If you’re hoping to do good in the world, it makes sense to ask where your efforts will make the biggest impact. Some have claimed that high risk, high return projects are most promising because those areas are less crowded. For example, here’s a quote from Robert Reich’s essay on the role of philanthropic foundations in society:

When it comes to the ongoing work of experimentation, foundations have a structural advantage over market and state institutions: a longer time horizon. Once more, the lack of accountability may be a surprising advantage. . . foundations are not subject to earnings reports, impatient investors or stockholders, or short-term election cycles. Foundations, answerable only to the diverse preferences and ideas of their donors, with a protected endowment permitted to exist in perpetuity, may be uniquely situated to engage in the sort of high-risk, long-run policy innovation and experimentation that is healthy in a democratic society.

The Open Philanthropy Project outlines a similar approach in a post about their giving philosophy:

One of our core values is our tolerance for philanthropic “risk.” Our overarching goal is to do as much good as we can, and as part of that, we’re open to supporting work that has a high risk of failing to accomplish its goals. We’re even open to supporting work that is more than 90% likely to fail, as long as the overall expected value is high enough.

It seems intuitive that there are returns to risk taking but I was wondering if there were any datasets out there that would support this idea. Below I attempt to answer this question by looking at evidence from science, philanthropy, and public policy. I just finished a meta-analysis that combines the interventions from below that have similar units, so take a look at that as well.


Before I continue, I think it makes sense to define the terms risk and return. By return, I mean the impact of an intervention using units like disability adjusted life years per dollar, benefit to cost ratios, or research citation counts. While some of these estimates are more complicated to construct than others, they all require making judgements about things like the value of a human life, the amount of suffering caused by different conditions, or the benefits from a highly cited paper.

The definition of the term risk is tricky to pin down. To some, it’s just a measure of the noisiness of an estimate and is measured using something like the standard deviation. To others, an intervention is only risky when it could potentially underperform some target (e.g. downside risk) or cause harm. The best definition that I have found is that risk is the subset of uncertainty that underperforms a target outcome. Because people seem to use risk and uncertainty interchangeably, and I think both are useful, I include both in my analysis where possible.

The uncertainty and risk values are useful for answering two separate but related questions: (1) Do we tend to be more uncertain about actions with high expected value?; (2) Do actions with large expected value also have more potential to cause harm (or underperform the mean action)? If (1) is correct, I think this is useful to know because we can be more confident in taking actions even if they have a high error around the estimated impact. If (2) is correct, it might be ok to take actions that often perform poorly or have the potential to cause harm if they still have a high expected impact.

Here are how the values are calculated:

  • standard deviation = np.stdev(series)
  • downside risk (semideviation) = np.sqrt((np.minimum(0.0, series - t)**2).sum()/series.size), where t is the mean intervention outcome

Finally, how do you determine if there is a return to risk taking? One approach would be to run a linear regression through the data and see if it has a positive slope. This is what I do for most of the sources below, but there’s a problem with this approach. To see why, imagine calculating the cost effectiveness of every possible action, including bogus things like “lighting $1000 on fire”. You’d end up with a lot of useless interventions that would mess up the slope of the linear regression. So another approach would be to just see if the frontier that encloses the top end of the estimates has a positive slope. In Modern Portfolio Theory, this frontier is called the efficient frontier:

I’ve written about this idea before but didn’t have the data to test the concept out until now. I stick with linear regression for this notebook, but I run the data through a portfolio optimization algorithm to create an efficient frontier in my meta-analysis blogpost.

Data Sources

It’s pretty difficult to find datasets that quantify their uncertainty while also using a cross-intervention measure of impact, so it’s taken me awhile to stumble across enough data to complete this analysis. The scrape.py file included in the repo for this projects outlines how I accessed and cleaned data from each source.

All the code and data for this post are available here.

Evidence from Public Policy

First, I look at a dataset from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). The WSIPP evaluates evidence based public policies and completes detailed benefit-cost analyses using monte carlo methods. The end result is a list of benefit-cost ratios along with metrics like the chance that the benefit-cost ratio is positive.

The measure of risk I’m using here (the chance costs exceed benefits) sets a really low bar. This ignores the upside of an intervention and much of the downside until the benefit cost ratio is below one. It also counts a project with a very low downside the same of one with only a marginally low downside because they’re just counting up benefit-cost ratios > 1 and dividing by the total number of monte carlo runs. The upside of this metric is that it is easy to interpret, but I wish they would include a standard deviation as well.

program_name benefit_cost_ratio chance_costs_exceed_benefits
0 Educator professional development: Use of data... -174.30 69
1 Scared Straight -101.25 98
2 Behavioral self-control training -BSCT -80.03 77
3 Alcohol Literacy Challenge -for college students -34.25 51
4 InShape -29.59 53
5 Drug Abuse Resistance Education -D.A.R.E. -7.71 51
6 Youth advocacy/empowerment programs for tobacc... -7.13 64
7 Sex offender registration and community notifi... -5.14 67
8 Interventions to prevent excessive gestational... -5.03 64
9 Interventions to prevent excessive gestational... -3.71 53
10 Police diversion for individuals with mental i... -2.94 99
11 Treatment for juveniles convicted of sex offen... -2.59 82
12 Project SUCCESS -1.84 61
13 "Check-in" behavior interventions -1.71 54
14 Opening Doors advising in community college -1.70 78
15 Multicomponent environmental interventions to ... -1.64 73
16 Inpatient or intensive outpatient drug treatme... -1.51 66
17 Domestic violence perpetrator treatment -Dulut... -1.50 77
18 Other Family Preservation Services -non-HOMEBU... -1.40 100
19 Life skills education -1.33 65
20 Intensive supervision -probation -1.32 100
21 Even Start -1.15 69
22 Family dependency treatment court -1.11 93
23 CASASTART -1.04 77
24 Cognitive behavioral therapy -CBT for children... -1.01 92
25 Cognitive-behavioral coping-skills therapy for... -0.99 58
26 Primary care in behavioral health settings -co... -0.96 75
27 Community-based correctional facilities -halfw... -0.71 100
28 Early Start -New Zealand -0.49 98
29 Interventions to reduce unnecessary emergency ... -0.48 52
... ... ... ...
294 Project EX 41.71 12
295 Education and Employment Training -EET King Co... 41.84 0
296 Seeking Safety 42.40 12
297 Smoking cessation programs for pregnant women:... 47.61 2
298 Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for adult an... 48.55 15
299 Cognitive behavioral therapy -CBT for adult de... 49.09 0
300 Cognitive behavioral therapy -CBT for adult an... 54.01 0
301 Anti-smoking media campaigns adult effect 57.07 13
302 Consultant teachers: Online coaching 61.94 8
303 Summer book programs: Multi-year intervention 63.90 30
304 Case management in schools 64.07 4
305 Good Behavior Game 65.47 30
306 Teacher performance pay programs 65.55 12
307 Teacher professional development: Induction/me... 70.72 36
308 More intensive tobacco quitlines -compared to ... 73.51 0
309 College advising provided by counselors -for h... 74.56 0
310 School-based tobacco prevention programs 75.10 1
311 Cognitive behavioral therapy -CBT for adult po... 88.11 0
312 Model Smoking Prevention Program 89.83 9
313 Access to tobacco quitlines 95.85 5
314 Teacher professional development: Use of data ... 122.55 2
315 Tutoring: By peers 133.59 17
316 Text message reminders -for high school graduates 135.71 47
317 Anti-smoking media campaign youth effect 147.33 0
318 Consultant teachers: Content-Focused Coaching 173.17 6
319 Summer outreach counseling -for high school gr... 195.39 10
320 Alcohol Literacy Challenge -for high school st... 259.46 42
321 Text messaging programs for smoking cessation 363.46 0
322 Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing ... 598.94 0
323 Computer-based programs for smoking cessation 794.18 0

Below is a plot of the intervention rank and the benefit-cost ratio. It’s clear that some interventions outperform others by a few orders of magnitude. Another interesting finding is that the distribution might be two tailed, with some outlying performers on the bad end as well.

Next, I plot the chance costs exceed benefits (an imperfect proxy for downside risk) against the benefit-cost ratio. I derive the chance costs exceed benefits from WSIPP’s chance benefits exceed costs value, which they calculate by counting results from their monte carlo simulations. This measure doesn’t take into account the scale of good/poor performance, but it’s the best we can get without access to their models.

The end result is that there doesn’t seem to be much of a return to this measure of risk.

