Executive summary: Two independent evaluators (an economist/forecaster and a cellular-ag biologist) argue that Rethink Priorities’ 2022 cultured-meat forecast likely understated the technology’s medium-term potential due to framing and methodological choices (and reliance on conditional TEAs as if predictive), and that post-2022 developments suggest a more optimistic—though still uncertain—outlook; this is an evaluative cross-post rather than new primary research.
Key points:
Methodology/framing concerns: Small forecaster sample, no discussion/updates, geometric-mean aggregation, and a units error likely pulled estimates downward; results presentation hid substantial disagreement among forecasters, and TEA inputs were treated as predictions rather than conditional scenarios.
Scope mismatch: The 2022 work benchmarked mass-market ground-meat scenarios, overlooking realistic adoption via luxury or hybrid products where early profitability and scaling are more plausible.
Field progress since 2022: Multiple regulatory approvals, claimed sub-$20/kg costs (with COI caveats), >$3B total funding (public, VC, philanthropic), and a much larger researcher base mean key assumptions are now 5–7 years out of date, weakening the original pessimistic conclusions.
Implications for forecasts and funding: Even if near-term volumes remain modest, the chance of substantial 2050–2051 production may be materially higher than the reported ~9%; overly negative signals can deter investment and become self-fulfilling, while upside-weighted expected value can justify continued funding.
Uncertainties and cruxes: Timelines, consumer acceptance dynamics, scaling returns, and whether luxury-path learning curves translate to mass-market parity remain open; company-reported cost claims need independent verification.
Recommendations: Use larger, mixed-expertise panels with structured discussion and clear conditioning; diversify sources beyond early TEAs; define species/cell types and CM share in hybrid products; engage cell biology/bioprocess experts; avoid hard-to-interpret conditional probability questions and report visible disagreement with uncertainty ranges.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: Two independent evaluators (an economist/forecaster and a cellular-ag biologist) argue that Rethink Priorities’ 2022 cultured-meat forecast likely understated the technology’s medium-term potential due to framing and methodological choices (and reliance on conditional TEAs as if predictive), and that post-2022 developments suggest a more optimistic—though still uncertain—outlook; this is an evaluative cross-post rather than new primary research.
Key points:
Methodology/framing concerns: Small forecaster sample, no discussion/updates, geometric-mean aggregation, and a units error likely pulled estimates downward; results presentation hid substantial disagreement among forecasters, and TEA inputs were treated as predictions rather than conditional scenarios.
Scope mismatch: The 2022 work benchmarked mass-market ground-meat scenarios, overlooking realistic adoption via luxury or hybrid products where early profitability and scaling are more plausible.
Field progress since 2022: Multiple regulatory approvals, claimed sub-$20/kg costs (with COI caveats), >$3B total funding (public, VC, philanthropic), and a much larger researcher base mean key assumptions are now 5–7 years out of date, weakening the original pessimistic conclusions.
Implications for forecasts and funding: Even if near-term volumes remain modest, the chance of substantial 2050–2051 production may be materially higher than the reported ~9%; overly negative signals can deter investment and become self-fulfilling, while upside-weighted expected value can justify continued funding.
Uncertainties and cruxes: Timelines, consumer acceptance dynamics, scaling returns, and whether luxury-path learning curves translate to mass-market parity remain open; company-reported cost claims need independent verification.
Recommendations: Use larger, mixed-expertise panels with structured discussion and clear conditioning; diversify sources beyond early TEAs; define species/cell types and CM share in hybrid products; engage cell biology/bioprocess experts; avoid hard-to-interpret conditional probability questions and report visible disagreement with uncertainty ranges.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.