I think I agree with most of your observations. A few remarks:
I’ve heard of several people under 30 who have had a relatively large influence on AI and biorisk policy within the European Commission. Perhaps this is because these are “newer” policy areas within the EU, and the same opportunities don’t exist in animal welfare-related roles.
Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didn’t mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?
Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?
Thanks, those are helpful thoughts! Just to clarify: my excitement about APA roles shouldn’t be read to mean that I think other roles are likely less impactful. It’s super hard to assess it from the outside!
That hypothesis for the Commission could most certaintly be true. We talked to three EA-aligned folks in the Commission and I think all three of them had pretty different experiences, from “I don’t think I’ve had any impact in my two years at the Commission” to someone who thought he’d influenced quite some things positively (I hope I’m not misrepresenting them)
For think tank / NGO work specifically, I annoyingly got food poisining on the day where we had various experts from NGOs visit, so was unable to take their perspectives into account. I know some other people who were in the program are reading this—maybe they can share some thoughts on this!
I’m pretty unsure about impact via Council or member states. I also didn’t get much clarity on secondments. We didn’t discuss them much because the process to be sent to Brussels by a member state is different in every country
I think it’s important to remember these are Joris’ takeaways for his career path 🙂 I think many others from the programme declared they are excited to work in the European Commission and will follow this path
<<Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didn’t mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?>>
Just on this point the recommendation from our research and also from the SMEs were that 1) it was much more neglected and less replaceable to have someone working inside the system than an extra person applying for an NGO or think tank 2) people are much more likely to be more valuable to think tanks and NGOs after being in the system for a few years and building connections and understanding of how the system works 3) most NGOs are looking for people with experience from inside the system for their lobbying roles because of 2)
Of course this depends on relative fit for working inside the system but all else equal it seems one can add more value to the movement working inside first.
<<Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?>>
There are definitely people from the programme who were sceptical about the value of this before and left feeling much more clear that these paths were their best path to impact in future ☺️
Thanks for providing a bit of context on the ToC of the program / the case for working ‘inside the system’! Sorry I didn’t represent that as clearly in the post
Thanks for the remarks, Jan. I also participated in the program.
I’ve heard of several people under 30 who have had a relatively large influence on AI and biorisk policy within the European Commission. Perhaps this is because these are “newer” policy areas within the EU, and the same opportunities don’t exist in animal welfare-related roles.
I agree.
Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didn’t mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?
Thanks for the write-up, Joris!
I think I agree with most of your observations. A few remarks:
I’ve heard of several people under 30 who have had a relatively large influence on AI and biorisk policy within the European Commission. Perhaps this is because these are “newer” policy areas within the EU, and the same opportunities don’t exist in animal welfare-related roles.
Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didn’t mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?
Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?
Thanks, those are helpful thoughts! Just to clarify: my excitement about APA roles shouldn’t be read to mean that I think other roles are likely less impactful. It’s super hard to assess it from the outside!
That hypothesis for the Commission could most certaintly be true. We talked to three EA-aligned folks in the Commission and I think all three of them had pretty different experiences, from “I don’t think I’ve had any impact in my two years at the Commission” to someone who thought he’d influenced quite some things positively (I hope I’m not misrepresenting them)
For think tank / NGO work specifically, I annoyingly got food poisining on the day where we had various experts from NGOs visit, so was unable to take their perspectives into account. I know some other people who were in the program are reading this—maybe they can share some thoughts on this!
I’m pretty unsure about impact via Council or member states. I also didn’t get much clarity on secondments. We didn’t discuss them much because the process to be sent to Brussels by a member state is different in every country
I think it’s important to remember these are Joris’ takeaways for his career path 🙂 I think many others from the programme declared they are excited to work in the European Commission and will follow this path
<<Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didn’t mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?>>
Just on this point the recommendation from our research and also from the SMEs were that 1) it was much more neglected and less replaceable to have someone working inside the system than an extra person applying for an NGO or think tank 2) people are much more likely to be more valuable to think tanks and NGOs after being in the system for a few years and building connections and understanding of how the system works 3) most NGOs are looking for people with experience from inside the system for their lobbying roles because of 2)
Of course this depends on relative fit for working inside the system but all else equal it seems one can add more value to the movement working inside first.
<<Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?>>
There are definitely people from the programme who were sceptical about the value of this before and left feeling much more clear that these paths were their best path to impact in future ☺️
Thanks for providing a bit of context on the ToC of the program / the case for working ‘inside the system’! Sorry I didn’t represent that as clearly in the post
Thanks for the remarks, Jan. I also participated in the program.
I agree.
Here are some related guesses.