Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by autokad 4198 days ago
i would have hoped they figured that out 1.2 billion $ ago
2 comments

A fair amount of research has gone into figuring out the study - the NCS was a major undertaking, involved laying down a lot of logistics, figuring out methodological issues, etc.

Also the Vanguard study, while a pilot study, was a fairly serious undertaking.

if they were spending their own hard-earned cash they most likely would have been more careful like that
Most of the researchers are U.S. citizens, so in effect they are.

Also, most NIH-funded researchers have gotten quite used to continual budget cuts, uncertainty, and needing to make every cent count. "Expensive" does not equal wasteful.

1.3B$ to observe a bunch of kids growing up, taking metrics of them periodically, sounds like some serious inefficiencies going on there
Compared to what? What some folks in SV will blow $1.3 billion on?

Cohort studies like this one have led to some major advancements in our understanding of disease - if you know anyone who takes aspirin to reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease, for example, that came out of a cohort study. There is a tremendous amount we don't know about the development of diseases in childhood, life-course trajectories, the effects of environmental exposures that need well conducted, large sized studies - the large bit is important, as they need statistical power if anything will meaningfully change in terms of policy.

Yes, they would have been very careful to only do studies that make their funders happy, and which will get them more money.