Abstract
See gdoc and comments;## here() starts at /Users/yosemite/githubs/reinstein_web/rmd_work
## [1] TRUE
## Registered S3 method overwritten by 'pryr':
## method from
## print.bytes Rcpp
EA principles, some key hubs
[Curated List of EA Orgs](https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/f6kg8T2Lp6rDqxWwG/list-of-ea-related-organisations"
Grants, fellowships, jobs
GPI/Forethought fellowship, [pre-doctoral](https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/GPI-Predoctoral-Research-Fellow-Economics.pdf
EA Funds grants, e.g,, for “Promising research into animal advocacy or animal well-being”
Agendas and research questions
We can now do better than this vague hope!
The founders of Effective Altruism took ideas from Philosophy, Economics, and other parts of academia to build a rigorous approach to ‘doing the most good in the world’, and to exploring and measuring this.
Miraculously, EA also has a passionate and influential group of supporters, and a substantial pool of funds for research, interventions, and advocacy!
Big opportunity for academic researchers to have impact, inspiration, funding
Partnering within academia, EA research audience
Grants
Helping students
Leave academia for greener (?) pastures at an EA-aligned org
EA and global priorities research offers a huge opportunity for academic researchers to have an positive impact (on the allocation of funds, and on the market of ideas).
There are opportunities for funding to support your research within academia, to promote the impact of your research (and gain valuable feedback), to help students find meaningful careers/research
…and/or you may want to leave academia work directly for an EA-aligned organization (like I did).
Doing the ‘most good’ given limited resources (some relationship to utilitarianism)…
but how do we define ‘the most good’?
Results of impromptu survey at LIS conference: What they think EA’s prioritize
.kable_styling <- hijack(kableExtra::kable_styling, full_width=FALSE)
.kable <- hijack(knitr::kable, format.args = list(big.mark = ",", scientific = FALSE))
lis_ea_priority_guess <- factor(c(
"Cause prioritization",
"Global Poverty",
"Cause prioritization",
"Climate Change",
"Global Poverty",
"Climate Change",
"Global Poverty",
"Global Poverty",
"Cause prioritization",
"Cause prioritization",
"Climate Change",
"Cause prioritization",
"Climate Change",
"Artificial Intelligence Risk",
"Climate Change",
"Global Poverty",
"Cause prioritization",
"Cause prioritization",
"Climate Change",
"Global Poverty",
"Cause prioritization",
"Cause prioritization",
"Cause prioritization",
"Global Poverty",
"Global Poverty",
"Global Poverty",
"Cause prioritization",
"Climate Change",
"Climate Change",
"Global Poverty",
"Global Poverty",
"Climate Change",
"Global Poverty",
"Global Poverty",
"Cause prioritization",
"Climate Change",
"Global Poverty",
"Global Poverty"
)
)
lis_ea_priority_guess <- tibble(
lis_ea_priority_guess = lis_ea_priority_guess
)
lis_ea_priority_guess %>% tabg(lis_ea_priority_guess) %>%
.kable(caption = "What LIS respondents *think* EAs prioritize most:" ) %>%
.kable_styling()
lis_ea_priority_guess | n | percent |
---|---|---|
Global Poverty | 15 | 0.39 |
Cause prioritization | 12 | 0.32 |
Climate Change | 10 | 0.26 |
Artificial Intelligence Risk | 1 | 0.03 |
(
priority_ordered_bar <- lik_priority_eas20 %>%
as.data.frame() %>%
select(-engagement_num) %>%
likert() %>%
plot(.,
type="bar") +
ggtitle(title)
)
… ‘Highly engaged’ (self-rated)
(
priority_ordered_bar_eng <- lik_priority_eas20 %>%
filter(engagement_num==5) %>%
select(-engagement_num) %>%
as.data.frame() %>%
likert() %>%
plot(type="bar") +
ggtitle(title)
)
How much effective altruism/global priorities research funding is there?
