[1] http://www.psych.umn.edu/research/areas/pib/
[2] http://www.psych.umn.edu/people/facultyprofile.php?UID=gotte...
[3] http://www.virginia.edu/uvanewsmakers/newsmakers/spiro.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01564274#page-1
[4] http://college.cengage.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632355/
AFTER EDIT: I'm still learning the rules about informed, thoughtful discussion here after 2073 days of participation as a registered user on Hacker News, so I'd be glad to understand what someone considered objectionable about this comment. I was just surfing by this comment to add a link emailed to me by Irving Gottesman, the prominent schizophrenia researcher who was mentioned in the acknowledgements of the book A Beautiful Mind. That link discusses the study in the journal Nature published today.
it might or might not be a good goal for some conditions.
I agree, but hope that it is enough to move research along to the point where the pharma industry will see something worth researching and developing.
After 9 years of misdiagnoses by several different doctors, earlier this year one astute doctor was able to uncover that I had bipolar 2 and not unipolar depression or SAD. I had mixed feelings about it (ironic) but I was put on the correct medications and they have made a world of difference. In fact, I read that it can often take close to a decade, on average, to diagnose types of bipolar properly, because doctors and patients simply don't communicate well. Any tools that shorten that time gap would benefit individuals and society as a whole.
In fact, I would say your model has it backwards -- as a philanthropist, rather than devote my money to a cause, I should coerce/influence politicians with money, so as to compel through force of law other peoples money to flow to that cause.
That's the obvious reasoning, and I'm sure you knew this when you asked the question. Whether a specific topic has those particular externalities or not is always up for debate.
Why concede that fight? If very long term basic science is of communal benefit and can't happen in the current market structure, why not use 10% of the money to fight against lobbyists asking for corporate handouts?
In Conneconomics (http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/001214) we try to estimate the cost and time needed to map the connectome alone (only one component of a holistic brain model).
While the current medications surely do help a lot of people, I've watched really smart friends devolve into zombies while on some of them. People I've known for 15 years who are definately not the same people they were when they started. They themselves don't notice the change, of course, because it happens slowly.
We really need better options with less severe personality change side-effects.
(and raising money, and all stuff in between)
That's crazy!