This Chart Shows The Worst Diseases That Don't Get Enough Research Money
We have already covered this topic several times on LW, but what prompted me to link this was this remark:
Of course, where research dollars flow isn't —and shouldn't be— dictated simply in terms of which diseases lay claim to the most years, but also by, perhaps most importantly, where researchers see the most potential for a breakthrough.
[Edit: a former, dumber version of me had asked, "I wonder what criterion the author would prefer," before the correct syntax of the sentence was pointed out to me.]
Opinions?
[Seperate post, because it is a seperate point]
I wonder how a "rational" funding system would look like if an economist designed it. The expression "where researchers see the most potential for a breakthrough" under the constraint of competition over limited resources just screams "market mechanism" to me.
It seems to me that one characteristic of the optimal funding system would be very high funding/burden ratios for contagious diseases with catastrophic worst-case scenarios (e.g. Ebola), holding all other things like P(Breakthrough) equal.
A market-based system might not have this characteristic, especially if a "free rider" problem arises.