Filling the $100m funding gap in nuclear, since the MacArthur Foundation is pulling out of nuclear policy.
“Since 2015 alone, MacArthur directed 231 grants totaling >$100m in some cases providing more than half the annual funding for individual institutions or programs.” ″MacArthur was providing something like 40 to 55 percent of all the funding worldwide of the non-government funding worldwide on nuclear policy” https://t.co/srsq45ejc7?amp=1
Out of all the ideas, this seems the most shovel-ready.
MacArthur will (presumably) be letting go of some staff who do nuclear policy work, and would (presumably) be happy to share the organisations they’ve granted to in the past. So you have a ready-made research staff list + grant list.
All (“all” :) ) you need is a foundation and a team to execute on it. Seems like $100 million could actually be deployed pretty rapidly.
Possibly not all of that money would meet EA standards of cost-effectiveness though—indeed MacArthur’s withdrawal provides some evidence that it isn’t cost effective (if we trust their judgement).
I agree with this. As the article says, multiple funders are pulling out of nuclear arms control, not just MacArthur. So it would be a good idea for EA funders like Open Phil to come in and close the gap. But in doing so, we should understand why MacArthur and other funders are exiting this field and learn from them to figure out how to do better.
Filling the $100m funding gap in nuclear, since the MacArthur Foundation is pulling out of nuclear policy.
“Since 2015 alone, MacArthur directed 231 grants totaling >$100m in some cases providing more than half the annual funding for individual institutions or programs.”
″MacArthur was providing something like 40 to 55 percent of all the funding worldwide of the non-government funding worldwide on nuclear policy”
https://t.co/srsq45ejc7?amp=1
Out of all the ideas, this seems the most shovel-ready.
MacArthur will (presumably) be letting go of some staff who do nuclear policy work, and would (presumably) be happy to share the organisations they’ve granted to in the past. So you have a ready-made research staff list + grant list.
All (“all” :) ) you need is a foundation and a team to execute on it. Seems like $100 million could actually be deployed pretty rapidly.
Possibly not all of that money would meet EA standards of cost-effectiveness though—indeed MacArthur’s withdrawal provides some evidence that it isn’t cost effective (if we trust their judgement).
Here’s the interesting, frustrating evaluation report: https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/nuclear-challenges-synthesis-report_public-final-1.29.21.pdf[16].pdf
Looks to me like a classic hits-based giving bet—you mostly don’t make much impact, then occassionaly (Nixon arms control, H.W. Bush’s START and Nunn-Lugar, maybe Obama JCPOA/New START) get a home run.
To clarify, this is $100m over around 5 years, or $20m/year—which is a good start, but far less than $100m/year.
I agree with this. As the article says, multiple funders are pulling out of nuclear arms control, not just MacArthur. So it would be a good idea for EA funders like Open Phil to come in and close the gap. But in doing so, we should understand why MacArthur and other funders are exiting this field and learn from them to figure out how to do better.
I misread this as “nuclear power”, not “nuclear arms control” 😂