Assessing Subjective Probabilities of Success in Autism Research

Abstract

Public investment in medical science and research is considered to be a legitimate and core role for government and charitable medical research foundations. It is not clear however, whether resource allocation in medical research has been cost-effective and equitable so that limited resources maximize the health benefits for the population served. Evidence based medicine relies on evaluation and comparative assessment of research findings. Accountability is a key aspect of this evaluation to ensure that taxpayers and charitable organizations are getting value for money in their investment and healthcare delivery benefits from the findings of medical research. In medical research there are informational asymmetries present between scientists, decision makers and the public. While research evaluation is based on a peer review process with scores given by a panel of expert reviewers, the current allocation ofresearch funding and determination of priorities is also affected by lobby efforts and public opinion. This means that the uneducated consumer demand from lobbyist groups could result in research with a greater probability of success or impact in the findings receiving less funding than the research that gets the greatest hype and publicity. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research is particularly lacking in this type of economic evaluation. This is of increasing importance, as over the past decade the reported prevalence of ASD has been increasing. The increase in prevalence is often cited as the primary justification for the large increase in research funding for ASD that has occurred in both the public and private sectors. What is not known, however, is whether enough funding is available for ASD research or whether the allocation of ASD research funding across various research areas is appropriate or efficient. Psychiatry