and donanemab — have finally appeared on pharmacy shelves in the past few years, delivering real-world results for patients and their families. New blood tests promise to identify at-risk patients earlier in their lives, giving them the chance to make lifestyle changes and potentially start treatment to stave off symptoms. 

The media and wellness influencers are always reporting on new diets, workouts, or hobbies that can combat dementia. Just last month, there was even a report out of China about an experimental brain surgery that allegedly reverses the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease — the Holy Grail that researchers have been pursuing for generations.

But hype has outpaced the science of treating Alzheimer’s disease before. Promising treatments have gotten a lot of attention before only to fizzle out a short time later. Less than a decade ago, many scientists were wondering whether we had the theory of Alzheimer’s disease completely wrong. 

For those of us who don’t work in the field, that confusing history can make it hard to make sense of these recent developments. It sounds like we are entering a new age for Alzheimer’s prevention and treatment — but are we actually? And, if we are, how can people benefit from it?

I called a couple of leading experts to find out.

Here’s the good news: They say scientists are genuinely shifting the paradigm for treating, detecting, and ultimately preventing Alzheimer’s disease. The two drugs on the market can actually slow down cognitive decline for many patients, something that had been out of reach for decades. And more treatments are coming.

“Diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s has changed in a way that is revolutionary compared to, say, four or five years ago,” said Dr. Jason Karlawish, co-director of the Penn Memory Center.

At the clinic where he sees patients, “people are feeling a sense of hope and promise,” he said.

For a long time, the science on Alzheimer’s disease felt stuck. Now it’s moving. There’s only one thing that could stop it, according to experts: the Trump administration’s anti-science agenda.

Scientists are getting closer to game-changing Alzheimer’s treatments

In 2023, the approval of two drugs transformed the landscape of Alzheimer’s care: lecanemab (sold as Leqembi) and donanemab (sold as Kisunla), two IV treatments that target amyloid plaque in the brain of a person with Alzheimer’s. Before these two drugs — and the approval of aducanemab, a similar but less effective and riskier treatment — it had been decades since the last new Alzheimer’s treatment had come onto the market.

They are not perfect treatments. They are effective only for people with mild cognitive impairment, not more advanced stages of the disease. They can only slow the progression of Alzheimer’s for those people, not stop or reverse it. And they do come with the risk of serious side effects, particularly brain bleeds.

“The good news is, we have these two drugs that can help people,” said Tara Spires-Jones, professor of neurodegeneration at the University of Edinburgh and author of the forthcoming book, Fighting for our Minds: The Neuroscience of Defeating Dementia. “The bad news is, you don’t get any better. You’re still getting worse — you just get worse more slowly.”

These drugs are a start, not the endpoint. Researchers are already working on the next generation of treatments. The drug pipeline is becoming more robust because scientists are finally coalescing around a theory of the disease that’s more complex — and, crucially, opens more potential targets for new drugs. 

For a long time, Alzheimer’s research was dominated by the amyloid hypothesis. The theory posited that the buildup of plaque made from amyloid proteins was responsible for disrupting brain signals and creating the telltale loss of memory and identity associated with Alzheimer’s. Scientists are still confident that amyloid plays a role in Alzheimer’s — and the success of these amyloid-targeting drugs supports that interpretation. But there is also a stronger consensus that other mechanisms must be at work. Some people who have evidence of amyloid plaque building up in their brain nonetheless never develop Alzheimer’s disease. 

Another type of protein called tau seems to be associated with the disease. Scientists also increasingly believe that inflammation may play a role. Part of the breakthrough of the past few years is that scientists are no longer arguing about whether they even understand this disease at all. Instead, the mission is to pursue different drug targets and increase the chances of delivering new treatments.

“I don’t think people in the field are fighting over, ‘Your mechanism is wrong and mine is right,’” Karlawish said. “I think there’s a kind of general democratization. There are multiple promising mechanisms.”

New tau-targeting treatments are moving through clinical trials. Biogen has a drug called diranersen that aims to stop the production of the tau proteins moving through clinical trials. Preliminary results showed that the drug did appear to reduce tau and improve cognitive symptoms — although, curiously, the most effective response was at the lowest dose. Further research is needed before the drug could receive FDA approval. Another tau-targeting drug from Eisai has also entered clinical trials and is in the earlier safety-check phases. And new amyloid-targeting treatments aim to better penetrate the brain-blood barrier and deliver more effective relief for patients.

In the short term, scientists hope these drugs can slow or even stop cognitive decline better than the currently approved medications. In the longer term, these new approaches — and potentially a combination of different drugs with different targets — could eventually allow scientists to reverse Alzheimer’s. (As for that experimental surgery in China, as Nature reported, scientists say its results will need to be replicated in other clinical trials before we’re confident that it really works.)

“The brain is amazing. You can make new synapses,” Spires-Jones said. “If we could stop the insult, it’s theoretically possible in the future that we could have treatments that not only slow the progression but actually let you get better. But I think we’re pretty far from those. What I think is much closer is really, really meaningful treatments that will slow or even stop disease progression. We’re probably going to see something coming out in the next couple of years.”

