What is your opinion (or maybe better, “red team”) of the recent negative reports on the feasibility of cultured meat and what should the narrative/certainty be around these reports?
The authority of these studies is large compared to the literature and authority that moves beliefs in EA (and other places). So using these standards, we should update against the feasibility of cultured meat.
However, updating could be wrong:
All these articles rely on the truth of the Humbird article, just a single person.
Maybe these studies assume that spending would only be in the billions, but the technical challenges can be overcome by spending at the $100B level (which would be worth it).
What is the Truth?
There should be signposting so that people and resources are informed and have the opportunity to move to the most impactful area possible.
The reports largely echo my worries about the tractability and feasibility of cultured (in vitro) meat. When I talked with my friend at GFI about it, she sent me this post that GFI authored, in particular responding to the Counter article: https://gfi.org/cultivated/tea-statement/
The post indicates that there’s more information beyond what’s available publicly and that these companies and investors are well-versed with the challenges. I know the post rings of a “trust us; we know what we’re doing” sentiment and asks for a lot to be taken at face value. So, the Truth is out there, but, unfortunately, hidden under trade secrets.
As far resource allocation goes to have the most impact, I wouldn’t eliminate cultured meat funding completely, but I would reduce it compared to plant- and fermentation-based technology. It’s hard to prognosticate how certain technologies will fare, and so I prefer a hedging, diversified portfolio approach. For that reason, it’s good to have cultured meat R&D efforts. Cultured meat may even help in a specific way, such as supplying a few key ingredients but never forming into an entire meat replacement.
Secondly, it’s clear that we just need more public disclosure in the cultured meat space. I wouldn’t mind more academic efforts tackling the problems and publishing papers.
What is your opinion (or maybe better, “red team”) of the recent negative reports on the feasibility of cultured meat and what should the narrative/certainty be around these reports?
Context:
In the last 12 months, credible reports came out against the feasibility of cultured meat, including a comprehensive peer reviewed paper by David Humbird , a Rethink Priorities review and a Counter article (progressive article with credible specific anecdotes).
The authority of these studies is large compared to the literature and authority that moves beliefs in EA (and other places). So using these standards, we should update against the feasibility of cultured meat.
However, updating could be wrong:
All these articles rely on the truth of the Humbird article, just a single person.
Maybe these studies assume that spending would only be in the billions, but the technical challenges can be overcome by spending at the $100B level (which would be worth it).
What is the Truth?
There should be signposting so that people and resources are informed and have the opportunity to move to the most impactful area possible.
The reports largely echo my worries about the tractability and feasibility of cultured (in vitro) meat. When I talked with my friend at GFI about it, she sent me this post that GFI authored, in particular responding to the Counter article: https://gfi.org/cultivated/tea-statement/
The post indicates that there’s more information beyond what’s available publicly and that these companies and investors are well-versed with the challenges. I know the post rings of a “trust us; we know what we’re doing” sentiment and asks for a lot to be taken at face value. So, the Truth is out there, but, unfortunately, hidden under trade secrets.
As far resource allocation goes to have the most impact, I wouldn’t eliminate cultured meat funding completely, but I would reduce it compared to plant- and fermentation-based technology. It’s hard to prognosticate how certain technologies will fare, and so I prefer a hedging, diversified portfolio approach. For that reason, it’s good to have cultured meat R&D efforts. Cultured meat may even help in a specific way, such as supplying a few key ingredients but never forming into an entire meat replacement.
Secondly, it’s clear that we just need more public disclosure in the cultured meat space. I wouldn’t mind more academic efforts tackling the problems and publishing papers.