[benjaminclark]

I don't think this is a fair interpretation of the poster above or Duflo & Banerjee's work. It is an unfortunate, but nevertheless true, statement that in the world today, we don't have an allocation of resources which allows for the most basic healthcare for all children. Let alone a broader set of healthcare services, free education, clear water, preventing malnutrition etc.

Those who want to make practical improvements quickly with those limited funds available (from developing country governments, foreign aid, charity, etc.) need to make effective use of those funds. I don't think it is a stretch to say it is a moral obligation to make sure those funds are put to good use.

Doing RCTs is quite key to identifying the most effective approaches whether the goal is lives saved/$, incremental years of education/$, malaria cases reduced/$, etc. With that data, you can direct funds to the most efficient cause in any given area.

Duflo & Banerjee are quite modest about any judgement on whether the focus should be on improving quantity or quality of life and how one should measure quality of life. Their books are quite clear that one's one view of preferences doesn't necessarily line up with those who you are trying to help.

And one last point, yes, of course, their work would go through ethics review panels. Basically anything with human subjects does and their work would obviously qualify.