Let’s make nice things with biology. Working on nucleic acid synthesis screening at IBBIS. Also into dual-use risk assessment, synthetic biology, lab automation, event production, donating to global health. From Toronto, lived in Paris and Santiago, currently in the SF Bay. Website: tessa.fyi
Tessa A 🔸
Karma: 2,930
Related to some recent posts about linguistic inclusion ― allow people to indicate on Swapcard if they’re open to having 1:1s in non-English languages?
A few I’d add:
CBW Events (daily reports from Bioweapons Convention meetings) → subscribe here
You might also find it useful to keep up with developments in biotechnology, for which I’d point you at:
SynBioBeta (I usually skim this one)
Decoding Bio (as of 2024, probably the best one)
There are a lot number of interesting public health and epidemiology newsletters as well; I don’t feel like I have an amazing recommendation here, though I’ve recently been skimming Force of Infection
Items 1 through 4 rhyme with the advice in the Learning By Writing post on Cold Takes, which I found quite inspiring (emphasis in the original):
[During this process I am] trying to “always have a hypothesis” and re-articulating it whenever it changes. By doing this, I try to continually focus my reading on the goal of forming a bottom-line view, rather than just “gathering information.” I think this makes my investigations more focused and directed, and the results easier to retain. I consider this approach to be probably the single biggest difference-maker between “reading a ton about lots of things, but retaining little” and “efficiently developing a set of views on key topics and retaining the reasoning behind them.”
For virtual contexts, you can also try turning on auto-captioning, which Zoom (https://blog.zoom.us/zoom-auto-generated-captions/) and Google Meet (https://support.google.com/meet/answer/9300310) support. It helps!
In terms of trivial inconveniences / perception and gratitude for the work people are doing to speak English, one other small note: there may be more native English speakers than you realize who have spent periods speaking another language?
In EA contexts, it’s pretty much always the case that the shared level of English between myself and my conversation partner is higher, since my Spanish is around a B2 level and my French around B1… but I have spent ~6 months each in countries that speak those languages and know it’s hard!
I’ve gotten feedback before when I’m speaking too quickly, and I’ve always been grateful for it. Do you have any other suggestions for how native English speakers can indicate willingness to receive feedback ― I sometimes worry about making people self-conscious by drawing attention to their (good but non-native) level of English, but maybe adding something in my EAG bio like “I know it can be exhausting to speak English all day if you’re not a native speaker, please tell me to slow down if I’m speaking too fast!” would be helpful?
I love the subject line suggestion, this seems really helpful! A few other suggestions (also based on my experiences as a native English speaker living in non-English-speaking countries):
Slow (especially with distinct gaps between words) makes more of a difference than simple, and is MUCH better than loud, which mostly distorts what you’re trying to say.
Be careful about mistaking accent for content; if you’re not careful, you might assume someone isn’t putting together fluent sentences when in fact they are just mispronouncing some words.
Speaking in your non-native language is very cognitively demanding, and if someone taps out of a discussion early, it might be because of that rather than because of a lack of interest or things to say.
Comprehension of a second (or third) language is much easier than speaking; don’t necessarily assume someone isn’t following the discussion because they speak hesitantly.
Thanks for this post!
I wanted to link a few previous discussions of this topic on the EA Forum, as I think the discussion there might also be relevant to this issue:
+1, thanks for designing this! Another thing that wasn’t entirely clear to me was whether questions like “Have you made professional decisions based on wanting to escape a particular group of coworkers or company culture?” and “Have you ever experienced any of these behaviors while at work, or from your coworkers, managers, or other individuals you knew in a professional setting?” were meant to refer to my current role, or my entire career.
Thanks for writing out a reaction very similar to my own. As I wrote in a comment on a different topic, “it seems to me that one of the core values of effective altruism is that of impartiality― giving equal moral weight to people who are distant from me in space and/or time.”
I agree that “all people count equally” is an imprecise way to express that value (and I would probably choose to frame in in the lens of “value” rather than “belief”) but I read this as an imprecise expression of a common value in the movement rather than a deep philosophical commitment to valuing all minds exactly the same.
This is not a comment on the cheapness point, but in case this feels relevant, private vehicles are not necessary to access this venue― from the Oxford rail station you can catch public buses that drop you off about a 2-minute walk from the venue. It’s a 20 minute bus ride, and the buses don’t come super often (every 60 minutes, I think?) but I just wanted to be clear that you can access this space via public transport.
I don’t plan to engage deeply with this post, but I wanted to leave a comment pushing back on the unsubtle currents of genetic determinism (“individuals from those families with sociological profiles amenable to movements like effective altruism, progressivism, or broad Western Civilisational values are being selected out of the gene pool”), homophobia (“cultures that accept gay people on average have lower birth rates and are ultimately outnumbered by neighboring homophobic cultures”, in a piece that is all about how low birth rates are a key problem of our time) , and ethnonationalism (“based in developed countries that will be badly hit by the results of these skewed demographics”) running through this piece.
