The ‘ utilitarian answer ’ may not be the answer
“ Although it is plausible that disease funding and donations should be proportionate to some measure of the harm or damage done by a particular disease or specific tumor type , it is not certain that this will in turn result in the greatest benefit . Making this assumption is a straightforward logical error ,” argued hematologist-oncologist Vinay Prasad , MD , MPH , in a commentary article in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network .
“ Research funding ought to maximize the potential absolute risk reduction from research gains , and need not be strictly proportionate to measures of the severity of disease ,” added Dr . Prasad , who is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco .
If one approached cancer funding in “ the most logical and ethical way ,” then the best strategy would not be to save the most lives , but to save the most years of life lost as possible . “ This is what philosophers call the utilitarian answer . All things being equal , we should fund projects that will give us the most years of quality life back ,” he wrote .
But even the “ utilitarian answer ” isn ’ t a perfect one , Dr . Prasad noted . Who can guess which research projects will return the greatest dividends in increasing the years of life for patients ?
Also , the “ utilitarian answer ” would require some authority in place to make decisions for distributing research funds more equitably . But then “ the most logical and ethical way ” to fund cancer research would be one that takes away , or at least oversees , how individuals choose to make charitable contributions .
“ Many donors choose a cause they are affected by , either personally or through family or friends ,” wrote the Northwestern University researchers .
And that ’ s as it should be . So , ideally , appropriate funding of cancer research would somehow balance the personal preferences of donors with getting the most “ bang for the buck ” in terms of patient life years .
As Dr . Prasad concluded : “ Appreciation of this fact may lead to more constructive debates about equitable cancer research funding and donation by tumor type .”