You are advocating for a crude, and disturbing, form of utilitarianism here. Ultimately, I’m a moral relativist, so I even though I can’t say another point of v

You are advocating for a crude, and disturbing, form of utilitarianism here. Ultimately, I’m a moral relativist, so I even though I can’t say another point of view is “more correct” when it comes to morality, I think engaging some effort and discernment in choosing a moral system is “good.” That said, connecting this utilitarian reasoning to the guidelines of what research to pursue, never mind the moral aspect would lead to an impoverished field of science. On the everyday perspective, if one is suffering from ill health, but not from poverty and malaria, the idea that concern for your suffering should be set aside until the numeric quantification of the suffering of other populations is brought in line with your own, lacks compassion. Value systems that lack compassion defeat their own purpose.