Rather than thinking of a donation as being split between vertebrates and invertebrates, it might be more accurate to think of the “invertebrate impact” of a donation as reflecting your confidence that our field-building work will help ensure invertebrate welfare is taken seriously as the science advances.
I would still find it useful to know how historical funding has been allocated across animal populations, and, ideally, about the allocation of marginal funding.
If you’re hoping for a precise breakdown, such as “X% to vertebrates, Y% to invertebrates,” our grants program history shows $4.9M allocated to vertebrates (including fish/rodents) and $0.46M allocated to invertebrates. That said, over the past two years, our support for invertebrate projects has nearly doubled compared to our first two years (1.85x). We’ve started seeing more strong proposals focused on invertebrates and fish, with researchers telling us they heard about us as a group keen on invertebrate welfare, which is a genuinely encouraging sign that our field-building efforts are working.
However, those numbers don’t fully capture what we’re actually trying to achieve. Many of our grants and internal research projects develop methods, data, and tools that serve wild animals broadly, rather than focusing on a single specific taxon. Many projects start with a particular species but have much broader applications as the science develops. Many of our grants are meta-projects (e.g., modeling frameworks or welfare measurement tools) with potential that extends beyond vertebrates alone.
Our goal is to establish a research ecosystem that benefits all wild animals, including invertebrates, while striking a balance between pushing new research areas and keeping people excited to contribute. Species-type tracking misses how resources multiply and ripple through the field.
We want to be mindful of how we spend our time, so unless there are significant updates or developments, we won’t be posting more on this thread. We are always happy to reconnect down the line if there’s something meaningful to add.
Hi @Casey Darnley.
I would still find it useful to know how historical funding has been allocated across animal populations, and, ideally, about the allocation of marginal funding.
Hi @Vasco Grilo🔸
If you’re hoping for a precise breakdown, such as “X% to vertebrates, Y% to invertebrates,” our grants program history shows $4.9M allocated to vertebrates (including fish/rodents) and $0.46M allocated to invertebrates. That said, over the past two years, our support for invertebrate projects has nearly doubled compared to our first two years (1.85x). We’ve started seeing more strong proposals focused on invertebrates and fish, with researchers telling us they heard about us as a group keen on invertebrate welfare, which is a genuinely encouraging sign that our field-building efforts are working.
However, those numbers don’t fully capture what we’re actually trying to achieve. Many of our grants and internal research projects develop methods, data, and tools that serve wild animals broadly, rather than focusing on a single specific taxon. Many projects start with a particular species but have much broader applications as the science develops. Many of our grants are meta-projects (e.g., modeling frameworks or welfare measurement tools) with potential that extends beyond vertebrates alone.
Our goal is to establish a research ecosystem that benefits all wild animals, including invertebrates, while striking a balance between pushing new research areas and keeping people excited to contribute. Species-type tracking misses how resources multiply and ripple through the field.
We want to be mindful of how we spend our time, so unless there are significant updates or developments, we won’t be posting more on this thread. We are always happy to reconnect down the line if there’s something meaningful to add.
Thanks for clarifying, and providing a breakdown, Casey!