Thatâs fair, I didnât really explain that footnote. Note the original point was in the context of cause prioritisation, and I should probably have linked to this previous comment from Jason which captured my feeling as well:
A name change would be a good start.
By analogy, suppose there were a Center for Medical Studies that was funded ~80% by a group interested in just cardiology. Influenced by the resultant incentives, the CMS hires a bunch of cardiologists, pushes medical students toward cardiology residencies, and devotes an entire instance of its flagship Medical Research Global conference to the exclusive study of topics in cardiology. All those things are fine, but this org shouldnât use a name that implies that it takes a more general and balanced perspective on the field of medical studies, and should make very very clear that it doesnât speak for the medical community as a whole.
It seems possible, though far from obvious, that CEAâs funding base is so narrow itâs forced to focus on that target, in order to ensure the organisationâs survival from that direction. This was something I thought Zach covered nicely:
The reality is that the majority of our funding comes from Open Philanthropyâs Global Catastrophic Risks Capacity Building Team, which focuses primarily on risks from emerging technologies. While I donât think itâs necessary for us to share the exact same priorities as our funders, I do feel there are some constraints based on donor intent, e.g. I would likely feel it is wrong for us to use the GCRCB teamâs resources to focus on a conference that is purely about animal welfare. There are also practical constraints insofar as we need to demonstrate progress on the metrics our funders care about if we want to be able to successfully secure more funding in the future.
Thatâs fair, I didnât really explain that footnote. Note the original point was in the context of cause prioritisation, and I should probably have linked to this previous comment from Jason which captured my feeling as well:
It seems possible, though far from obvious, that CEAâs funding base is so narrow itâs forced to focus on that target, in order to ensure the organisationâs survival from that direction. This was something I thought Zach covered nicely:
Thanks! That context is helpful.