New Malaria Map Shows Disease More Widespread Than Previously Thought

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Malaria is such a problem globally, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, that the World Health Organization (WHO), together with other international AID organizations, launched the Roll Back Malaria campaign with a goal of halving the incidence of the disease by 2010. According to results published today in Nature, that task may be even more daunting than expected. The results indicate that there are nearly 50 percent more clinical cases of malaria worldwide than previous estimates suggested.

Numbers provided by the WHO estimated that there were 273 million cases of malaria worldwide in 1998, with 90 percent occurring in Africa. To calculate the new figures, Robert Snow of the Kenya Medical Research Institute and his colleagues relied on epidemiological, geographical and demographic data. They determined that some 2.2 billion people were exposed to the threat of Plasmodium falciparum, the malaria parasite, in 2002. The conservative estimate they supply for active cases in the same year is 515 million, with about 70 percent occurring in Africa. The authors note that the new distribution maps highlight the fact that almost one third of the global incidence occurs outside Africa. The researchers did not examine how many deaths malaria caused in 2002, but report that the risk of death from an attack is much higher in Africa than South East Asia or the western Pacific.

In addition to the Roll Back Malaria program, the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals include a target of lowering the incidence of malaria by 2015. The scientists hope their results will aid those goals. "Inadequate descriptions of the global distribution of disease risk make it impossible to determine priorities and advise funding agencies appropriately," the team concludes. "Redressing these deficiencies with robust data must be a priority if international agencies are to understand the size of the challenge set by their targets over the next 10 years."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe