At SoGive we’ve just recently started looking at anti-nuclear weapon orgs to try to determine whether it makes sense to recommend any of them to donors we work with, precisely because of the MacArthur Foundation’s withdrawal.
The MacArthur Foundation has been funding a large number of orgs in the anti-nuclear space. While NTI have a good reputation and are known in the EA community, I don’t think it is obvious that it is they who should receive funding rather than other organisations.
And these orgs aren’t necessarily interchangeable. Based on a couple of expert interviews, there doesn’t seem to be one widely accepted theory of change as to how to best approach reducing risks, and some approaches appear contradictory. My guess is that some of the big EA funders are also trying to do some research in this area before making any donations?
At SoGive we’ve just recently started looking at anti-nuclear weapon orgs to try to determine whether it makes sense to recommend any of them to donors we work with, precisely because of the MacArthur Foundation’s withdrawal.
The MacArthur Foundation has been funding a large number of orgs in the anti-nuclear space. While NTI have a good reputation and are known in the EA community, I don’t think it is obvious that it is they who should receive funding rather than other organisations.
And these orgs aren’t necessarily interchangeable. Based on a couple of expert interviews, there doesn’t seem to be one widely accepted theory of change as to how to best approach reducing risks, and some approaches appear contradictory. My guess is that some of the big EA funders are also trying to do some research in this area before making any donations?
So I’m hearing “there are a range of orgs with different priorities and EA funders want to find the effective ones”