LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched

polymathwannabe

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?

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?

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.

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.

2torekp11y

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.

9

LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched

9

9

9

LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched

9

9