I'm sure they did! Kremer is a really important figure in the history of economics, and the magnitude of the effects of his work on deworming are debatable. The

I'm sure they did! Kremer is a really important figure in the history of economics, and the magnitude of the effects of his work on deworming are debatable. These things are perfectly compatible. I think the articles I posted might help readers form their own conclusions about the work, rather than deferring on account of Kremer's prestige and authority; per Feynman, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." [0] Regarding the fact that it's appalling that so many people still deal with this problem -- I agree. As Gelman says (second link I posted in GP), the reason that magnitude of effects is important is opportunity costs: > The 800-pound gorilla in the room is opportunity cost, or cost-benefit analysis. As you say, who could be against de-worming kids? I’m reminded of Jeff Sachs’s argument that all of these sorts of interventions are worth doing, and that rather than trying so hard to rank the cost-effectiveness of different health and economic interventions, the rich countries should just kick in that 1% of GDP or whatever and do all of them. I’m not saying Sachs is necessarily right on this, I’m just saying that most of the discussion seems to be on traditional statistical grounds (Is there an effect? Is it statistically significant? Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?) and the cost-benefit or opportunity cost calculations are implicit. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23816584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23816584