Thank you for this candid and informative post. I agree that we need to allocate more resources to advocacy (but hopefully not at the expense of research!).
I also wanted to signal boost your advice to 501(c)(3)ās in your previous post on orphaned policies, in case itās relevant to anyone reading this thread:
Admittedly, most research work is funded by 501(c)(3) donations that cannot pay for more than a small amount of direct political advocacy. However, there are ways to word the conclusion of a research paper that provide clear guidance without crossing the line into inappropriate political work. True, you might not endorse a bill thatās currently being debated by Congress, and you certainly shouldnāt be endorsing political candidates, but you can still truthfully say that one type of policy has better consequences than another. The law clearly states that ānonpartisan analysis, study, or research may advocate a particular position or viewpoint so long as there is a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts to enable the public or an individual to form an independent opinion or conclusion.ā
Itās therefore not āpoliticalā to point out that banning A100 chip exports while permitting A800 chip exports is ineffective; thatās a technical conclusion that a neutral researcher can reasonably draw. Itās not āadvocacyā to express an opinion that the next generation of LLMs will most likely uplift the capabilities of bioweapon designers to a degree that poses risks that would be considered unacceptable in any other industry. You can have a firm opinion on an issue without being a politician; nothing about having a 501(c)(3) tax-status requires you to drown every opinion you offer in a sea of āmaybeā and ācouldā and āwarrants further research.ā The point of tax-exempt research is to come up with scientifically informed opinions that politicians can draw on to inform their work; if your organization is too timid to firmly express those opinions, then itās not upholding its part of the social contract.
The fact that c3ā²s can and do engage in bold advocacy increases the total amount of advocacy that private foundations and tax-sensitive donors can fund, even though their ability to fund c4ā²s is limited. So thereās no reason foundations couldnāt increase their effective allocation to advocacy if they wanted to.
Thank you for this candid and informative post. I agree that we need to allocate more resources to advocacy (but hopefully not at the expense of research!).
I also wanted to signal boost your advice to 501(c)(3)ās in your previous post on orphaned policies, in case itās relevant to anyone reading this thread:
The fact that c3ā²s can and do engage in bold advocacy increases the total amount of advocacy that private foundations and tax-sensitive donors can fund, even though their ability to fund c4ā²s is limited. So thereās no reason foundations couldnāt increase their effective allocation to advocacy if they wanted to.