I believe that genetics influence individual personality, but am very skeptical of claims of strong genetic determinism, especially on a societal level. Moreover, it seems to me that one of the core values of effective altruism is that of impartiality― giving equal moral weight to people who are distant from me in space and/or time. The kind of essentialist and elitist rhetoric common among people who concern themselves with demographic collapse seems in direct opposition to that value; if you think a key priority of our time is ensuring the right people have children, especially if your definition of “the right people” focuses on elite and wealthy people in Western countries, I doubt that we have compatible notions of what it means to do the most good.
Many pieces that criticize effective altruism quote this paragraph from Nick Beckstead’s2013 thesis:
To take another example, saving lives in poor countries may have significantly smaller ripple effects than saving and improving lives in rich countries. Why? Richer countries have substantially more innovation, and their workers are much more economically productive. By ordinary standards, at least by ordinary enlightened humanitarian standards, saving and improving lives in rich countries is about equally as important as saving and improving lives in poor countries, provided lives are improved by roughly comparable amounts. But it now seems more plausible to me that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country, other things being equal.
I would like our community to be unequivocal that all other things are not equal, and would distance myself from a community/movement that embraced an idea that lives in rich countries are more important than lives in poor countries. This seems, as I said, in direct opposition to the core values that attracted me to effective altruism.
- 's comment on CEA statement on Nick Bostrom’s email by (Jan 13, 2023, 4:25 PM; 71 points)
- 's comment on “Pronatalists” may look to co-opt effective altruism or longtermism by (Jan 4, 2023, 8:34 PM; 23 points)
- 's comment on “Pronatalists” may look to co-opt effective altruism or longtermism by (Dec 1, 2024, 3:23 AM; 0 points)
I definitely don’t think “sounds bad” (I really, really would like it to be easier for publishers to adopt dual-use screening best practices) but I do think “sounds partly duplicative of other work” (there are other groups looking into what publishers need / want, seems good to collaborate with them and use their prior work) and “should be done thoughtfully” (for example, should be done with someone who has a good appreciation for the fact that, right now, there does not exist a set of “dual use best practices” that an organization could simply adopt).
I’m going to gesture towards some related initiatives that might be of interest, from some folks who have already undertaken (at least some of the) “Let’s talk to the platforms, ask what they need, and give it to them” step:
The USA’s NSABB met in September with their main agenda items being on revisiting is currently working on revisiting its policies on managing and oversight of P3CO and DURC, so oversight frameworks are evolving (you can see some of the people involved based on the meeting agenda)
The Visibility Initiative for Responsible Science is shortly going to release a set of case studies on biological risk management across a large set of organizations (including iGEM, where I currently work) which should be helpful for identifying needs
The Partnership on AI had a workstream on Publication Norms for Responsible AI that involved a lot of stakeholder engagement / interviewing
One of the NTI BIRRI working groups is on Standards for Funders, Grantees, and Publishers to Identify and Mitigate Biological Risks
Anyway, I feel like one way in which this project could go wrong is viewing itself as trying to lock in a new standard, rather than running an experiment in biosecurity governance that is part of the project of Consensus-finding on risks and benefits of research.
A few other recommended attractions, from someone who lived in Oakland and Berkeley for a few years:
Indian Rock Park (Berkeley): an incredible sunset point, one of my all-time favourite parks, great for a rock scramble or a picnic or serious bouldering if you’re into that
The Pacific Pinball Museum (Alameda): If you like pinball at all you should go there. You pay entry and then their like 100 pinball machines are free to play.
The Exploratorium (SF): Highly interactive science museum. If you go on Thursday night, you won’t have to elbow children out of the way of the exhibits. The tactile dome is a very unusual experience
The Chapel of the Chimes (Oakland): Sombre and moving crematorium in Oakland. One of the most beautiful (in a sublime / sad way) places I’ve ever been.
Berkeley Path Wanderers Association Resources for self-guided walks
(ETA: some of these were already in the Bay Area Attractions spreadsheet you linked)
I came across this question today, and wanted to note that one can currently donate to the Center for Health Security though Every.org: https://www.every.org/centerforhealthsecurity, which also supports setting up fundraisers with many of the features you mention.
There is definitely a lot of further research on some of these specific ideas (I tried to link out to a few projects), but I don’t know of a ton of comparative research on them. It’s possible there are internal ITN estimates at some grantmaking orgs? And this graph from Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Risk is in the right direction (but doesn’t focus on neglectedness):
Additionally, I believe some organizations in the EA community (e.g. Open Philanthropy and Convergent Research) working on deeper strategic / comparative investigations of possible biorisk mitigation efforts.
Inside-view understanding of policymaking in major / emerging bioeconomies outside the US/Europe. I’m thinking BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) but also countries that will have huge economies/populations this century, like Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the DRC, countries with BSL-4 labs, and places with regulatory environments that allow broader biotechnology experimentation (e.g. Israel, Singapore).
