(Speaking for myself, in a personal capacity) When I see posts like this, I’m more than a bit confused about which funder/grantee relationships people are thinking about should be included.
Live with their funders/grantees, especially when substantial conflict-of-interest mechanisms are not active
Date their funders/grantees, especially when substantial conflict-of-interest mechanisms are not active
Date the partner of their funder/grantee, especially when substantial conflict-of-interest mechanisms are not active
Does it include:
Actual active funder of an actual active grantee?
eg Alice was the primary investigator of Bob’s grant. Alice and Bob are housemates who share a two-person apartment. For some reason this was never flagged.
A grantmaker in an organization which funded a grantee, but the grantmaker will never be involved in an actual grantmaking decision involving the grantee due to COI reasons?
eg, Casey and Dylan are thinking of dating; Casey followed organizational protocol and marked themselves as abstaining from any grantmaking decisions involving Dylan’s org.
A grantmaker in an organization that funds the grantee, but the grantmaker will never be involved in an actual grantmaking decision involving the grantee due to specialization reasons?
eg Elijah works as a grants associate for the animal welfare team at a foundation; he used to date Fiona, who leads an AI safety organization that has received funding from the foundation.
Someone working in a funding organization, in a non grantmaking capacity?
eg, Gabriela works as an accountant for a donor-advised fund that has given money to Hana’s partner’s partner’s nonprofit. Gabriela and Hana are engaged.
A private individual donating to a nonprofit?
eg Isaac is housemates with Jamilah, who works at a biosecurity nonprofit. On Jamilah’s birthday, Isaac donated to Jamilah’s nonprofit.
I also want to flag that this is extremely normal in the nonprofit world outside of EA; within EA I think there’s a (correct imo) expectation that donating to your roommate or spouse’s organization potentially implies compromised judgment, but outside of EA I don’t think the typical person will think poorly of you for doing so.
In my own opinion (note that there are some relevant and significant biases):
Alice’s case is rather sketchy; the potential compromise in judgment is pretty evident; safeguards should very much be in place.
Casey’s case seems fine to me in well-run organizations but concerning in poorly set-up ones; this is one situation where “substantial conflict-of-interest mechanisms” seems relevant.
Elijah’s case seems fine to me. Out of an abundance of caution maybe he should report the COI to his organization (in case either he or Fiona changes cause areas in the future), but it really doesn’t seem like a big deal if he were to wait until a potential conflict arises to disclose.
Gabriela’s case seems obviously fine to me.
Isaac’s case broadly seems fine to me, but as an EA qua EA I think Isaac should be careful to be clear to himself when he’s donating for altruistic reasons vs other reasons (like wanting to be nice to his housemate).
I agree with your takes on these examples. I want to note that the conflict of interest of other team members should also be taken into account—if all grantmakers on a team are also close friends with eachother, the situation may look differently than if their ties are mostly professional.
if all grantmakers on a team are also close friends with each other
Can you elaborate on this? Do you believe this is net bad, or at least very concerning? If so, why?
In my mind, in most other contexts, coworkers being (close) friends with each other is good in many ways, despite real risks and costs (eg new colleagues might feel less included, firing people is harder). I can imagine whether the on net costs vs benefits being positive or negative going either way.
I can imagine two key ways in which grantmaking in different than other companies or organizations:
The decisions grantmakers make might be unusually weighty
Grantmakers have a fair amount of power vested in them, most of which aren’t naturally theirsbut instead granted from others.
This is different from, eg, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates being friends with each other on the Gates Foundation, since Buffet and Gates are spending their own money.
Are there other important ones I’m missing? If not, would you say the issue is similar to:
Justices on the US Supreme Court and/or other courts being friends with each other
Congressional representatives being friends with each other, particularly on opposing parties?
The director and deputy director of the FBI being friends?
Executives at a large media company being friends?
What I meant is that if I’m a grantmaker with org X and all the others there are my close friends, it’ll influence the treatment my partner or roommate gets in a way that’s different than when the other grantmakers keep a professional distance. So in such a case, a CoI report from myself alone may not suffice.
I see. Just to clarify, would you have the same concern about the other examples I gave? Eg Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were good friends, do you think RBG should have recused herself from any COIs Scalia where Scalia did as well, and vice versa?
I think I trust the professionalism of supreme court judges quite a bit more than that of EA grantmakers. But it’s hard for me to say conclusively. I’m not sure any such situation with the supreme court has ever arisen.
I’m not sure any such situation with the supreme court has ever arisen.
