Choose research directions by how many people are struggling worldwide, not only by how big the market is
Steps to make it happen
- People list the problems that people around the world face, gathering them across national borders.
- Experts find the areas where research is scarce compared with how many people suffer and how hard their suffering is, and they share what they find.
- People and researchers from the struggling regions join the talks that decide which problems to study first.
- Countries and international bodies set aside part of their research money for these problems.
- Medicines and tools that come from this research are made available at prices that people in need can afford.
- People review the list every few years and swap out problems that research has already moved forward.
- The benefits of technology reaching people all over the world, not just people with money, become the normal way of things.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers science and technology research paid for with public money, such as that of governments, international bodies and public foundations. It does not place any duty on research that companies do with their own funds. First, a "map of neglected problems" is made. Across fields such as medicine, farming, energy, communications, artificial intelligence and observation from space, it compares how many people are struggling and how seriously, with how much research is aimed at each problem. The map is made by an independent group of experts who keep their distance from the interests of any particular country, and it must include researchers and community representatives from the regions facing the problems. Each country and international body uses the map as a guide to direct part of its research money to these problems, but each society decides the share for itself, and nothing is forced on it from outside. For results produced under this program, the research funding comes with conditions: promises about prices and permission to use the results, so that people in need can use them on terms they can afford. On the other hand, basic research driven by curiosity, without asking whether it will be useful soon, stays outside this program and goes on as before, following the free ideas of researchers. Military research, and technology development that benefits only particular countries, are not allowed under this program.
BenefitsTechnology reaches the problems that were left behind
The biggest benefit is that research is turned toward problems that were put off until now because they did not make money. If treatments for diseases common in poor regions, information technology that works even in a few languages, and medical devices that run in places with frequent blackouts come into being, some people's lives and survival will change a great deal. Also, problems that spread across borders, such as infectious diseases and crop diseases, do less harm to the whole world the sooner they are dealt with where they tend to begin, so in the end people in wealthy countries benefit too. When people and researchers from the struggling regions take part in setting priorities, technology that does not fit local conditions is less likely to be pushed on them, and it can also help the research strength of those regions grow. In addition, when research questions become more varied, the chance of unexpected discoveries grows as well. It becomes easier to see who public money is being used for, and this can be expected to raise trust in science and technology.
DrawbacksWho decides the priorities becomes a source of conflict
The strongest concern raised by opponents is that freedom of research would be damaged. If what to study is decided by a group of experts or through discussions, researchers have less room to choose questions based on their own interests, and the foundation of free research, which has produced many unexpected great discoveries, could be weakened. Also, the yardstick for judging which problems are neglected inevitably carries values. Priorities could be swayed by the balance of power between countries or by fashionable topics, and there is a danger that research gets pulled into political fights. Furthermore, for people who think their own country's tax money should be spent on their own country's problems, sending research money to the problems of other regions will be hard to accept. If results must be offered at low prices, companies may find it harder to turn them into products and make them in large numbers, and the work could end as research without reaching people's hands. Some also point out that when outside countries decide the direction of research, even with good intentions, it can end up getting in the way of the independence of the struggling regions.
Learn the background
Science and technology research often goes where there are people who will buy the results. Developing medicines, machines and software costs a lot of money, so wealthy markets where the cost can be earned back tend to come first. As a result, it has long been pointed out that even for diseases that make many people suffer around the world, new medicines are slow to appear if most of the patients live in poor regions. The same thing can be seen in other fields. Artificial intelligence grows especially strong in certain languages that many people speak, and speakers of languages with fewer users find it hard to benefit. Technology that works in places where electricity and communications are unstable also tends to get little attention. At the same time, more and more problems, such as infectious diseases, climate change and food shortages, start in one region and spread across borders to the whole world. If the direction of research is left to the power of the market alone, problems that matter to humanity as a whole may stay neglected. This proposal starts from a question: could research paid for with public money be the kind that takes on the problems the market does not pick up?
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes