= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Metus comments on LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (38)
[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.