Evidence from Public Health

The next dataset I look it is from the Disease Control Priorities Project (DCP2), which comes up with comprehensive estimates of the cost effectiveness of different treatments in developing countries. The original source is a table in the DCP2 report, which Jeff Kaufmann made into a CSV. I selected the interventions with $/DALY units, eliminated any with zero or near zero spread (because they likely came from the same estimate), and only selected the estimates from sub-saharan Africa. Finally I converted $/DALY units to DALY/1000USD so a bigger number has a higher impact.

Using the spread isn’t very rigorous and might bias the results towards understudied areas with few estimates (e.g. an intervention with only a single estimate has spread of 0), but it’s the only measure of uncertainty available here.

condition intervention cost_effectiveness spread
29 Malaria Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy... 142.857143 111.111111
28 Malaria Insecticidetreated bednets 90.909091 83.333333
2 Lymphatic filariasis Annual mass drug administration 66.666667 43.478261
41 Malaria Residual household spraying 58.823529 66.666667
30 Malaria Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy... 52.631579 90.909091
27 Traffic accidents Increased speeding penalties, enforcement, med... 47.619048 28.571429
16 Lymphatic filariasis Diethyl carbamazine salt 45.454545 23.809524
39 HIV/AIDS Peer and education programs for high-risk groups 27.027027 16.129032
52 HIV/AIDS Voluntary counseling and testing 21.276596 13.333333
9 Tuberculosis (endemic) BCG vaccine 14.705882 37.037037
6 Stroke (recurrent) Aspirin and dipyridamole 12.345679 43.478261
14 HIV/AIDS Condom promotion and distribution 12.195122 16.666667
10 HIV/AIDS Blood and needle safety 11.904762 18.518519
18 Tuberculosis (epidemic, infectious) Directly observed short-course chemotherapy 9.803922 5.747126
43 Emergency medical care Staffed community ambulance 8.333333 8.403361
49 HIV/AIDS Tuberculosis coinfection prevention and treatment 8.264463 34.482759
11 Lower acute respiratory infections (nonsevere) Case management at community or facility level 7.751938 6.329114
45 Problems requiring surgery Surgical ward or services in district hospital... 7.352941 6.134969
15 Diarrheal disease Construction and promotion of basic sanitation... 7.092199 3.861004
0 Congestive heart failure ACE inhibitor and beta-blocker, with diuretics 6.666667 4.048583
48 HIV/AIDS Treatment of opportunistic infections 6.410256 3.257329
51 Lymphatic filariasis Vector control 6.250000 4.273504
38 HIV/AIDS Mother-to-child transmission prevention 5.208333 2.702703
32 Tuberculosis (epidemic, latent) Isoniazid treatment 5.076142 3.300330
37 Tuberculosis (epidemic) Management of drug resistance 4.830918 90.909091
17 Tuberculosis (endemic, infectious or noninfect... Directly observed short-course chemotherapy 3.322259 2.141328
36 Tuberculosis (endemic) Management of drug resistance 3.144654 4.524887
24 Neonatal mortality Family, community, or clinical neonatal package 2.898551 76.923077
1 Alcohol abuse Advertising ban and reduced access to beverage... 2.475248 13.513514
23 Alcohol abuse Excise tax, advertising ban, with brief advice 1.584786 16.666667
7 Ischemic heart disease Aspirin, betablocker, and optional ACE inhibitor 1.453488 2.105263
20 Panic disorder Drugs with optional psychosocial treatment 1.362398 1.428571
33 Coronary artery disease Legislation substituting 2% of trans fat with ... 1.193317 0.781861
5 HIV/AIDS Antiretroviral therapy 1.084599 0.874126
8 Parkinson's disease Ayurvedic treatment and levodopa or carbidopa 0.883392 1.315789
22 Alcohol abuse Excise tax 0.726216 3.921569
19 Depression Drugs with optional episodic or maintenance ps... 0.588582 0.479846
25 Stroke (ischemic) Heparin and recombinant tissue plasminogen act... 0.505817 0.715820
44 Ischemic heart disease Statin, with aspirin and betablocker with ACE ... 0.493097 3.039514
40 Stroke and ischemic and hypertensive heart dis... Polypill by absolute risk approach 0.469925 0.369004
21 Traffic accidents Enforcement of seatbelt laws, promotion of chi... 0.408330 0.344828
50 Dengue Vector control 0.389712 0.871840
13 Diarrheal disease Cholera or rotavirus immunization 0.368732 2.183406
42 Epilepsy (refractory) Second-line treatment with phenobarbital and l... 0.330360 15.151515
34 Bipolar disorder Lithium, valproate, with optional psy-chosocia... 0.321234 0.813008
26 Diarrheal disease Improved water and sanitation at current cover... 0.238949 0.226449
35 Bipolar disorder Lithium, valproate, with optional psychosocial... 0.226398 0.604595
12 Lower acute respiratory infections (severe and... Case management at hospital level 0.220751 0.309789
46 Trachoma Tetracycline or azithromycin 0.159515 0.198689
3 Schizophrenia Antipsychotic drugs with optional psychosocial... 0.101688 0.067912
4 Schizophrenia Antipsychotic drugs with optional psychosocial... 0.083893 0.063975
31 Tuberculosis (endemic, latent) Isoniazid treatment 0.075999 0.134825
47 HIV/AIDS Treatment of Kaposi's sarcoma 0.019066 0.028602

