For some of the research prior to starting Charity Science Health, I recall looking at two HIV interventions and ending up not that impressed. We summarized some of the research onto this grid.
Antiretroviral therapy ended up noticeably less cost-effective than our other interventions. That might favor an interpretation for DAH spenders being wrong.
On the other hand, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV seemed pretty cost-effective, but the field was quite crowded already with a lot of pre-existing organizations working in the area and seeming to do quite well. This might favor a “both right” interpretation, if we assume that DAH funders has already used up all the room for more funding that Givewell / OpenPhil / EA would have used.
For some of the research prior to starting Charity Science Health, I recall looking at two HIV interventions and ending up not that impressed. We summarized some of the research onto this grid.
Antiretroviral therapy ended up noticeably less cost-effective than our other interventions. That might favor an interpretation for DAH spenders being wrong.
On the other hand, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV seemed pretty cost-effective, but the field was quite crowded already with a lot of pre-existing organizations working in the area and seeming to do quite well. This might favor a “both right” interpretation, if we assume that DAH funders has already used up all the room for more funding that Givewell / OpenPhil / EA would have used.