We think that GFI’s focus on cell-cultured products could have an enormous impact for farmed animals in the longer term, as cell-cultured food potentially cause a considerable decrease in demand for farmed animal products. However, we are relatively uncertain about the price-competitiveness of cell-cultured products with conventional animal protein. Furthermore, the majority of impacts that GFI’s work has on animals are more indirect and may happen in the future. As such, the cost effectiveness of their work is more difficult to assess using our methods. We also have concerns about some reports of alleged retaliation by GFI’s top leadership toward current and former staff. We think that GFI could benefit from having an independent board. GFI has provided a detailed response to our assessment of their leadership and culture.
Their review for Albert Schweitzer Foundation gives the weaknesses as:
We have concerns about some reports of alleged discrimination or harassment that a few staff members believe were not handled appropriately. However, leadership has taken action to handle the complaints.
I’m pretty surprised ACE doesn’t discuss the reasoning behind the shift in this post, from Top to not even Standout seems like a major update and important to provide the reasoning for donors giving to these charities.
GFI would be happy to participate fully in an investigation of the complaints to better understand and address them, and we offered to hire an external investigator. ACE declined
Which makes is sound as though GFI were willing to make efforts to resolve/investigate these anonymous complaints but ACE were not willing to pursue this.
As Pablo noted, concerns over the uncertain impact of cell-cultured products aren’t new, so it would be surprising if that was the real reason GFI was stripped of their title. Feels like ACE is burying the lede here.
As Pablo noted, concerns over the uncertain impact of cell-cultured products aren’t new
For onlookers, articles that are strongly against cultured meat feasibility have appeared in the last 12 months:
The Counter article—“New research suggests the industry may be on a billion-dollar crash course with reality”.
Linch Zhang and Neil Dullaghan analysis—“Linch [turned] from a cultured meat optimist to being broadly pessimistic. Neil wants to be more agnostic until further research from Rethink Priorities and others.”
These two analysis draw a lot on the Humbird article, published in December 2020 , [Linch and Neil summarize] “Cheap at scale (<$200/kg) cultured meat with “wild-type” cells is simply not feasible”.
Linch and Neil at Rethink Priorities are very respected by EAs. At the same time, the non-EA, liberal Counter article also said the same thing with a distinct analysis, and I think EA opinion is further moved by corroborating “outside” views. The Humbird article is funded by Open Phil.
For changing EA opinion, I think the above is a very strong signal and would inform or change many minds. (This could explain changing ACE recommendations.)
I am writing this because onlookers may not get this sense of these updates in 2021.
My knowledge is not deep—honestly, Linch and Neil’s article is basically my education. If people don’t agree with the above, please let me know!
(Note: I agree with the concerns that currently dominate comments on this post and upvoted each such comment—there’s at least 5 different people who share them. The reason why New Harvest was recommended is not explained.)
The first of the concerns listed in the quoted paragraph predated this review, so it can’t be one of the considerations adduced for demoting GFI. From their 2020 review:
Work on cell-cultured products could have an enormous impact for farmed animals in the long term. If cell-cultured animal products become a competitive alternative, they could reach consumers with various food preferences and attitudes and reduce the consumption of animal products significantly. However, our impression is that it is relatively uncertain when cell-cultured animal products will be competitive because their success depends on progress in research, development, and legal conditions.
New Harvest is also listed as a standout charity in spite of (my impression is) an even narrower focus on cell-cultured product innovation than GFI (which also supports plant-based meat substitutes). I too would love some clarity from ACE on this.
New Harvest, which I think is great, also discontinued what I consider to be their major program (research grants) this year, so it’s a head scratcher.
Thanks! I’ve been thinking about my Pledge donations today, so this was helpful.
I feel pretty conflicted about this. There are lots of reasons one might not want to recommend charities with bad cultures – reputational risks and the effect of culture on effectiveness being two of the biggest.
That said, it’s striking to me that this justification makes absolutely no mention of the effectiveness of these organisations at helping animals.
Their review for GFI gives the weaknesses as:
Their review for Albert Schweitzer Foundation gives the weaknesses as:
I’m pretty surprised ACE doesn’t discuss the reasoning behind the shift in this post, from Top to not even Standout seems like a major update and important to provide the reasoning for donors giving to these charities.
Of note: “ACE is not able to share any additional information about any of the anonymous allegations”, and yet ACE turned down GFI’s offer to investigate the complaints further:
Which makes is sound as though GFI were willing to make efforts to resolve/investigate these anonymous complaints but ACE were not willing to pursue this.
As Pablo noted, concerns over the uncertain impact of cell-cultured products aren’t new, so it would be surprising if that was the real reason GFI was stripped of their title. Feels like ACE is burying the lede here.
For onlookers, articles that are strongly against cultured meat feasibility have appeared in the last 12 months:
The Counter article—“New research suggests the industry may be on a billion-dollar crash course with reality”.
Linch Zhang and Neil Dullaghan analysis—“Linch [turned] from a cultured meat optimist to being broadly pessimistic. Neil wants to be more agnostic until further research from Rethink Priorities and others.”
These two analysis draw a lot on the Humbird article, published in December 2020 , [Linch and Neil summarize] “Cheap at scale (<$200/kg) cultured meat with “wild-type” cells is simply not feasible”.
Linch and Neil at Rethink Priorities are very respected by EAs. At the same time, the non-EA, liberal Counter article also said the same thing with a distinct analysis, and I think EA opinion is further moved by corroborating “outside” views. The Humbird article is funded by Open Phil.
For changing EA opinion, I think the above is a very strong signal and would inform or change many minds. (This could explain changing ACE recommendations.)
I am writing this because onlookers may not get this sense of these updates in 2021.
My knowledge is not deep—honestly, Linch and Neil’s article is basically my education. If people don’t agree with the above, please let me know!
(Note: I agree with the concerns that currently dominate comments on this post and upvoted each such comment—there’s at least 5 different people who share them. The reason why New Harvest was recommended is not explained.)
The first of the concerns listed in the quoted paragraph predated this review, so it can’t be one of the considerations adduced for demoting GFI. From their 2020 review:
New Harvest is also listed as a standout charity in spite of (my impression is) an even narrower focus on cell-cultured product innovation than GFI (which also supports plant-based meat substitutes). I too would love some clarity from ACE on this.
New Harvest, which I think is great, also discontinued what I consider to be their major program (research grants) this year, so it’s a head scratcher.
ACE has now, after two weeks, posted an explanation on their blog. I’m also surprised that it took so long to provide an explaination.
Thanks! I’ve been thinking about my Pledge donations today, so this was helpful.
I feel pretty conflicted about this. There are lots of reasons one might not want to recommend charities with bad cultures – reputational risks and the effect of culture on effectiveness being two of the biggest.
That said, it’s striking to me that this justification makes absolutely no mention of the effectiveness of these organisations at helping animals.