These estimates follow a similar pattern to the WSIPP data, with the top interventions a few orders of magnitude better than the worst.

So it seems there might be returns to risk taking when using the spread as the (somewhat imperfect) measure of risk.

The second dataset I found is from a meta-analysis looking at the cost effectiveness of public health interventions within the English National Health Service (NHS) [15]. This dataset is similar to the DCP2 data above because the only measure of uncertainty is the spread of the estimates. Overall, there seems to be a similar but weaker pattern here:

guidance_topic comparator median num_estimates spread
53 Smoking cessation—general population: client c... Background quit rate; no intervention or usua... 20.000000 8.0 2.288330
4 Exercise prescriptions Advice 12.987013 4.0 7.194245
56 Smoking cessation—general population: recruitm... Background quit rate; no intervention or advice 3.846154 15.0 0.074499
62 Smoking cessation —general population: dentist... Usual care 3.311258 3.0 10.989011
51 Smoking cessation—general population: incentiv... Intervention no NRT 2.793296 2.0 1.597444
2 BA (5 min plus self-help) Background quit rate 2.702703 8.0 1.801802
54 Smoking cessation—general population: proactiv... Usual care or intervention but no telephone c... 2.341920 9.0 0.683527
58 Smoking cessation—general population: identify... No intervention 1.984127 4.0 0.243902
61 Smoking cessation—general population: pharmaci... Usual care 1.831502 2.0 4.608295
0 BA only (5 min) Background quit rate 1.366120 8.0 0.909091
46 PA counselling No intervention 1.157407 2.0 1.353180
64 Smoking cessation—disadvantaged groups: client... No intervention 0.639386 3.0 0.166889
1 BA [5 min plus nicotine replacement therapy (N... Background quit rate 0.473934 8.0 0.315557
70 Smoking cessation—disadvantaged groups: NHS SSS No intervention 0.372301 2.0 3.311258
71 Smoking cessation—disadvantaged groups: pharma... No intervention 0.317360 2.0 0.235738
90 Screening and BA during GP consultation No intervention 0.303030 3.0 0.151515
19 Life-skills training Normal education 0.286369 3.0 0.180180
74 Statins—disadvantaged groups: invitation for s... Usual care or no intervention 0.230097 2.0 1.445087
72 Statins—general population: pharmacist based Usual care or no intervention 0.204415 4.0 0.151837
86 Individual stress management No intervention 0.200080 3.0 0.086498
87 Curricular No intervention or standard education 0.138889 4.0 0.093721
30 Urban trail No intervention 0.095740 4.0 0.044425
13 Brief counselling Didactic messages 0.082008 2.0 4.385965
11 Accelerated partner therapy—doxycycline Patient referral 0.071301 2.0 0.106952
15 Information motivation and behaviour skills Didactic information 0.070706 2.0 0.129634
12 Accelerated partner therapy—azithromycin Patient referral 0.051480 2.0 0.077220
76 Advice about PA Usual care 0.027855 2.0 0.051546
16 Enhanced counselling Didactic messages 0.021927 2.0 0.083243

Finally, I look at a massive dataset from the Global Health Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry (GHCEA). First, I look at the full distribution of cost effectiveness estimates. It’s pretty clear they’re lognormally distributed:

Next, I look at just the estimates that have confidence intervals, which ends up being about 900 out of the 5000 original estimates. The confidence interval column was too erratic, so I went through by hand and found the upper and lower bound. I also filtered out studies with an overall quality rating below 4.5 (on a 1-7 scale). The end result is 653 estimates that have confidence intervals. Here’s a histogram of the filtered results – note that there’s a hole in the distribution where some of the estimates were filtered out:

Finally, here’s a scatterplot. It’s not the prettiest relationship in the world, but it does seem to have an upward slope:

Evidence from Philanthropy

GiveWell is an organization that does in-depth charity evaluations, often using cost effectiveness estimates in their decision process. They’ve recently changed their approach to explicitly accommodate different philosophical positions, but the older models had their staff estimate different parameters for direct input.

