This is a decent post, but I don’t know what conclusion to draw from it. Is this post an announcement of Charity Science’s (CS) intention to explore the option of direct charity entrepreneurship? Are some CS staff or board members already intending to found new charities, and this post serves as the rationale? Or, is this post just a general essay explaining why anyone outside of CS might also consider founding a new effective charity, if they are also well suited to found such a charity?
The reasoning outlined in this post forms a significant part of why some of the Charity Science staff and board members will pursue founding an evidence-based, cost-effective charity, aiming for it to become GiveWell recommended.
To answer your questions:
Is this post an announcement of Charity Science’s (CS) intention to explore the option of direct charity entrepreneurship?
No, Charity Science will continue with it’s usual activities.
Are some CS staff or board members already intending to found new charities, and this post serves as the rationale? Or, is this post just a general essay explaining why anyone outside of CS might also consider founding a new effective charity, if they are also well suited to found such a charity?
This is a decent post, but I don’t know what conclusion to draw from it. Is this post an announcement of Charity Science’s (CS) intention to explore the option of direct charity entrepreneurship? Are some CS staff or board members already intending to found new charities, and this post serves as the rationale? Or, is this post just a general essay explaining why anyone outside of CS might also consider founding a new effective charity, if they are also well suited to found such a charity?
I think this is somewhat covered here:
To answer your questions:
No, Charity Science will continue with it’s usual activities.
This post is a combination of these two things.