So I've been very surprised for the past few days that http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/niaid-08.htm
hasn't been getting major news coverage. Given that 1-2% of the world's deaths are from malaria, this seems like pretty big news.
I happened to discover it via Facebook, via a post shared by one of the co-authors of the Science article (a friend of a friend, perhaps?). When I saw it, I assumed I'd be seeing it elsewhere soon. Coincidentally, this led me to a bunch of browsing of related wikipedia articles, which led me to tweet https://twitter.com/davidbaron/status/365743975828697088
which is probably my most retweeted tweet ever (retweeted by Nick Kristof, even). (I wonder, perhaps, if I ought to be tweeting more about technology and what I work on, and less about news that I read.) But that tweet was really in the context of the news about the malaria vaccine development, which I was expected to be widely reported within hours, but wasn't. So it propagated far faster than its context, which didn't fit within the 140 characters.
It's not clear to me if there's some reason that this isn't as major a news story as it sounds, or if it's just been missed by the press. Yes, I'd think it still needs plenty more testing, and it's not clear to me how big an obstacle the requirement of intravenous injection is. But I'm also inclined to think it is pretty big news, given that the NIH seems to be treating it as big news, and the editors of Science appear to have put the article on a very fast track for publication. (Or is the closeness of the dates in http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2013/08/07/science.1241800.abstract
actually the norm for Science?)
Anybody know which it is, or what I'm missing?