Big disclaimers: I have limited knowledge of the medical field. I do not and can not represent EA or its community. I strongly encourage anyone to reply if I said anything wrong, if for no reason than to usefully update the OP.
Hi OP,
I view your post and thoughtfulness really positively.
This answer takes an very positive/motivated view of you and focuses on the aspect of getting you funding and support:
Short summary
I think you want to apply for movement building through the EA infrastructure fund.
You want to speak to other senior EAs, especially if they are in the medical field (try to do this and get some friendly buy-in before applying to the fund mentioned above).
Your description sounds like you need and should apply for maybe $1,000-$5,000. Depending on the scale of your org and your apparent success, you can get more funding in the future.
Long answer:
I think there is a source of funding for you from the EA infrastructure fund.
To explain more about getting this and maybe other funding, I’ll start by writing a zoomed out, “low resolution” answer. This says that your chance of funding hinges on a “theory of change” sort of argument with two components:
1) Let’s say the medical group you are in moves to EA. So what? What is the value of bringing your medical group over? Do you actually influence policy, etc? Is there an EA group/intervention/cause area who needs and can benefit from medical knowledge? (The answer is almost certainly yes, for example, newish areas like mental health, lead exposure, air pollution needs strong experts.)
2) How will you use the funding to move the medical group to EA? Will you influence a team of senior docs and the medical profession in your region? Are you conscientious and have a baseline of ability? (You almost certainly do, but no one knows who you are yet.)
Here’s a more pragmatic, higher resolution, expansion of the above:
To answer 2) you want to present credentials/status (are you a senior resident or senior physician?). Talk about your work, both professionally and also in other movement building roles, especially highlighting a narrative of success (you are personally driving change, not just occupying volunteer positions). Another great way to establish 2) would be to mention other people, especially senior people in EA who are in the medical field that you know already and you work with.
To answer 1) you need to present a narrative of the value of the medical group (maybe with a little bit of background on the medical field as a whole and how it connects to policy/decision makers) and why this is valuable for EA. You can read forum posts on medical related topics, and get ideas from conversations with other EAs in the medical discipline.
Finally, the way things are playing out, I think EA funders will really like “field leading” people, e.g. the expert in air pollution, fetal alcohol, etc. (or least one of the experts). If you can give a sincere signal that you can merely just increase access to these people for EA, that’s probably a useful angle for you.
— A very useful pattern for you (even or especially if you literally don’t know any other EA right now) is to get a friendly conversation with an existing EA who is known in the community and is in the medical field. I hope someone will drop by this post and offer to chat, but if not, reach out with cold email/messaging, that’s OK.
— Another thing to keep in mind is that people often fund projects as an investment in the person, i.e., you personally. This angle could easily work, especially for lower amounts that seem to be implied. Funders may not be sure they can sway a major medical organization, but if they think there is some chance that you can be a leader, they may fund you.
— Finally, for the amounts you implied, especially if lower at $1000, there is a strong chance some other org or person (even one that doesn’t do grant making or is involved in infrastructure) might offer to cover this for you. People might see this as a very low amount and you might get this offer outright, after a warm conversation.
Again, anyone reading this, please correct me if I am wrong or misleading. (I wrote this super quickly by the way, so please respond if anything I said was wrong or unclear.)
Thank you so much for your kind, thoughtful and constructive response. It always feels good to be presumed motivated, positive and thoughtful as those are qualities I value.
In brief, applying for a grant may make sense at some point, but I should have been clearer in my original ask: I am hoping to get a sense of whether resource allocation to groups working on EA-adjacent cause areas, that are not “official EA” groups is currently a thing or not. This may be addressed in the links you shared, which I will check out; thank you.
Since not all organizations are EA or would be open to EA but many work on related causes areas, I could imagine it being impactful for a non-EA group to work on an EA-cause area, leveraging a different approach but with the same underlying goals.