(
op_research_grants_tab <-
open_phil_grants %>%
filter(possible_research==TRUE) %>%
group_by(year) %>%
dplyr::summarise(total = format(sum(amount, na.rm = TRUE), big.mark=",", scientific=FALSE), grants = n()) %>%
arrange(-year) %>%
mutate(year=as.character(year)) %>%
.kable(caption = "Open Phil (likely) research funding by year") %>%
.kable_styling()
)
year | total | grants |
---|---|---|
2021 | 19,464,223 | 14 |
2020 | 77,681,029 | 76 |
2019 | 122,463,958 | 63 |
2018 | 38,589,084 | 52 |
2017 | 57,666,403 | 45 |
2016 | 22,386,936 | 27 |
2015 | 2,591,000 | 9 |
2014 | 1,437,720 | 3 |
2013 | 445,000 | 2 |
(
op_res_grants_tab_yr_area <-
open_phil_grants %>%
filter(possible_research==TRUE) %>%
dplyr::group_by(year, focus_area) %>% # drop_na(!!yvar, !!treatvar) %>%
summarise(total = sum(amount_usd_k, na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
spread(year, total, fill=0) %>%
arrange(-`2020`) %>%
.kable(caption = "OpenPhil (likely research) grants by year and area, in $1000 USD") %>%
.kable_styling()
)
## `summarise()` has grouped output by 'year'. You can override using the `.groups` argument.
focus_area | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scient. Res. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7,085 | 27,500 | 19,720 | 43,770 | 43,751 | 672 |
Biosec. | 0 | 0 | 300 | 1,943 | 7,747 | 8,704 | 1,625 | 12,792 | 1,000 |
AI risk | 0 | 0 | 1,186 | 6,333 | 10,798 | 3,128 | 61,288 | 10,891 | 15,450 |
Glob. Catastr. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3,070 | 3,758 | 0 | 1,703 | 4,586 | 1,500 |
Farm Animal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 820 | 2,022 | 4,580 | 3,296 | 3,261 | 841 |
Other | 0 | 0 | 10 | 500 | 1,550 | 47 | 1,050 | 806 | 0 |
Glob. Health/Dev. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,864 | 210 | 3,176 | 678 | 0 |
Macro-econ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 700 | 0 | 700 | 1,150 | 600 | 0 |
Immig. Pol. | 0 | 1,185 | 390 | 0 | 0 | 400 | 0 | 200 | 0 |
Crime/Justice | 445 | 0 | 180 | 1,636 | 1,427 | 1,101 | 5,066 | 115 | 0 |
Land Ref. | 0 | 0 | 275 | 300 | 0 | 0 | 340 | 0 | 0 |
US pol. | 0 | 253 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(
op_res_grants_line <-
open_phil_grants %>%
group_by(year, focus_area) %>%
mutate(total = sum(amount_usd_k, na.rm = TRUE)) %>%
ggplot() +
aes(x = year, y = amount_usd_k, colour = focus_area) +
geom_jitter(width = 0.5, height = 0.2, size=0.8) +
scale_colour_discrete(labels = function(x) str_wrap(x, width = 15)) +
geom_line(aes(x=year, y=total)) +
ylab("Grant amounts in $1k")
)
(
open_phil_grants %>%
filter(possible_research==TRUE) %>%
filter(year==2020) %>%
group_by(Focus.Area) %>%
summarise(total = format(sum(amount, na.rm = TRUE), big.mark=",", scientific=FALSE), grants = n()) %>%
dplyr::arrange(-grants) %>%
.kable(caption = "Open Phil (likely) research funding, 2020") %>%
.kable_styling()
)
Focus.Area | total | grants |
---|---|---|
Scientific Research | 43,750,718 | 33 |
Farm Animal Welfare | 3,261,351 | 13 |
Potential Risks from Advanced Artificial Intelligence | 10,891,345 | 8 |
Biosecurity and Pandemic Preparedness | 12,792,330 | 7 |
Global Health & Development | 678,358 | 5 |
Criminal Justice Reform | 115,000 | 3 |
Global Catastrophic Risks | 4,586,224 | 2 |
Macroeconomic Stabilization Policy | 600,000 | 2 |
Other areas | 805,703 | 2 |
Immigration Policy | 200,000 | 1 |
(
op_res_grants_tab_orgs_area <-
open_phil_grants %>%
filter(possible_research==TRUE) %>%
dplyr::group_by(Organization.Name) %>% # drop_na(!!yvar, !!treatvar) %>%
summarise(total = sum(amount_usd_k, na.rm = TRUE), `number of grants` = n()) %>%
arrange(-total) %>%
filter(total>5000) %>%
.kable(caption = "OpenPhil (likely research) grants by corganization and area, in $1000 USD") %>%
.kable_styling()
)
Organization.Name | total | number of grants |
---|---|---|
Georgetown University | 55,250 | 2 |
UC Berkeley | 29,552 | 18 |
Nuclear Threat Initiative | 20,439 | 6 |
Sherlock Biosciences | 17,500 | 1 |
Machine Intelligence Research Institute | 14,756 | 5 |
University of Washington (Institute for Protein Design) | 11,368 | 1 |
Stanford University | 8,294 | 1 |
