As much as I like to imagine it’s my own work (in longtermism), I think the clearest institutional comparative advantage of RP relative to the rest of the EA movement is the quality of our animal-welfare focused research. To the best of my knowledge, if you want to focus on doing research that directly improves the welfare of many animals, and you don’t have a long-chain theory/plan of impact (e,g. by shifting norms in academia or having an influential governmental position), RP’s the best place to do this. This is just my impression, but my guess is that this is broadly shared among animal-focused EAs.
The main exception I could think of is Open Phil, but they’re not hiring.
I also get the impression that our survey team is very good, probably the best in EA, but I have less of an inside view here than for the animal welfare research.
Our longtermism and global health work are comparatively more junior and less proven, in addition to having fairly stiff competition.
As much as I like to imagine it’s my own work (in longtermism), I think the clearest institutional comparative advantage of RP relative to the rest of the EA movement is the quality of our animal-welfare focused research. To the best of my knowledge, if you want to focus on doing research that directly improves the welfare of many animals, and you don’t have a long-chain theory/plan of impact (e,g. by shifting norms in academia or having an influential governmental position), RP’s the best place to do this. This is just my impression, but my guess is that this is broadly shared among animal-focused EAs.
The main exception I could think of is Open Phil, but they’re not hiring.
I also get the impression that our survey team is very good, probably the best in EA, but I have less of an inside view here than for the animal welfare research.
Our longtermism and global health work are comparatively more junior and less proven, in addition to having fairly stiff competition.