A cross-cutting key assumption behind WAI’s theory of change is that stakeholders, such as wildlife managers and conservation groups, will eventually implement interventions that help wild animals effectively. We are moderately convinced this assumption holds, because the path to implementation faces external hurdles that WAI has limited influence over.
The implementation facing external hurdles that WAI has limited influence over is an argument against the key assumption holding? This seemingly contrasts with the above.
In any case, even today, I think it is safe to say there are stakeholders supporting interventions which change (increase or decrease) the welfare of wild animals much more per $ than the interventions you recommend targeting farmed animals. I estimate funding the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research’s (CEARCH’s) High Impact Philanthropy Fund (HIPF), which supports public health interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs), changes the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes 101 k (= 70.6*10^3/0.701) times as cost-effectively as cage-free corporate campaigns for my preferred way of comparing welfare across species, where welfare per animal-year is proportional to “number of neurons”^0.5. I estimate funding HIPF changes welfare a lot per $ due to changing the living time of soil animals by 5.07 billion animal-years per $ due to increasing agricultural land (saving lives increases food production). However, I have little idea about whether funding HIPF increases or decreases welfare. I am very uncertain about whether it increases or decreases soil-animal-years, and whether soil animals have positive or negative lives.
I mostly worry about WAI’s apparent lack of focus on the most abundant animals. I got no results for “springtail”, “mite ”, and “nematode” on their grantees page. 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. I estimate the absolute value of the total welfare of soil springtails, mites, and nematodes is 5.56 M (= 6.95*10^15/(1.25*10^9)) times that of wild birds, 1.37 M (= 6.95*10^15/(5.08*10^9)) times that of wild mammals, and 2.57 k (= 6.95*10^15/(2.70*10^12)) times that of wild finfishes for my preferred way of comparing welfare across species.
I am sceptical that spending a significant fraction of funding targeting (optimising for increasing the welfare of) vertebrates is optimal for increasing the welfare of soil animals. I would target:
Shrimps instead of chickens to increase the welfare of shrimps.
Chickens instead of shrimps to increase the welfare of chickens.
Humans in low income countries (LICs) instead of humans in high income countries (HICs) to increase the welfare of humans in LICs.
Humans in HICs instead of humans in LICs to increase the welfare of humans in HICs.
Chickens instead of dogs to increase the welfare of chickens.
Dogs instead of chickens to increase the welfare of dogs.
AI systems instead of shrimps to increase the welfare of AI systems.
Shrimps instead of AI systems to increase the welfare of shrimps.
All this said, I feel like WAI is still the organisation you recommend I am the most enthusiastic about.
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 % (= 0.46/4.9) of the granted funds have supported projects on vertebrates, but there is nuance.
If you’re hoping for a precise breakdown, such as “X% to vertebrates, Y% to invertebrates,” our grants program history shows $4.9M allocated to vertebrates (including fish/rodents) 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). We’ve 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 don’t fully capture what we’re 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 won’t be posting more on this thread. We are always happy to reconnect down the line if there’s something meaningful to add.
Thanks for your comments and your interest in WAI’s work!
While we agree that an established field should focus on helping the most abundant animals, we also agree with WAI’s 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 WAI’s review, e.g., here: “Though not all grants funded have a very high scope, this aligns with WAI’s 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.”
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 WAI’s grantmaking criteria—such as Neglectedness, Scope, and Impact—are 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 WAI’s grantmaking to projects targeting invertebrates, in particular, soil springtails, mites, and nematodes, given you said “may be limited”? Have you investigated how much WAI has tried to get applicants to work on soil springtails, mites, and nematodes?
From your review of Wild Animal Initiative (WAI):
The implementation facing external hurdles that WAI has limited influence over is an argument against the key assumption holding? This seemingly contrasts with the above.
In any case, even today, I think it is safe to say there are stakeholders supporting interventions which change (increase or decrease) the welfare of wild animals much more per $ than the interventions you recommend targeting farmed animals. I estimate funding the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research’s (CEARCH’s) High Impact Philanthropy Fund (HIPF), which supports public health interventions in low and middle income countries (LMICs), changes the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes 101 k (= 70.6*10^3/0.701) times as cost-effectively as cage-free corporate campaigns for my preferred way of comparing welfare across species, where welfare per animal-year is proportional to “number of neurons”^0.5. I estimate funding HIPF changes welfare a lot per $ due to changing the living time of soil animals by 5.07 billion animal-years per $ due to increasing agricultural land (saving lives increases food production). However, I have little idea about whether funding HIPF increases or decreases welfare. I am very uncertain about whether it increases or decreases soil-animal-years, and whether soil animals have positive or negative lives.
I mostly worry about WAI’s apparent lack of focus on the most abundant animals. I got no results for “springtail”, “mite ”, and “nematode” on their grantees page. 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. I estimate the absolute value of the total welfare of soil springtails, mites, and nematodes is 5.56 M (= 6.95*10^15/(1.25*10^9)) times that of wild birds, 1.37 M (= 6.95*10^15/(5.08*10^9)) times that of wild mammals, and 2.57 k (= 6.95*10^15/(2.70*10^12)) times that of wild finfishes for my preferred way of comparing welfare across species.
I am sceptical that spending a significant fraction of funding targeting (optimising for increasing the welfare of) vertebrates is optimal for increasing the welfare of soil animals. I would target:
Shrimps instead of chickens to increase the welfare of shrimps.
Chickens instead of shrimps to increase the welfare of chickens.
Humans in low income countries (LICs) instead of humans in high income countries (HICs) to increase the welfare of humans in LICs.
Humans in HICs instead of humans in LICs to increase the welfare of humans in HICs.
Chickens instead of dogs to increase the welfare of chickens.
Dogs instead of chickens to increase the welfare of dogs.
AI systems instead of shrimps to increase the welfare of AI systems.
Shrimps instead of AI systems to increase the welfare of shrimps.
All this said, I feel like WAI is still the organisation you recommend I am the most enthusiastic about.
Below is very helpful context from @Casey Darnley. Historically, 9.39 % (= 0.46/4.9) of the granted funds have supported projects on vertebrates, but there is nuance.
Thanks for your comments and your interest in WAI’s work!
While we agree that an established field should focus on helping the most abundant animals, we also agree with WAI’s 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 WAI’s review, e.g., here: “Though not all grants funded have a very high scope, this aligns with WAI’s 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.”
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 WAI’s grantmaking criteria—such as Neglectedness, Scope, and Impact—are 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 WAI’s criteria.
It sounds like you are not confident about what is limiting WAI’s grantmaking to projects targeting invertebrates, in particular, soil springtails, mites, and nematodes, given you said “may be limited”? Have you investigated how much WAI has tried to get applicants to work on soil springtails, mites, and nematodes?