Open Phil AI Fellowship | 6,760 | 4 |
Arizona State University | 6,421 | 1 |
University of Southern California | 6,238 | 3 |
Rutgers University | 5,982 | 2 |
MIT Synthetic Neurobiology Group | 5,970 | 2 |
Stanford University | 5,752 | 10 |
Telethon Kids Institute | 5,300 | 1 |
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research | 5,292 | 6 |
Harvard University | 5,068 | 3 |
knitr::include_url("https://www.longview.org/grantmaking", height = "800px")
Maybe 500 million USD per year in EA/adjacent donations (+ about 250 million from OpenPhil)
GiveWell moving ~$80M per year
Founders Pledge
Longview
Effective Giving
EA Funds
“Gates Foundation seems to do ~$100M-500M/yr of grants in global economic development that seem to have cost-effectiveness on par with GiveWell work”
It’s not all research funding, but some of it is, and it is all interested in prioritization/effectiveness research.
knitr::include_url("https://eaforum.issarice.com/posts/f6kg8T2Lp6rDqxWwG/list-of-ea-related-organisations", height = "700px")
lis_engage_priority <- factor(c(
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Effective charitable donations/Earning to give",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career",
"Pursuing a high-impact career"
),
levels = c("Pursuing a high-impact career", "Effective charitable donations/Earning to give", "Avoiding environmental damage through personal actions", "Political action")
)
lis_engage_priority <- tibble(
lis_engage_priority = lis_engage_priority
)
lis_engage_priority %>% tabg(lis_engage_priority) %>%
.kable(caption = "What LIS respondents *think* most 'effective altruists' engage... is most strongly advocated?:" ) %>%
.kable_styling()
lis_engage_priority | n | percent |
---|---|---|
Pursuing a high-impact career | 15 | 0.65 |
Effective charitable donations/Earning to give | 8 | 0.35 |
Avoiding environmental damage through personal actions | 0 | 0.00 |
Political action | 0 | 0.00 |
EAs are moving towards pursuing impact through their careers.
80k hours statements
Since 2015 “80,000 Hours thinks that only a small proportion of people should earn to give long term” (MacAskill)
There is also some support for politial influence, at least they say “the hour you spend voting is likely to be the most impactful one in your entire year on average… …influence over how hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars are spent.”
Why am I telling you my story?
Telling you my story because it might help you understand the strengths and limitations of academia and working at an EA org, and whether this aligns with your interests.
From my web CV …
Berkeley:
Limited audience…
‘How does this inform government policy?’, ‘How does it inform/relate to standard Economics (tractable mathematical) models of optimization?’, ‘Will this publish well’?
- ‘Does one donation come at the expense of another’?
Should an ‘efficient altruist’ purchase ‘fair trade’ products, bundling consumer choices with additional revenue to poor farmers/workers?
Considering ideas with a pre-EA policy audience.
‘Does one donation come at the expense of another’?
Things I care about: but did they line up with concepts in the discipline?I really cared about ideas and impact.
Essex, UK:
Experiments/trials and observational work on charitable and gift-giving: social influences, types of income/uncertainty
Applied microeconomic theory
‘Impact’ (ESRC grant, REF focus)
Building teaching/research/outreach resources, such as
innovationsinfundraising.org and ‘barriers to effective giving’
“Researching and writing for Economics students”
Positives: A fairly supportive environment, research freedom, many great colleagues, moderate teaching, targets ‘deep and rigorous theoretical work’, some of the smartest people
Limitations: academic politics and poor upper-management, countervailing rewards system, constant discussion of points/games (value drift), many/most students are dis-engaged
Standard publications as the only way to prove value; limits collaborative and nonstandard work
UK academia rewards either ‘REF-points publications’, box-ticking accreditations, or building favor with executive administration