I may have missed this issue being addressed and apolgize if so:
I think most medical research is probably very cost-effective given a long
enough time horizon. The discussion I've seen focuses on benefits to date.
Once knowledge exists it will presumably be useful as long as the human race
exists. Treatment of individuals on the other hand have their direct benefit
only during individual lifetimes.
Of course, the research will probably be done eventually anyway, so it may be
that what you'd really want to estimate is the lives or quality of lives saved
by doing it earlier rather than later.
Greater uncertainty also comes in to play here too. Each individual research
project is a gamble. It may be a total dead end. On the other hand a few
projects may have huge benefits.
Ok, end of my thoughts for now.
Ron
Quoting Jason <
fehrjason@...>:
>
>
>
> > Regarding Jonah's point about the case for disease research as a
> > cost-effective option for donors. First, we recognize that donors have
> > different philosophical priorities and some prefer to support people in the
> > U.S. rather than those abroad. For this group (which in our experience is
> > significant), distinguishing between disease research organizations will be
> > useful. Second, we think there's a reasonable argument that strictly
> > comparing the dollars-per-life-saved in Africa to the U.S. misses something
> > -- for example, helping people in the U.S. may be more "leveraged" in terms
> > of enabling them to help others across the globe.
>
>
> I think this is very interesting, and it's something that had not occurred to
> me until reading Holden's post about giving to Stop TB rather than
> Villagereach. His quote: "(a) I put more weight on preventing adult deaths
> than on preventing child deaths (and tuberculosis affects adults more than
> vaccine-preventable diseases do); (b) VillageReach works in the most remote
> areas, while Stop TB works in a great variety of areas. I prefer (all else
> equal) to help people in less remote areas, who I believe have more
> opportunities (for themselves and for helping others)."
>
> This is probably true and seems similar to what Elie is saying about
> "leveraged" aid. Just as I don't (and shouldn't) give equal weight to saving
> an infant vs. a 30 year old vs. a 90 year old, saving a subsistence farmer in
> rural Mozambique who will never contact anyone outside his village in his
> whole life is very different than saving a person in a western nation with
> potential to have a greater effect on the world. Think of Bill Clinton, who
> has now had a heart bypass as well as a cardiac catheterization at age 63.
> The world will almost certainly be better off having Bill Clinton around for
> a few more decades running his foundation, thanks to all that cardiovascular
> research we've been discussing.
>
>
Ronald Noble, Ph. D.
University of Pennsylvania