New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe