Wild animal suffering is vast, neglected, and morally urgent. I’m strongly in favour of building a field that can eventually deliver safe, scalable welfare improvements for free-living animals. I also recognise that this area is technically complex and requires foundational research. But after reading WAI’s latest annual report, I simply have to ask:
When does any of this work actually reduce wild animal suffering?
WAI themselves say that ‘it’s reasonable to ask whether this will all be worth it’ on p. 28 of their most recent annual report. What then follows is an illustrative case study regarding rabies vaccination, with figures they describe as ‘back of the envelope’ and ‘intentionally crude.’
After 4-5 years and several millions in funding, I can’t find evidence in this report of an intervention, policy change, or measurable welfare improvement driven by WAI’s research. What’s more concerning is that the report doesn’t spell out a concrete timeline or milestones for when their research is expected to translate into specific welfare interventions or policy changes. Beyond vague phrases like ‘interventions relatively soon’ and a five-year plan to build presence in ecology, there’s no clear indication of when wild animals might benefit.
In other cause areas, research-first orgs (Rethink Priorities, HLI, etc.) publish pathways to impact, or at least some projections for when research might translate into tangible change. Without something similar, donors and talent can’t tell whether WAI is progressing or stuck in perpetual research.
So here are the questions I’d like to see clear answers to:
When does WAI expect to produce its first real-world intervention or policy shift e.g. is there anything concrete expected this decade?
What conditions would trigger a move from foundational research to applied work?
What would indicate that the current strategy isn’t working and needs revision?
This isn’t a critique of WAI’s team—they seem genuinely thoughtful and mission-driven. It is a call for strategic clarity in a field with limited funding. I fully understand WAI’s explicit positioning as a research/field-building org; but I don’t think resources should continue to be deployed indefinitely without clearer checkpoints for when wild animals stand to benefit.
P.S. To shift gears for a moment: if it were up to me, I’d keep WAI primarily a research organisation; but I’d add a small, focused campaigning arm to push for welfare improvements informed by that research. That would give the field both the long-term, speculative impact and a credible path to near-term wins. Donors, policymakers, and talent all respond better when there’s something concrete to rally around. The annual report notes that ‘the historic neglectedness of this issue means that there are probably some relatively easy wins available.’ If WAI has identified even one or two of those over the past 4–5 years, why not move one forward and show proof of concept?
Wild Animal Initiative: When does research become impact?
Wild animal suffering is vast, neglected, and morally urgent. I’m strongly in favour of building a field that can eventually deliver safe, scalable welfare improvements for free-living animals. I also recognise that this area is technically complex and requires foundational research. But after reading WAI’s latest annual report, I simply have to ask:
When does any of this work actually reduce wild animal suffering?
WAI themselves say that ‘it’s reasonable to ask whether this will all be worth it’ on p. 28 of their most recent annual report. What then follows is an illustrative case study regarding rabies vaccination, with figures they describe as ‘back of the envelope’ and ‘intentionally crude.’
After 4-5 years and several millions in funding, I can’t find evidence in this report of an intervention, policy change, or measurable welfare improvement driven by WAI’s research. What’s more concerning is that the report doesn’t spell out a concrete timeline or milestones for when their research is expected to translate into specific welfare interventions or policy changes. Beyond vague phrases like ‘interventions relatively soon’ and a five-year plan to build presence in ecology, there’s no clear indication of when wild animals might benefit.
In other cause areas, research-first orgs (Rethink Priorities, HLI, etc.) publish pathways to impact, or at least some projections for when research might translate into tangible change. Without something similar, donors and talent can’t tell whether WAI is progressing or stuck in perpetual research.
So here are the questions I’d like to see clear answers to:
When does WAI expect to produce its first real-world intervention or policy shift e.g. is there anything concrete expected this decade?
What conditions would trigger a move from foundational research to applied work?
What would indicate that the current strategy isn’t working and needs revision?
This isn’t a critique of WAI’s team—they seem genuinely thoughtful and mission-driven. It is a call for strategic clarity in a field with limited funding. I fully understand WAI’s explicit positioning as a research/field-building org; but I don’t think resources should continue to be deployed indefinitely without clearer checkpoints for when wild animals stand to benefit.
P.S. To shift gears for a moment: if it were up to me, I’d keep WAI primarily a research organisation; but I’d add a small, focused campaigning arm to push for welfare improvements informed by that research. That would give the field both the long-term, speculative impact and a credible path to near-term wins. Donors, policymakers, and talent all respond better when there’s something concrete to rally around. The annual report notes that ‘the historic neglectedness of this issue means that there are probably some relatively easy wins available.’ If WAI has identified even one or two of those over the past 4–5 years, why not move one forward and show proof of concept?