the article claims that a contributor to art benefits from enjoying the art and a contributor to cancer research doesn't (except for feeling good), and therefor

the article claims that a contributor to art benefits from enjoying the art and a contributor to cancer research doesn't (except for feeling good), and therefore quadratic funding would favor art contributions and disfavor cancer research contributions. GP claims (and i agree) that contributors to cancer research do benefit beyond feeling good. eg because they, or someone they care about might have or get cancer later and benefit from the research. the challenge is that measuring benefit is hard.