See here, here, here, here, and here. The reported COIs are all financial rather than personal[1], however the concern with billionaires giving gifts to supreme court justices is under most conditions more concerning than for grantmakers receiving gifts (from non-grantees). The primary worry for justices (at least in recent years) is with money buying influence, whereas the primary worry for grantmakers (iiuc) is with influence buying money.
Indeed, a common defense for non-disclosure appears to be “X billionaire is a personal friend of mine offering personal gifts,” to demonstrate/claim it’s not a financial/corporate transaction.
Great comment, though I’m still more confident of supreme court justices’ professionalism than that of grantmakers. I also think perhaps your will to vote in favour of whomever is giving your friend free luxury trips is different from that to vote for their partner. You did make me more concerned about it than before though.
I will say that money can also probably buy influence with grantmakers. Exaggerating a bit, why donate $1M when you can give a $10K gift to Alice and just tell her how much you think Bob deserves a $1M grant from her budget?
I wouldn’t be that much more confident in the Supreme Court justices in the US. In the US, constitutional law, and the federal judiciary are highly politicized. The most visible and attention-grabbing parts of the job involve figuring out how to use the constitution and legal precedent to advance the policy goals of the Democrat or Republican party (or maybe your own idiosyncratic moral and political goals), whilst pretending, to yourself and others, that you are a neutral arbiter who is just applying the law.* This is why who gets appointed to the Supreme Court in the US has been so politicized since the late 80s, at an absolute minimum. (It’s not a case of nasty right-wing populists appointing hacks and liberals appointing neutral professionals either, as far as I can tell.)
More generally, it’s always easy to look at big important institutions and conclude “that’s where the sensible, competent adults are”. But nearly everyone who sees these institutions close up, seems to end up somewhat disabused of that belief. An acquaintance of mine who is a top Scottish civil servant told me they once had major problems in her department because they simply could not find a key administrative document. I don’t know if you consider this “unprofessional”, but I also know of another UK civil servant who’s held highly responsible positions, who could be pretty reckless with their recreational drug use at parties. The Tory politician Michael Gove who has held multiple cabinet posts since the Tories got in in 2010, once had to admit to taking coke as a young man, at exactly the same time period as he was writing tabloid newspaper articles demand harsh punishment for cocaine users.
*For boring historical reasons, the last thing is a bit more common on the Republican side, and liberal judges tend to hew to theories of legal interpretation that make it a bit clearer they are to some degree making stuff up.
Supreme court judges in any country have vastly more experience in their profession than EA grantmakers.
They have to do a much more thorough job of justifying their decisions and connecting them to constitutional law and case law, even if they have an agenda.
(Speaking for myself, in a personal capacity) When I see posts like this, I’m more than a bit confused about which funder/grantee relationships people are thinking about should be included.
Does it include:
Actual active funder of an actual active grantee?
eg Alice was the primary investigator of Bob’s grant. Alice and Bob are housemates who share a two-person apartment. For some reason this was never flagged.
A grantmaker in an organization which funded a grantee, but the grantmaker will never be involved in an actual grantmaking decision involving the grantee due to COI reasons?
eg, Casey and Dylan are thinking of dating; Casey followed organizational protocol and marked themselves as abstaining from any grantmaking decisions involving Dylan’s org.
A grantmaker in an organization that funds the grantee, but the grantmaker will never be involved in an actual grantmaking decision involving the grantee due to specialization reasons?
eg Elijah works as a grants associate for the animal welfare team at a foundation; he used to date Fiona, who leads an AI safety organization that has received funding from the foundation.
Someone working in a funding organization, in a non grantmaking capacity?
eg, Gabriela works as an accountant for a donor-advised fund that has given money to Hana’s partner’s partner’s nonprofit. Gabriela and Hana are engaged.
A private individual donating to a nonprofit?
eg Isaac is housemates with Jamilah, who works at a biosecurity nonprofit. On Jamilah’s birthday, Isaac donated to Jamilah’s nonprofit.
I also want to flag that this is extremely normal in the nonprofit world outside of EA; within EA I think there’s a (correct imo) expectation that donating to your roommate or spouse’s organization potentially implies compromised judgment, but outside of EA I don’t think the typical person will think poorly of you for doing so.
In my own opinion (note that there are some relevant and significant biases):
Alice’s case is rather sketchy; the potential compromise in judgment is pretty evident; safeguards should very much be in place.
Casey’s case seems fine to me in well-run organizations but concerning in poorly set-up ones; this is one situation where “substantial conflict-of-interest mechanisms” seems relevant.
Elijah’s case seems fine to me. Out of an abundance of caution maybe he should report the COI to his organization (in case either he or Fiona changes cause areas in the future), but it really doesn’t seem like a big deal if he were to wait until a potential conflict arises to disclose.