Dan Wahl had the good idea to run a monte carlo simulation by sampling from these staff parameters, which results in a set of estimates you can use to calculate the standard deviation and downside risk for an intervention. I downloaded his code and put the combined outputs into gw_data.csv (see scrape.py), which I include below.

mean std downside_risk
iodine 41.418910 41.364215 1.438643
dtw 12.039437 11.307934 3.733827
sci 9.064981 8.657475 4.589170
ss 4.894470 4.598517 6.279625
lead 4.519663 14.533890 9.365194
bednets 3.572679 2.964297 6.958995
smc 3.222606 2.162316 7.082046
cash 1.060328 0.380961 8.921943

The cost effectiveness rankings here follow a similar pattern to the other datasets, although it’s a little less pronounced:

So if you prefer to use the standard deviation as a measure, there do seem to be returns to risk taking – higher impact estimates tend to be noisier. But if the downside risk makes more sense to you, the lowest impact interventions underperform the mean to a greater extent.

Evidence from Scientific Research

I have two sources of data on the impact of scientific research. The first is from the Future of Humanity Institute’s (FHI) research looking at the long term impact of neglected tropical disease research. The second is data I collected from Google Scholar on the variation in citation counts vs. mean citation counts for individual researchers.

I also found a few related papers in the existing “Science of Science” literature, and summarize those at the end.

FHI Estimates

These numbers differ from the GiveWell numbers above because they are estimates of the value of scientific research, and aren’t derived from randomized control trials of existing treatments. This means we should be much more uncertain about this model and the inputs.

group disease mu sigma median mean stdev downside_risk
3 Diarrhoeal disease Diarrhoeal diseases -1.466692 4.391203 0.230687 3549.783221 286578.696559 632.550051
14 Meningitis Meningititis -2.503745 4.463425 0.081778 1732.527683 150346.122518 641.766485
11 Parasitic and vector diseases Leishmaniasis -3.706662 4.721702 0.024559 1703.723172 191421.556624 646.835802
17 Leprosy Leprosy -5.014960 4.843504 0.006638 824.521890 104639.483899 651.840316
13 Parasitic and vector diseases Trypanosomiasis -5.296044 4.895739 0.005011 802.785665 107344.569326 652.374858
1 Malaria Malaria -3.161076 4.437962 0.042380 801.655755 67817.253156 646.600925
16 Meningitis Multiple salmonella infections -1.895189 4.127971 0.150290 753.616047 46757.225910 640.639386
15 Meningitis Typhoid and paratyphoid fever -2.798470 4.327229 0.060903 709.092672 53697.852674 645.077267
12 Parasitic and vector diseases Chagas disease -4.955053 4.740730 0.007048 534.967344 61260.904879 652.898381
0 HIV HIV -3.783888 4.358867 0.022734 303.678832 23736.173393 651.055232
6 Helminths Trichuriasis -1.937768 3.863822 0.144025 251.336051 11972.794952 645.358976
5 Helminths Ascariasis -1.894481 3.776170 0.150396 187.775769 8193.987406 645.816935
4 Helminths Hookworm -2.221467 3.745220 0.108450 120.526560 5099.057181 648.006894
2 TB TB -3.587428 4.086304 0.027669 116.922570 6958.190392 651.838335
7 Parasitic and vector diseases Lymphatic filariasis -2.843354 3.724580 0.058230 59.913072 2482.903110 652.042895
8 Parasitic and vector diseases Schistosomiasis -3.354314 3.742827 0.034933 38.477140 1623.940899 654.124353
9 Parasitic and vector diseases Onchocerciasis -4.002002 3.718195 0.018279 18.365718 756.260652 655.728497
18 Trachoma Trachoma -3.984676 3.693719 0.018598 17.066256 685.749534 655.754053
10 Parasitic and vector diseases Dengue -5.767322 3.092770 0.003128 0.373548 8.223787 659.041049

Again, these numbers follow the patterns of earlier estimates with some research topics substantially outperforming others:

So while there is a strong positive relationship between uncertainty and impact, there is a weaker negative relationship between downside risk and impact.

