3 ms·
I see your point, but malaria is 1) debilitating and 2) kills hundreds of thousands per year. With unlimited funding for research, it would make sense to try to
by craftyguy 8y ago
I see your point, but malaria is 1) debilitating and 2) kills hundreds of thousands per year. With unlimited funding for research, it would make sense to try to cure all the things. Since that's not the case, should we really be shifting priority away to diseases that effect fewer people?
- theothermkn 8y agoAbsolutely. Work should definitely proceed in parallel. The marginal utility of an extra dollar to a more or less fully funded research activity is small, even after factoring in the effect size. That same dollar spent on another disease could have much more benefit. Even without considering the varied research interests of scientists, or without considering any other human factors in the labor supply, the maximum benefit to humanity is not going to be achieved by throwing all or most money at a single disease.