One way to address the gap in understanding the long-term economic impacts of malaria would be to conduct a study using genetic differences as a natural experiment. Malaria prevention receives significant global health funding, but without clear evidence of its economic benefits, it's hard to prioritize investments effectively. This approach could provide causal evidence linking malaria exposure to income and consumption outcomes, helping policymakers allocate resources more efficiently.

How the Study Would Work

The study would compare individuals with the sickle cell trait—a genetic variant that provides partial protection against malaria—to those without it. Since this trait is randomly inherited, it acts like a natural experiment, isolating malaria's effect from other factors like poverty or healthcare access. The research could use existing health and economic datasets or track a new cohort over time, measuring differences in economic outcomes between the two groups.

• For funders: Clearer evidence could justify investments in malaria prevention.
• For researchers: A novel application of genetics in economic analysis.
• For affected populations: Potential for better-targeted health interventions.

Execution and Challenges

A feasible first step would be analyzing existing data in regions with high sickle cell trait prevalence. If data is insufficient, a small pilot study could test methods before scaling up. Key challenges include:

• Ensuring genetic and economic data can be reliably linked.
• Controlling for other factors that might influence economic outcomes.
• Addressing ethical concerns around genetic data collection.

While this isn't a commercial project, the findings could guide more effective global health spending. Compared to past studies that only observed correlations, this method offers stronger causal evidence—a significant improvement for decision-making.