Research Citation Counts

Next, I thought it would be interesting to see if these patterns appear in researcher citation counts. I found a list of ecology researchers along with links to their Google Scholar profiles on GitHub. I treated this list as a population of researchers (I’m not sure if it really is), then randomly selected 100 non-students and downloaded their list of publications and citation counts. I then calculated the mean citation count, standard deviation, and downside risk for each researcher.

The assumption here is that citation count is proportional to real world impact. Another thing to mention is that these scientists have different funding levels, so we don’t know the true funding to citation conversion rate.

mean std downside_risk
30 78.092593 107.506958 19.496066
89 19.361702 17.013327 23.927285
129 17.962963 20.803996 25.888243
143 12.964286 19.114629 29.574690
145 3.500000 4.485018 34.183520

Using the standard deviation in a situation like this doesn’t make a lot of sense. By default, a very successful researcher might have a higher standard deviation in their citations as they progress through their career [10]. I think the downside risk metric is more useful here, and it shows that highly cited researchers outperform the mean researcher more often.

Uncertainty in Peer Review

An alternate way to look at this question would be to try to relate peer reviewer uncertainty with eventual citation counts. At least theoretically, it could be rational to fund a study with a lower mean reviewer score if there is sufficient uncertainty [11]. While some research has found a positive relationship between mean reviewer score and eventual citation counts [12], and others have studied the variation in reviewer scores [13], nobody has related the variation in reviewer scores with eventual citation counts. I contacted the NIH and they don’t keep a record of individual reviewer scores for privacy reasons, so this type of study doesn’t seem possible currently.

Surprise as Risk

Another fascinating study takes a different approach by measuring if the subject matter of the paper is risky/surprising [14]. They do this by comparing the chemicals discussed in the paper with an existing network of chemical knowledge. Studies that propose a new type of connection or a jump to new knowledge are judged to be more risky (Figure 1), and are eventually associated with higher citation counts and more scientific awards (Figure 3).

The effect size in this paper isn’t huge – a research strategy that is an order of magnitude less probable receives 2.26 more citations on average. But I think this paper gets closer to measuring the concept of scientific risk than anything else. They also conclude that a scientist trying to maximize citation count would probably focus on repeat projects, so specific policies to encourage higher risk science might be needed.


It’s interesting to see some common patterns emerge across these different domains and datasets.

  • First, the impact distributions make it clear that some interventions are much better than others. As a result, it makes sense to spend a lot of time searching for good opportunities.
  • Second, interventions with a high downside risk tend to have lower impacts. Even though high impact interventions are more uncertain, they dip below the mean less often or to a lesser extent.
  • Third, there do seem to be returns to uncertainty, so a large error bound on a cost effectiveness estimate shouldn’t be disqualifying on it’s own.

Whether or not there are returns to risk, then, depends on your definition of risk. Using the definitions from the introduction, it makes more sense to say there are returns to uncertainty. In other words, uncertainty is something you might have to learn to live with if you want to have a big effect on the world.


[1] What Are Foundations For? Boston Review. http://bostonreview.net/forum/foundations-philanthropy-democracy

[2] Hits-based Giving. Open Philanthropy Project. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/hits-based-giving

[3] Broad market efficiency. GiveWell. https://blog.givewell.org/2013/05/02/broad-market-efficiency/

[4] The Confusion of Risk vs. Uncertainty. The Guesstimate Blog. https://medium.com/guesstimate-blog/the-confusion-of-risk-vs-uncertainty-1c6cd512aa69

[5] Benefit-Cost Results. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost

[6] Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries (DCP2). http://www.dcp-3.org/dcp2

[7] GiveWell’s Cost-Effectiveness Analyses. GiveWell. https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effectiveness/cost-effectiveness-models

[8] Stochastic Altruism. https://danwahl.github.io/stochastic-altruism

[9] Uncertainty Quantification. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_quantification#Sources_of_uncertainty

[10] Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239

[11] Improving the Peer review process: Capturing more information and enabling high-risk/high-return research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316301111

[12] Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6233/434

[13] Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4488366/

[14] Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122415601618

[15] The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. Journal of Public Health. https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/34/1/37/1554654

[16] The Global Health Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry Tufts University. http://healtheconomics.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/ghcearegistry/