helping chickens
Jacco Rubensšø
Karma: 260
I am normally a bit distrustful of any cause areas or charities that claim it is too difficult to quantify impact or calculate cost-effectiveness.
Phrases like āthe work is complexā or ādata is difficult to collectā are kinda red flags to me, not because they are untrue, but because:
they are also true of a huge number of charities and cause areas for which EAs are able to make estimates. (These estimates might be super uncertain, and have big error bars, but they are better than nothing).
And because, I suspect, the actual cost-effectiveness is often likely very low, even a highly uncertain CEA would point to that, and thus excuses like āitās too complexā are used to avoid having to confront that.
I am instantly more trustful of any charity or cause area that attempts to estimate their cost-effectiveness, especially if they have strong reasoning transparency and highlight their key uncertainties and suspected error bars.
AIM /ā Charity Entrepreneurship, for example, estimates cost-effectiveness for advocacy ideasāthese are extremely hard to do accurately and have massive uncertainties. They are also very much reliant on others and it is impossible to specifically isolate the charityās impactānonetheless, they provide a transparent, good-faith estimate. (e.g.)
I didnāt suspect while reading the post that it drafted heavily with AI.
On reflection, and having now seen this comment, the writing style does feel a bit different than your other writing that Iāve read, in some fairly thematically AI waysāshorter paragraphs, punchier prose, bolded bullets, etc. I donāt know if it is better or worseāit was very easy to scan and understand quickly, but I do wonder if some of your usual precision or nuance is missing. (Though this is probably more to do with being an early stage draft rather than being AI-assisted).
Thanks, youāre rightāupdated.
Thanks Andreas! Iāve edited the post to include an additional analysis using this info.
Thanks! Iāve edited the post to include an additional analysis using this data point.
Thanks Jason! Iāve edited the post to include an additional analysis using this data point.
(commenting in a personal capacity, but note that I do work at Malaria Consortium)
Thanks for sharing Michelle! Itās great to see more about what MC do outside SMC being discussed in an EA space.
SMC is a fantastic, highly cost effective and well evidenced intervention. Itās fab that it gets so much GiveWell and EA support.
But I do think itās plausible that unrestricted funding is higher expected impact than SMC funding. Iām really uncertain about this. However, for donors looking for higher risk, āhits basedā opportunities within global health and malaria, I think itās a great optionāand also a relatively neglected and funding constrained option.
Some potential high impact work I would highlight, that unrestricted funding could support:
Trying to find and scale the ānext SMCā
Piloting and analysing opportunities to layer additional interventions with existing SMC delivery infrastructure, such as oral rehydration for diarrhea (in partnership with AIM incubated Clear Solutions), therefore āmultiplyingā the cost-effectiveness of SMC
Working towards malaria elimination, rather than just controlāthereby removing the need for future work (e.g., accelerating /ā supporting gene drive rollout)
Runway to continue vital, high impact programs in the event of funding disruptionālike that caused by US funding disruption this year
Catalytic funding to explore new opportunities, like the potential cost-effectiveness of expanding SMC delivery to other geographies (e.g where PMI /ā USAID have historically supported SMC)
Happy to discuss with anyone interested - Iāll also be at EA Connect next month if anyone wants to chat malaria or about MC in an informal capacity!
Ā£350+giftaid, so Ā£437.50 total (~$580)
I should definitely have clarified that this is only pulling from OpenPhilās grants, so is missing SFF and EA Funds grants to LTXR.
The categorisations are not mine, they are how OpenPhil categorises their grants. I have also included some that I originally included in the āOtherā category. (In the main graphs I only have navigating AI, bio /ā pandemics, and science supporting bio as LTXR from OpenPhil)
Thanks Oli.
Is there anyone in the US that is willing to do a donation swap with me? I can make a donation to a UK-registered charity (or anything via GWWC) that you were planning to and you can make one to Respira on my behalf :)
It looks like Donation Swap has retired, sadly.
Edit: Jason and I have succesfully arranged a donation swap
In absolute terms, though, the drop is bigger from GH. Also OpenPhil are directing far less to GW.
I agree that its not worthwhile thinking much about the 2025 data
Yes there are more detailed breakdowns. Iāve done some super quick analysis in a new tab in the sheetāyou can take a look but broadly it looks like there is more money for AI, and about the same for other areas compared to the last ~5 years. I.e. AI funding is additional /ā at the expense of non-LTXR cause areas.
Thanks for the write-up! Great to learn more about how youāre progressing.
Is there a tax-efficient way to donate from the UK?
Thanks for the post!
In case you havenāt seen it (Iām sure you probably have!), AIM are looking to incubate a charity focussed on lobbying to secure scale-up funding for AP.
Do you have views on what you would want this new charity to look like? To ensure it is complementary to GFIās work and future plans?
Thanks Toby! And yes, I definitely agree it would be great if anyone can double check this :)
Awesome; Iām really glad someone has done this properly! Iām going to add a signpost here to my post.