Looking at Charity Science, they do talk about spreading the word about evidence-based charities but reading between the lines they appear to be quite different from movement building/GWWC in that they focus on fundraising, with ‘spreading the word’ perhaps partly a more acceptable face to present to the fundraised-from. And I couldn’t quickly see any references to the effective altruism movement on their website, so I don’t think they’d be a good choice for someone following your argument for the absolute priority of movement-building.
If the problem is framed as ‘money isn’t going to effective charities’ then we look very similar.
But I agree that my impression (admitted from limited evidence) is that CS is more focused on moving money immediately relative to winning hearts and minds for the long term than GWWC or EAO.
Ah of course, yes CS and GWWC are working on more or less the same problem (indeed we make grants to them for UK donors!).
Looking at Charity Science, they do talk about spreading the word about evidence-based charities but reading between the lines they appear to be quite different from movement building/GWWC in that they focus on fundraising, with ‘spreading the word’ perhaps partly a more acceptable face to present to the fundraised-from. And I couldn’t quickly see any references to the effective altruism movement on their website, so I don’t think they’d be a good choice for someone following your argument for the absolute priority of movement-building.
If the problem is framed as ‘money isn’t going to effective charities’ then we look very similar.
But I agree that my impression (admitted from limited evidence) is that CS is more focused on moving money immediately relative to winning hearts and minds for the long term than GWWC or EAO.