WAI has funded many projects on invertebrates, but my impression is that most of its spending targets vertebrates. I would find it helpful to know which fraction of their marginal funding supports projects on invertebrates.
Below is very helpful context from @Casey Darnley. Historically, 9.39 % (= 0.46/ā4.9) of the granted funds have supported projects on vertebrates, but there is nuance.
If youāre hoping for a precise breakdown, such as āX% to vertebrates, Y% to invertebrates,ā our grants program history shows $4.9M allocated to vertebrates (including fish/ārodents) and $0.46M allocated to invertebrates. That said, over the past two years, our support for invertebrate projects has nearly doubled compared to our first two years (1.85x). Weāve started seeing more strong proposals focused on invertebrates and fish, with researchers telling us they heard about us as a group keen on invertebrate welfare, which is a genuinely encouraging sign that our field-building efforts are working.
However, those numbers donāt fully capture what weāre actually trying to achieve. Many of our grants and internal research projects develop methods, data, and tools that serve wild animals broadly, rather than focusing on a single specific taxon. Many projects start with a particular species but have much broader applications as the science develops. Many of our grants are meta-projects (e.g., modeling frameworks or welfare measurement tools) with potential that extends beyond vertebrates alone.
Our goal is to establish a research ecosystem that benefits all wild animals, including invertebrates, while striking a balance between pushing new research areas and keeping people excited to contribute. Species-type tracking misses how resources multiply and ripple through the field.
We want to be mindful of how we spend our time, so unless there are significant updates or developments, we wonāt be posting more on this thread. We are always happy to reconnect down the line if thereās something meaningful to add.
Thanks for your comments and your interest in WAIās work!
While we agree that an established field should focus on helping the most abundant animals, we also agree with WAIās reasoning that while building the field, having a singular focus on optimizing for the number of animals would come at the expense of other strategic field-building goals.
We address this in WAIās review, e.g., here: āThough not all grants funded have a very high scope, this aligns with WAIās long-term strategy that balances maximizing immediate impact with building a diverse and engaged scientific field. This dual strategy is based on sound reasoning and endorsed by several experts we spoke to.ā
Thanks! To clarify, I agree WAI should be supporting projects which do not target soil sprintails, mites, and nematodes (the most abundant land animals). I just think WAI should have supported projects targeting invertebrates with more than 9.39 % of the granted funds, and supported ones targeting sprintails, mites, and nematodes with more than 0 % of the granted funds. What do you think is the strongest empirical evidence for these fractions being close to optimal besides expert views per se (the empirical evidence could still have been provided by experts)?
We think WAIās grantmaking criteriaāsuch as Neglectedness, Scope, and Impactāare explicitly designed to prioritize cost-effectiveness and maximize counterfactual impact for large numbers of animals. Beyond that, their distribution may be limited by the types of projects they receive suitable applications from.
Beyond that, their distribution may be limited by the types of projects they receive suitable applications from.
It sounds like you are not confident about what is limiting WAIās grantmaking to projects targeting invertebrates, in particular, soil springtails, mites, and nematodes, given you said āmay be limitedā? Have you investigated how much WAI has tried to get applicants to work on soil springtails, mites, and nematodes?
Below is very helpful context from @Casey Darnley. Historically, 9.39 % (= 0.46/ā4.9) of the granted funds have supported projects on vertebrates, but there is nuance.
Thanks for your comments and your interest in WAIās work!
While we agree that an established field should focus on helping the most abundant animals, we also agree with WAIās reasoning that while building the field, having a singular focus on optimizing for the number of animals would come at the expense of other strategic field-building goals.
We address this in WAIās review, e.g., here: āThough not all grants funded have a very high scope, this aligns with WAIās long-term strategy that balances maximizing immediate impact with building a diverse and engaged scientific field. This dual strategy is based on sound reasoning and endorsed by several experts we spoke to.ā
Thanks! To clarify, I agree WAI should be supporting projects which do not target soil sprintails, mites, and nematodes (the most abundant land animals). I just think WAI should have supported projects targeting invertebrates with more than 9.39 % of the granted funds, and supported ones targeting sprintails, mites, and nematodes with more than 0 % of the granted funds. What do you think is the strongest empirical evidence for these fractions being close to optimal besides expert views per se (the empirical evidence could still have been provided by experts)?
We think WAIās grantmaking criteriaāsuch as Neglectedness, Scope, and Impactāare explicitly designed to prioritize cost-effectiveness and maximize counterfactual impact for large numbers of animals. Beyond that, their distribution may be limited by the types of projects they receive suitable applications from.
I definitely like WAIās criteria.
It sounds like you are not confident about what is limiting WAIās grantmaking to projects targeting invertebrates, in particular, soil springtails, mites, and nematodes, given you said āmay be limitedā? Have you investigated how much WAI has tried to get applicants to work on soil springtails, mites, and nematodes?