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 don't think academic research has to focus on diseases in the first place. I would appreciate if more money would be invested into finding better ways to measure drug toxicity levels. That's no disease and therefore it's underfunded.

DNA sequencing is a success story of the last decades. It's no disease itself but was a worthwhile investment.

It makes sense to spend money research AIDS not only because curing AIDS is a good idea. AIDS patients are a population where you can ethically try a lot of high risk interventions for interacting with the human immune system.

9

LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched

9

9

9

LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched

9

9