How patients can get the most out of these new treatments

But even a “cure” in the long term will be conditional. Because Alzheimer’s eventually causes the brain to die (thus its 100 percent fatality rate), there may still be a point of no return once the disease is too entrenched. “A cure for people in the late stages is practically impossible because too much of the brain has died,” Spires-Jones said.

And that reality makes early detection all the more important. That’s the way patients can get the most out of the current medications and their eventual successors.

It used to be that doctors couldn’t confirm whether somebody had Alzheimer’s disease until the person died and they could perform an autopsy. But the new treatments can give people more time with their loved ones before the disease’s worst symptoms kick in. 

That means waiting is not an option. Patients are demanding better methods of detection.

“Treatment attracts patients, for good reason, and treatment demands diagnosis,” Karlawish said. “Treatment really does drive the business model for a disease.”

So, scientists are designing new blood tests that can detect the presence of tau proteins and predict the later onset of Alzheimer’s disease with impressive accuracy. And they are learning more about pivotal periods in a person’s life where their risk of Alzheimer’s might start to grow — and when interventions might therefore be more effective. New research has suggested that menopause may be an accelerant for Alzheimer’s progression, and therefore may represent an important point in someone’s life. 

These developments are shaping what the near-term future of Alzheimer’s care will look like. As a person ages, they will be able to take one of these blood tests to see if there are signals they are at a higher risk of the disease. If they are, they will have a growing number of medications that they could take to delay or potentially prevent dementia from setting in. For a woman at risk, for example, hormone replacement therapy has been associated with a reduced risk of dementia. Clinical trials are also underway to test whether existing drugs like donanemab and lecanemab can delay the onset of symptoms for somebody who is at higher risk but has not yet started to experience cognitive decline.

“We couldn’t get the right people at the right time early on — and now we can,” Spires-Jones said. “That’s a problem that’s almost solved now.”

Prevention may also be where GLP-1 drugs ultimately prove most useful. As scientists come to better understand the intimate relationship between vascular health and brain health, there is growing reason to think these medicines could help reduce dementia risk decades before symptoms appear.

That would make GLP-1s a complement to drugs such as lecanemab and donanemab, rather than a competitor. Those treatments are designed for people who already have early-stage Alzheimer’s. GLP-1s, by contrast, have so far shown little ability to slow the disease once cognitive decline has begun. In a disappointing clinical trial involving people with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s, researchers found that the drugs had a negligible effect on the progression of the disease.

But that result doesn’t mean there isn’t a role for Ozempic and the next generation of GLP-1 drugs in the fight against Alzheimer’s. 

Scientists increasingly believe that chronic inflammation, obesity, and poor vascular health can all accelerate cognitive aging. GLP-1 drugs reduce inflammation, while their effects on weight and metabolic health can substantially lower cardiovascular risk. If US obesity rates continue to fall as these medicines become more widely used, their most consequential effect on Alzheimer’s may therefore be indirect: improving the health of millions of people long before the disease takes hold.

“I think where we’re going in the future is those semaglutide-type drugs will probably be very good for prevention,” Spires-Jones said. “If we can keep people’s obesity in check, that will probably more likely be a preventative treatment. That trial pretty conclusively told us that once you have symptoms, at least, that drug is not going to help.”

This summer, the Alzheimer’s Association announced a $100 million research project to examine whether lifestyle changes plus a GLP-1 medication could reduce the risk of dementia in at-risk older adults.

If you’re worried about your own cognitive health or that of a loved one, you have options, and those options are only going to grow. Talk to your doctor. There are FDA-approved blood tests you can already take. Ask about lecanemab and donanemab. You may also be a good candidate to help scientists in the most active areas of development. Researchers need people to participate in their clinical trials. The Alzheimer’s Association and the federal government have online tools to help people find clinical trials that you or someone you love could be a candidate for. 

Science funding cuts could slow down this progress

All the optimism about the future of Alzheimer’s treatment is based on research and clinical trials. When I asked Karlawish and Spires-Jones about where the story goes from here, they shared one concern: that science becomes so politicized that it would be difficult to get grant funding for research projects that could lead to additional breakthroughs.

“In some sense, the biggest threat is outside the science,” Karlawish said. “There’s deep concern that this politicization of the grant process will essentially wreck American science. We can’t sustain that kind of environment and still demand the results that we’ve come to expect.”

President Donald Trump and US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. like to present their crusade to reform American science as being targeted at frivolous DEI projects. But there are already examples of serious dementia studies being affected: Last month, the Trump administration canceled $15 million in grants for studies to evaluate how discrimination affects long-term brain health.

This is another place where we have more agency to impact what happens next: the ballot box. Use your individual political power to support lawmakers who defend the scientists and researchers doing critical work. 

“You can vote for people who will fund and support science as an endeavor,” Spires-Jones said. “Advances in science don’t happen on their own. We need all of society to get involved.”