For example, I imagine my climate & health impacts group would be very well positioned to advocate for animal welfare, though the major leverage points would not be around moral circle expansion / animal suffering concerns (though those are very legitimate, in my opinion). My group may be well suited to address the consequences the direct and indirect consequences of meat consumption as pertaining to human health. Direct by way of disease burden associated with consumption of meat; Indirect by way of contributions of factory farming and livestock production to air pollution & carbon-equivalent emissions and thereby to global warming, both of which, in turn, are associated with increased incidence and severity of several diseases and consequent decreases in QALY and DALYs. Notwithstanding mutually reinforcing feedback loops and threats to biodiversity, food security, poor pregnancy outcomes, increased risk of natural pandemics, increase risk of extreme climate-change related weather events, and increase risk of extreme climate change. <---Sorry, that last bit is a bit ranty and could be covered in much more detail.
I was mainly thinking along the lines of the slack groups that are made available for EA virtual groups and it may have been premature for me to throw in the word “funding” at this point.
Your “short summary” suggestions 1-3 are all useful and potentially very applicable, as are your closing 4 suggestions.
Your “pragmatic, high resolution expansion” is also great, though I’m trying to maintain a modicum of anonymity on this forum.
Again I could have been clearer in my original message I don’t think my group is likely to move over to EA, but might be able to work toward making progress on some shared goals.
REALLY appreciate your support! Thank you, Charles!
As someone whose day job involves some work at the intersection of climate change and public health, I’m curious to learn more about your work. Would you feel comfortable sharing a bit more about your / your group’s work and goals for the coming months and years?
Thanks again for kicking off a great question and discussion.
Thanks for your response. Glad to hear you’re working on this too.
I updated the original post to mention that for personal reasons, I am currently trying to maintain a modicum of anonymity, so for the moment, I want to remain somewhat vague about my organization and myself. That is hard, because I really appreciate and want to engage on a more personal level with many of the great people on this forum, but until I have a better sense of personal trajectory, it feels important.
Big disclaimers: I have limited knowledge of the medical field. I do not and can not represent EA or its community. I strongly encourage anyone to reply if I said anything wrong, if for no reason than to usefully update the OP.
Hi OP,
I view your post and thoughtfulness really positively.
This answer takes an very positive/motivated view of you and focuses on the aspect of getting you funding and support:
Short summary
I think you want to apply for movement building through the EA infrastructure fund.
You want to speak to other senior EAs, especially if they are in the medical field (try to do this and get some friendly buy-in before applying to the fund mentioned above).
Your description sounds like you need and should apply for maybe $1,000-$5,000. Depending on the scale of your org and your apparent success, you can get more funding in the future.
Long answer:
I think there is a source of funding for you from the EA infrastructure fund.
To explain more about getting this and maybe other funding, I’ll start by writing a zoomed out, “low resolution” answer. This says that your chance of funding hinges on a “theory of change” sort of argument with two components:
1) Let’s say the medical group you are in moves to EA. So what? What is the value of bringing your medical group over? Do you actually influence policy, etc? Is there an EA group/intervention/cause area who needs and can benefit from medical knowledge? (The answer is almost certainly yes, for example, newish areas like mental health, lead exposure, air pollution needs strong experts.)
2) How will you use the funding to move the medical group to EA? Will you influence a team of senior docs and the medical profession in your region? Are you conscientious and have a baseline of ability? (You almost certainly do, but no one knows who you are yet.)
Here’s a more pragmatic, higher resolution, expansion of the above:
To answer 2) you want to present credentials/status (are you a senior resident or senior physician?). Talk about your work, both professionally and also in other movement building roles, especially highlighting a narrative of success (you are personally driving change, not just occupying volunteer positions). Another great way to establish 2) would be to mention other people, especially senior people in EA who are in the medical field that you know already and you work with.
To answer 1) you need to present a narrative of the value of the medical group (maybe with a little bit of background on the medical field as a whole and how it connects to policy/decision makers) and why this is valuable for EA. You can read forum posts on medical related topics, and get ideas from conversations with other EAs in the medical discipline.
Finally, the way things are playing out, I think EA funders will really like “field leading” people, e.g. the expert in air pollution, fetal alcohol, etc. (or least one of the experts). If you can give a sincere signal that you can merely just increase access to these people for EA, that’s probably a useful angle for you.
Other thoughts:
— Reading the payout report for EA funds can help give a sense for what and why funding is given and I think you can find ways to fit in there.
— A very useful pattern for you (even or especially if you literally don’t know any other EA right now) is to get a friendly conversation with an existing EA who is known in the community and is in the medical field. I hope someone will drop by this post and offer to chat, but if not, reach out with cold email/messaging, that’s OK.
— Another thing to keep in mind is that people often fund projects as an investment in the person, i.e., you personally. This angle could easily work, especially for lower amounts that seem to be implied. Funders may not be sure they can sway a major medical organization, but if they think there is some chance that you can be a leader, they may fund you.
— Finally, for the amounts you implied, especially if lower at $1000, there is a strong chance some other org or person (even one that doesn’t do grant making or is involved in infrastructure) might offer to cover this for you. People might see this as a very low amount and you might get this offer outright, after a warm conversation.
Again, anyone reading this, please correct me if I am wrong or misleading. (I wrote this super quickly by the way, so please respond if anything I said was wrong or unclear.)
Thank you so much for your kind, thoughtful and constructive response. It always feels good to be presumed motivated, positive and thoughtful as those are qualities I value.
In brief, applying for a grant may make sense at some point, but I should have been clearer in my original ask: I am hoping to get a sense of whether resource allocation to groups working on EA-adjacent cause areas, that are not “official EA” groups is currently a thing or not. This may be addressed in the links you shared, which I will check out; thank you.
Since not all organizations are EA or would be open to EA but many work on related causes areas, I could imagine it being impactful for a non-EA group to work on an EA-cause area, leveraging a different approach but with the same underlying goals.
For example, I imagine my climate & health impacts group would be very well positioned to advocate for animal welfare, though the major leverage points would not be around moral circle expansion / animal suffering concerns (though those are very legitimate, in my opinion). My group may be well suited to address the consequences the direct and indirect consequences of meat consumption as pertaining to human health. Direct by way of disease burden associated with consumption of meat; Indirect by way of contributions of factory farming and livestock production to air pollution & carbon-equivalent emissions and thereby to global warming, both of which, in turn, are associated with increased incidence and severity of several diseases and consequent decreases in QALY and DALYs. Notwithstanding mutually reinforcing feedback loops and threats to biodiversity, food security, poor pregnancy outcomes, increased risk of natural pandemics, increase risk of extreme climate-change related weather events, and increase risk of extreme climate change. <---Sorry, that last bit is a bit ranty and could be covered in much more detail.
I was mainly thinking along the lines of the slack groups that are made available for EA virtual groups and it may have been premature for me to throw in the word “funding” at this point.
Your “short summary” suggestions 1-3 are all useful and potentially very applicable, as are your closing 4 suggestions.
Your “pragmatic, high resolution expansion” is also great, though I’m trying to maintain a modicum of anonymity on this forum.
Again I could have been clearer in my original message I don’t think my group is likely to move over to EA, but might be able to work toward making progress on some shared goals.
REALLY appreciate your support! Thank you, Charles!
Thank you for sharing this question, more better!
As someone whose day job involves some work at the intersection of climate change and public health, I’m curious to learn more about your work. Would you feel comfortable sharing a bit more about your / your group’s work and goals for the coming months and years?
Thanks again for kicking off a great question and discussion.
Hi Jared,
Thanks for your response. Glad to hear you’re working on this too.
I updated the original post to mention that for personal reasons, I am currently trying to maintain a modicum of anonymity, so for the moment, I want to remain somewhat vague about my organization and myself. That is hard, because I really appreciate and want to engage on a more personal level with many of the great people on this forum, but until I have a better sense of personal trajectory, it feels important.
Thank you for your encouraging comment.