buybuydandavis comments on LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched - Less Wrong

2 Post author: polymathwannabe 17 January 2015 04:03PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (38)

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 17 January 2015 10:30:26PM *  3 points [-]

I wonder what criterion the author would prefer.

Didn't he just say?

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 ... where researchers see the most potential for a breakthrough.

Basic economics takes into account the likelihood that your actions will produce a benefit, and not just the benefit. Hasn't the author just stated the obvious?

I just don't get your point. I don't see any point to be made.

What are you "wondering" about? It seems like you object to his comment, but have given no indication why, and I see little to object to.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 18 January 2015 07:51:17AM 0 points [-]

I am so stupid! How could I read that sentence, copy and paste it, and not get the meaning right? I honestly thought that the "but also" clause served to add potential breakthroughs to the list of things that should not motivate funding.

My only possible excuse is that my brain is wired for Spanish, and funny stuff happens when you translate "but" into Spanish.

Comment author: torekp 17 January 2015 11:59:58PM 1 point [-]

Metus pointed out that the funding has "a bias for infectious diseases". That seems like a good criterion to add, at least when it comes to emerging diseases - diseases that haven't laid claim to many life-years yet, but might in the future. Mac made a similar point. But yeah, basically, the author nailed it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit