R&D spending varies more than tenfold across diseases for no good reason, which is where the best opportunities in science funding are.

Added to korrents 29 May 2025 · How quotes work · Something wrong? Tell us

Related korrents

Our reading — they may agree, disagree or merely touch the same thing. Closest first: a shared subject counts for most, then how near the wording is.

• Some ideas are worth funding with fifty million dollars or with nothing, and never with five million, because underfunding buys you an ambiguous outcome instead of an answer. MHMax Hodak7 Aug 2026similar wording
• What limits science is how it is funded and organised, not how much money it gets. JRJosé Luis Ricón23 Jun 2019similar wording
• Ten billion dollars over ten years would deliver most of a list of missing life-saving health technologies, so their absence is a funding choice rather than a scientific limit. JTJacob Trefethen2 Feb 2024similar wording
• Pharmaceutical R&D productivity has fallen for decades: far more money spent per drug, with no matching improvement in the odds a candidate reaches the market. ATAlex Telford23 Dec 2023similar wording
• Infectious diseases get far less industry R&D per death than non-communicable ones, because they mostly kill people in countries where a cure pays less. JTJacob Trefethen29 May 2025similar wording

See this on the map →