Re: Open Phil and clean meat—I don’t think the point about researchers is as strong as you imply. Do researchers claim that clean meat will become cost-competitive? It’s possible that their goal is to get fake meat to the point where it was cheap enough that it could be sold to vegetarians, which would still do a lot of good, but not nearly as much.
Basically, I agree with the point that they expect to get useful results and so we should too. But do we know that the useful result in question is “cost-competitive clean meat” and not something weaker? I legitimately don’t know what the answer is, having not researched this in detail. I skimmed the Open Phil report a while ago, and my impression was that researchers didn’t dispute the claim that it would be very difficult to get to the point where it is cost-competitive. (It’s decently likely though that I’m misremembering.)
I have spoken to researchers who expect clean meat to become cost-competitive. They have said this explicitly, and also implied it by putting themselves in positions where their financial welfare depends on clean meat making a profit.
My understanding is that the OpenPhil report didn’t say there weren’t people claiming it would be cost-competitive, but that they didn’t offer a vision plausibly accounting for all the costs in which they could achieve it (or provide one in response to questions), or offer convincing responses to the analysis of skeptical scientists.
If these researchers can provide such an account it would be really helpful for them to publish it or tell it to OpenPhil (which is spending large amounts on factory farming, ramping up, and prioritized meat substitutes as an early scientific investigation).
Also, as I have been suggesting to animal advocates, including Lewis Bollard, this is a good topic for registering quantitative predictions (about companies, sales, investment, scientific milestones, costs, etc), trying to open a topic at Good Judgment Open and bets, as a strategically relevant area with value-aligned people on different sides of an empirical question.
From speaking to individuals involved in the field, I believe the people Open Phil spoke to did not offer enough information to form a full vision toward near-term cost reduction. This is likely the result of a combination of three things:
Some of the people who they spoke to did not have in-depth technical familiarity with the particular technological advancements required to bring the cost down.
Some of the people who they spoke to may have had access to such information but were unwilling to share it in-depth with the Open Phil researchers for obvious reasons (namely, they work at companies with proprietary information).
There are a number of individuals with such in-depth knowledge who Open Phil did not speak to, whether because they did not reach out to them or for other reasons.
Researchers have in fact provided accounts that were satisfactory to either private donors with access to the information or VC funds backing private ventures in the space. These accounts are usually not public; however, GFI has begun to and will continue to explain publicly exactly how cost reduction can happen. For example, at a recent conference, two GFI scientists each gave a presentation explaining exactly how we are going to bring the cost of media down and detailing the other plausible technical advances necessary to bring costs down over the coming years. GFI will likely continue to publish such materials moving forward.
I have proposed betting above. If you believe clean meat has low odds of succeeding, perhaps you can make some money off of me.
Researchers have in fact provided accounts that were satisfactory to either private donors with access to the information or VC funds backing private ventures in the space.
OpenPhil has given a million dollars to GFI.
I would hope that in future this information will reach OpenPhil, as it is spending in the 8-figure range on factory farming (given a good account, it seems like an exceptionally high-return fundraising thing to do, for example), and look forward to seeing what happens with that.
I have proposed betting above. If you believe clean meat has low odds of succeeding.
I’m trying to create a meeting of the minds or such between OpenPhil and those who disagree with its perception of the cost feasibility. Ideally I would like to see agreements or quantified disagreement along those lines.
I’m raising the issue to see what is offered up, and because there is a clear inefficiency (at least one party is wrong and lots of money would change allocation either way), so addressing that looks disproportionately valuable (and cheap VOI generally comes ahead of implementation).
After I see the back-and-forth I may make a forecast myself.
Re: Open Phil and clean meat—I don’t think the point about researchers is as strong as you imply. Do researchers claim that clean meat will become cost-competitive? It’s possible that their goal is to get fake meat to the point where it was cheap enough that it could be sold to vegetarians, which would still do a lot of good, but not nearly as much.
Basically, I agree with the point that they expect to get useful results and so we should too. But do we know that the useful result in question is “cost-competitive clean meat” and not something weaker? I legitimately don’t know what the answer is, having not researched this in detail. I skimmed the Open Phil report a while ago, and my impression was that researchers didn’t dispute the claim that it would be very difficult to get to the point where it is cost-competitive. (It’s decently likely though that I’m misremembering.)
I have spoken to researchers who expect clean meat to become cost-competitive. They have said this explicitly, and also implied it by putting themselves in positions where their financial welfare depends on clean meat making a profit.
My understanding is that the OpenPhil report didn’t say there weren’t people claiming it would be cost-competitive, but that they didn’t offer a vision plausibly accounting for all the costs in which they could achieve it (or provide one in response to questions), or offer convincing responses to the analysis of skeptical scientists.
If these researchers can provide such an account it would be really helpful for them to publish it or tell it to OpenPhil (which is spending large amounts on factory farming, ramping up, and prioritized meat substitutes as an early scientific investigation).
Also, as I have been suggesting to animal advocates, including Lewis Bollard, this is a good topic for registering quantitative predictions (about companies, sales, investment, scientific milestones, costs, etc), trying to open a topic at Good Judgment Open and bets, as a strategically relevant area with value-aligned people on different sides of an empirical question.
[Speaking only for myself.]
From speaking to individuals involved in the field, I believe the people Open Phil spoke to did not offer enough information to form a full vision toward near-term cost reduction. This is likely the result of a combination of three things:
Some of the people who they spoke to did not have in-depth technical familiarity with the particular technological advancements required to bring the cost down.
Some of the people who they spoke to may have had access to such information but were unwilling to share it in-depth with the Open Phil researchers for obvious reasons (namely, they work at companies with proprietary information).
There are a number of individuals with such in-depth knowledge who Open Phil did not speak to, whether because they did not reach out to them or for other reasons.
Researchers have in fact provided accounts that were satisfactory to either private donors with access to the information or VC funds backing private ventures in the space. These accounts are usually not public; however, GFI has begun to and will continue to explain publicly exactly how cost reduction can happen. For example, at a recent conference, two GFI scientists each gave a presentation explaining exactly how we are going to bring the cost of media down and detailing the other plausible technical advances necessary to bring costs down over the coming years. GFI will likely continue to publish such materials moving forward.
I have proposed betting above. If you believe clean meat has low odds of succeeding, perhaps you can make some money off of me.
OpenPhil has given a million dollars to GFI.
I would hope that in future this information will reach OpenPhil, as it is spending in the 8-figure range on factory farming (given a good account, it seems like an exceptionally high-return fundraising thing to do, for example), and look forward to seeing what happens with that.
I’m trying to create a meeting of the minds or such between OpenPhil and those who disagree with its perception of the cost feasibility. Ideally I would like to see agreements or quantified disagreement along those lines.
I’m raising the issue to see what is offered up, and because there is a clear inefficiency (at least one party is wrong and lots of money would change allocation either way), so addressing that looks disproportionately valuable (and cheap VOI generally comes ahead of implementation).
After I see the back-and-forth I may make a forecast myself.
[Writing only for myself.]
Carl, I’d be really interested in seeing any content originating from these discussions.
Michael, Which conference is this? Are there any videos available for these talks?
Video is not available, although I heard it might be at some point in the future.
Cool, can you give me the conference name? That way I can follow-up with a Google search in a few weeks or months.
The title of the conference was Second International Conference on Cultured Meat.
Related article: https://www.clearlyveg.com/blog/2016/11/13/reflections-the-second-international-conference-cultured-meat
Thanks.