The Core Question: While EA has made great strides in funding mental health access (e.g., StrongMinds), there seems to be a gap in funding basic research or "moonshot" cures for severe illnesses—like treatment-resistant depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar I—that don't respond to existing interventions.
I’m curious to hear the community’s thoughts through the INT framework:
1. Importance (The "Severity" vs. "Scale" Argument) EA often prioritizes based on the number of people reached, but should we be weighting the intensity of suffering more heavily?
- Many people with Severe Mental Illness (SMI) experience a level of unremitting agony that arguably surpasses the suffering of many physical diseases.
- If a person lives for decades in a state of extreme suicidal ideation or psychosis that is resistant to all known treatments, is the "well-being loss" greater than that of a person who dies young from malaria but was otherwise mentally healthy?
- Does the current EA focus on "scalable therapy" for the masses accidentally neglect the most extreme, "worst-case" human experiences?
2. Neglectedness While the NIH and large foundations fund mental health, much of that is channeled into "safe" or incremental research. Is there a "neglected" space for high-risk, high-reward neurobiological research that the EA community is uniquely positioned to fund via a hits-based giving model?
3. Tractability Is the lack of funding a result of a belief that SMI is simply too "intractable" given our current understanding of the brain? Or are we reaching a tipping point where new technologies (e.g., neural mapping, deep brain stimulation, or novel compounds) make this research more tractable than it was 10 years ago?
Thanks for taking time to read this! Appreciate it!
