Funding is, and long has been, the bottleneck [for work on moral weights]—which explains why there haven’t been many public updates about the MWP since we finished it (apart from the book, which refines the methodology in notable ways). But if people are interested in supporting these or related projects, we’d be very glad to work on them.
@KarolinaSarek🔸, to which extent is the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF) open to funding research decreasing the uncertainty in comparisons of (expectedhedonistic) welfare across species? @LewisBollard, how about Coefficient Giving (CG)? I think much more of that research is needed to conclude which interventions robustly increase welfare. I do not know about any intervention which robustly increases welfare due to potentially dominant uncertain effects on soil animals and microorganisms. Even neglecting these, I believe there is lots of room to change funding decisions as a result of more of that research. I understand Ambitious Impact (AIM), Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE), maybe AWF, and CG sometimes for robustness checks use the (expected) welfare ranges Rethink Priorities (RP) initially presented, or the ones in Bob’s book as if they are within a factor of 10 of the right estimates (such that these could 10 % to 10 times as large). However, I can easily see much larger differences. For example, the estimate in Bob’s book for the welfare range of shrimps is 8.0 % that of humans, but I would say one reasonable best guess (though not the only one) is 10^-6, the ratio between the number of neurons of shrimps and humans.
Thanks, Zoë. I see funders are the ones deciding what to fund, and that you only provide advice if they so wish, as explained below. What if funders ask you for advice on which species to support? Do you base your advice on the welfare ranges presented in Bob’s book? Have you considered recommending research on welfare comparisons across species to such funders, such as the projects in RP’s research agenda on valuing impacts across species?
Q: Do Senterra Funders staff decide how funders make grant decisions?
A: No, each Senterra member maintains full autonomy over their grantmaking. Some Senterra members seek Senterra’s philanthropic advising, in which Senterra staff conduct research and make recommendations specific to the donor’s interests. Some Senterra members engage in collaborative grantmaking facilitated by Senterra staff. Ultimately, it’s up to each member to decide how and where to give.
@KarolinaSarek🔸, to which extent is the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF) open to funding research decreasing the uncertainty in comparisons of (expected hedonistic) welfare across species? @LewisBollard, how about Coefficient Giving (CG)? I think much more of that research is needed to conclude which interventions robustly increase welfare. I do not know about any intervention which robustly increases welfare due to potentially dominant uncertain effects on soil animals and microorganisms. Even neglecting these, I believe there is lots of room to change funding decisions as a result of more of that research. I understand Ambitious Impact (AIM), Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE), maybe AWF, and CG sometimes for robustness checks use the (expected) welfare ranges Rethink Priorities (RP) initially presented, or the ones in Bob’s book as if they are within a factor of 10 of the right estimates (such that these could 10 % to 10 times as large). However, I can easily see much larger differences. For example, the estimate in Bob’s book for the welfare range of shrimps is 8.0 % that of humans, but I would say one reasonable best guess (though not the only one) is 10^-6, the ratio between the number of neurons of shrimps and humans.
@eleanor mcaree, to which extent is ACE’s Movement Grants program open to funding research decreasing the uncertainty in interspecies welfare comparisons? @Jesse Marks, how about The Navigation Fund (TNF)? @Zoë Sigle 🔹, how about Senterra Funders? @JamesÖz 🔸, how about Mobius and the Strategic Animal Funding Circle (SAFC)? You can check my comment above for context about why I think such research would be valuable.
Hi Vasco, Senterra Funders’ FAQ should answer your questions.
Thanks, Zoë. I see funders are the ones deciding what to fund, and that you only provide advice if they so wish, as explained below. What if funders ask you for advice on which species to support? Do you base your advice on the welfare ranges presented in Bob’s book? Have you considered recommending research on welfare comparisons across species to such funders, such as the projects in RP’s research agenda on valuing impacts across species?