I don’t know how much of her time Jennifer Doudna spends thinking about bioweapons, but I do think she spends a lot of time thinking about the ethical implications of CRISPR. If you read things like this NYT interview with her from last week she’s saying things like:
Interviewer: It’s also easy to imagine two different countries, let alone two different people, having competing ideas about what would constitute ethical gene editing. In an optimal world, would there be some sort of global body or institution to help govern and adjudicate these decisions? In an optimal world? This is clearly a fantasy.
OK, how about a suboptimal one? The short answer is: I don’t know. I could imagine that given the complexities of using genome editing in different settings, it’s possible that you might decide to use it differently in different parts of the world. Let’s say an area where a mosquito-borne disease is endemic, and it’s dangerous and high risk for the population. You might say the risk of using genome editing and the gene drive to control the mosquito population is worth it. Whereas doing it somewhere else where you don’t face the same public-health issue, you might say the risk isn’t worth it. So I don’t know. The other thing is, as you indicated with the way you asked the question, having any global regulation and enforcing it — hard to imagine how that would be achieved. It’s probably more realistic to have, as we currently do, scientific entities that are global that study these complex issues and make formal recommendations, work with government agencies in different countries to evaluate risks and benefits of technologies.
This doesn’t seem like a person who is just arguing “CRISPR should be everywhere, for everyone”. I also think she is not claiming to be an expert at making bioethical determinations of what technology should be deployed, and my sense from hearing her public speaking is that she is reluctantly taking on a mantle of going around and saying that we all need to have a very sober and open discussion about where and how CRISPR should be used, but that she doesn’t feel particularly qualified to make those determinations herself. The Innovative Genomics Institute, which she co-founded, has an entire research area dedicated to Public Impact, including initiatives like the Berkeley Ethics and Regulation Group for Innovative Technologies. You can argue that these actions are poorly targeted, but I don’t think it’s accurate to frame Doudna as a naively pro-technology actor.
You say “we can’t control drugs, guns, or even reckless driving”. I don’t think that’s entirely true. For example, the RAND meta-analysis What Science Tells Us About the Effects of Gun Policies shows moderate evidence that violence crime can be reduced by prohibitions associated with domestic violence, background checks, waiting periods, and stand-your-ground laws. Similarly, I believe that progress in car safety engineering has radically reduced the human suffering caused by reckless driving. I have heard biosecurity professionals use cars as an example of a technology that was deliberately and successfully engineered to be safer.
I also suspect the learning you describe (“anyone who has reached the level of expert in a field like genetic engineering has too large of a personal investment”) is too strong a conclusion to draw from your experience. People infer a lot about what it might be like to engage with someone from how they attempt dialogue; I don’t know what the content of your posts was, but posting similar content every day seems likely to cause observers to conclude that you have very strongly-held beliefs and are willing to violate social norms to attempt to spread those beliefs, which might lead them to decide that engaging in dialogue with you would be unpleasant or unproductive.
(I will note that I hesitated to write this reply because of the tone of your comment, but then didn’t want the only comment on a post targeted towards people interested in the field of biosecurity to be so despairing about its prospects; I personally believe there is a lot of useful work that can be done to reduce risks from pandemics.)
I would love to see other more targeted and ambitious efforts to influence others where the KPI isn’t the number of highly-engaged EAs created.
+1, EA is a philosophical movement as well as a professional and social community.
I agree with this post that it can be useful to spread the philosophical ideas to people who will never be a part of the professional and social community. My sense from talking to, for example, senior professionals who have been convinced to reallocate some of their work to EA-priority causes is that this can be extremely valuable. Or, I’ve heard some people say they value a highly-engaged EA far more than a semi-engaged person, but I think they are probably underweighting the value of mid-to-senior people who do not become full-blown community members but nevertheless are influenced put some of their substantial network and career capital towards important problems.
On a separate note, I perceive an extremely high overlap between the “professional” and “social” for the highly-engaged EA crowd. For example, my sense is that it’s fairly hard to get accepted to EA Global if your main EA activity is donating a large portion of your objectively-high-but-not-multimillionaire-level tech salary”, i.e. you must be a part of the professional community to get access to the social community. I think it would be good to [create more social spaces for EA non-dedicates](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/aYifx3zd5R5N8bQ6o/ea-dedicates).
One thing that sort of did this for me at EAGxBerlin, which I wonder if we could have some kind of infrastructure for, was hosting “unofficial office hours” where I put my name on a piece of paper and sat in a specific place for two hours, and talked with people who came past. (I was also able to tell people in Swapcard that we could talk during that time as well as or instead of in a 1:1.)
I could imagine unconference-y or “host your own conversation table” infrastructure for this as well (instead of or in addition to “unoffical office hours with X”).