Gabriela’s case seems obviously fine to me.
Isaac’s case broadly seems fine to me, but as an EA qua EA I think Isaac should be careful to be clear to himself when he’s donating for altruistic reasons vs other reasons (like wanting to be nice to his housemate).
Interested in other takes.
I agree with your takes on these examples. I want to note that the conflict of interest of other team members should also be taken into account—if all grantmakers on a team are also close friends with eachother, the situation may look differently than if their ties are mostly professional.
Can you elaborate on this? Do you believe this is net bad, or at least very concerning? If so, why?
In my mind, in most other contexts, coworkers being (close) friends with each other is good in many ways, despite real risks and costs (eg new colleagues might feel less included, firing people is harder). I can imagine whether the on net costs vs benefits being positive or negative going either way.
I can imagine two key ways in which grantmaking in different than other companies or organizations:
The decisions grantmakers make might be unusually weighty
Grantmakers have a fair amount of power vested in them, most of which aren’t naturally theirs but instead granted from others.
This is different from, eg, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates being friends with each other on the Gates Foundation, since Buffet and Gates are spending their own money.
Are there other important ones I’m missing? If not, would you say the issue is similar to:
Justices on the US Supreme Court and/or other courts being friends with each other
Congressional representatives being friends with each other, particularly on opposing parties?
The director and deputy director of the FBI being friends?
Executives at a large media company being friends?
What I meant is that if I’m a grantmaker with org X and all the others there are my close friends, it’ll influence the treatment my partner or roommate gets in a way that’s different than when the other grantmakers keep a professional distance. So in such a case, a CoI report from myself alone may not suffice.
I see. Just to clarify, would you have the same concern about the other examples I gave? Eg Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were good friends, do you think RBG should have recused herself from any COIs Scalia where Scalia did as well, and vice versa?
I think I trust the professionalism of supreme court judges quite a bit more than that of EA grantmakers. But it’s hard for me to say conclusively. I’m not sure any such situation with the supreme court has ever arisen.
See here, here, here, here, and here. The reported COIs are all financial rather than personal[1], however the concern with billionaires giving gifts to supreme court justices is under most conditions more concerning than for grantmakers receiving gifts (from non-grantees). The primary worry for justices (at least in recent years) is with money buying influence, whereas the primary worry for grantmakers (iiuc) is with influence buying money.
Indeed, a common defense for non-disclosure appears to be “X billionaire is a personal friend of mine offering personal gifts,” to demonstrate/claim it’s not a financial/corporate transaction.
Great comment, though I’m still more confident of supreme court justices’ professionalism than that of grantmakers. I also think perhaps your will to vote in favour of whomever is giving your friend free luxury trips is different from that to vote for their partner. You did make me more concerned about it than before though.
I will say that money can also probably buy influence with grantmakers. Exaggerating a bit, why donate $1M when you can give a $10K gift to Alice and just tell her how much you think Bob deserves a $1M grant from her budget?
I wouldn’t be that much more confident in the Supreme Court justices in the US. In the US, constitutional law, and the federal judiciary are highly politicized. The most visible and attention-grabbing parts of the job involve figuring out how to use the constitution and legal precedent to advance the policy goals of the Democrat or Republican party (or maybe your own idiosyncratic moral and political goals), whilst pretending, to yourself and others, that you are a neutral arbiter who is just applying the law.* This is why who gets appointed to the Supreme Court in the US has been so politicized since the late 80s, at an absolute minimum. (It’s not a case of nasty right-wing populists appointing hacks and liberals appointing neutral professionals either, as far as I can tell.)
More generally, it’s always easy to look at big important institutions and conclude “that’s where the sensible, competent adults are”. But nearly everyone who sees these institutions close up, seems to end up somewhat disabused of that belief. An acquaintance of mine who is a top Scottish civil servant told me they once had major problems in her department because they simply could not find a key administrative document. I don’t know if you consider this “unprofessional”, but I also know of another UK civil servant who’s held highly responsible positions, who could be pretty reckless with their recreational drug use at parties. The Tory politician Michael Gove who has held multiple cabinet posts since the Tories got in in 2010, once had to admit to taking coke as a young man, at exactly the same time period as he was writing tabloid newspaper articles demand harsh punishment for cocaine users.
*For boring historical reasons, the last thing is a bit more common on the Republican side, and liberal judges tend to hew to theories of legal interpretation that make it a bit clearer they are to some degree making stuff up.
I’m basing this view on two things:
Supreme court judges in any country have vastly more experience in their profession than EA grantmakers.
They have to do a much more thorough job of justifying their decisions and connecting them to constitutional law and case law, even if they have an agenda.