|
|
|
|
|
by xrange
4193 days ago
|
|
Am I misunderstanding things? From reading the linked article, there was $1.3 billion spent studying whether we should actually undertake the study. Not the actual study itself (which presumably would cost significantly more?) |
|
- Trying to figure out how the heck to enroll people (vanguard study)
- Decide which variables are worth tracking, and actually trackable. Every variable they track will cost a tonne, if they don't track a variable and decide they need later it's too late.
- Figure out how long they will successfully be able to track people, will they lose 5% a year? 10%? Is there a huge cliff when kids turn 12 where they all move? WHO KNOWS?
- Actually enrolling people and tracking the variables that seemed worthwhile
- Revising surveys based on stuff they're learning.
It was to be a huge study, to be honest if completed I think it would have been the landmark medical advancements of our time.
(I briefly worked on one small piece of software supporting one small aspect of the study)