You could start with claimed increase in life expectancy in the target population times actual deaths during the fraudulent research funding period times the usual value of a life.
But again, this is just a statistical argument, not actual damages. For a tort case, you generally need to show real damages. For a criminal case, I don't think a statistical argument would sway a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that academic fraud caused specific deaths. There's a reason why the burden of proof in our court systems is structured the way it is.
Besides, you don't even know that the unfunded research would have resulted in increased life expectancy because the research was never conducted. You're trying to prove a counter-factual where you don't have data. Additionally, there are probably far too many confounding factors in health science to make a strong statistical claim against a single action as you're insinuating.
