If you email me (see my profile) I&#x27;ll put you in touch with friends at the CDC.<p>Here&#x27;s a question I&#x27;d like to ask you, though. Which of these would have the most benefit?<p>A) You devote all your time to learning about how to eradicate aedes aegypti. You re-learn the biochem you used to know, and you learn a lot more of the advanced stuff. You&#x27;ll earn very little money during this time. In 5 or 10 years, you&#x27;ll have caught up to the leaders in the field. You may, however, not have as much raw intelligence or creativity as the current leaders.<p>B) You do what you&#x27;re already employed to do. Your salary grows rapidly, as it often does for smart people in tech. Your salary should be well above $200k in 5 or 10 years, and you may even have some options that become liquid around that time, giving you a few hundred thousand more in cash. During this time, you donate <i>all</i> of your extra income to the leaders in the field who are trying to eradicate aedes aegypti.<p>Maybe those two scenarios aren&#x27;t spot on for you, but do you see what I&#x27;m getting at? My friends in science rarely complain that there aren&#x27;t enough people working on something like this. Their problem is that budgets are unpredictable and fluctuate at unfortunate times. Many of my scientist friends went deeply into debt to get their PhD&#x27;s, and they can&#x27;t survive without a decent income.