ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Dec. 14 - Dec. 20, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (90)
For AMF it's a lot easier to estimate the effect than it is for anti-aging research. GiveWell purposefully started with a focus on interventions for which the can study the effect.
GiveWell writes:
You find a bit of data gathering under http://www.givewell.org/node/1339
More recently GiveWell Labs which then was renamed into the Open Philanthropy project will put more emphasis in that direction.
Articles that were written are:
http://blog.givewell.org/2013/12/26/scientific-research-funding/
http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/07/exploring-life-sciences-funding/
http://blog.givewell.org/2014/01/15/returns-to-life-sciences-funding/
GiveWell Labs managed get Steve Goodman and John Ioannidis matchmaked with the Laura and John Arnold Foundation at the tune of $6 million.
Meta-Research doesn't sound as sexy as anti-aging research but if we want to have good anti-aging research we need a good basis in biology as a whole.
Anti-aging research is a catch-phrase and it makes sense that it's decently funded but alone it won't work. Biology as a whole needs to progress and chasing after shiny anti-aging targets might not always be the most effective use of money. Do you have a reason why you think it makes more sense to speak about anti-aging research than it makes sense to speak about life-science research?
Please do a Fermi estimation of how you arrive at that conclusion.