I tried to figure out how much funding there is for nuclear risk stuff, but it seems like the best source of data is the Peace and Security Funding Map tracking of spending on “Preventing and Mitigating Conflict > Nuclear Issues” (select “List”), and many grants that tracks really aren’t about nuclear weapons issues but just happen to use the term “nuclear”. These include medical research grants that use the term “nuclear” in a totally different sense and biosecurity-related grants to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. They also don’t provide graphs of changes over time or breakdowns into categories or anything like that; you’d have to build that manually.
This makes it harder to know how neglected areas are, how this is changing over time, who the big players to learn from or complement or bear in mind are, etc.
I’d imagine the situation is similar in other longtermist areas, though I’m unsure.
I like this idea.
I tried to figure out how much funding there is for nuclear risk stuff, but it seems like the best source of data is the Peace and Security Funding Map tracking of spending on “Preventing and Mitigating Conflict > Nuclear Issues” (select “List”), and many grants that tracks really aren’t about nuclear weapons issues but just happen to use the term “nuclear”. These include medical research grants that use the term “nuclear” in a totally different sense and biosecurity-related grants to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. They also don’t provide graphs of changes over time or breakdowns into categories or anything like that; you’d have to build that manually.
This makes it harder to know how neglected areas are, how this is changing over time, who the big players to learn from or complement or bear in mind are, etc.
I’d imagine the situation is similar in other longtermist areas, though I’m unsure.