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 "it's too complex" 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 / Charity Entrepreneurship, for example, estimates cost-effectiveness for advocacy ideas - these 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 charity's impact - nonetheless, they provide a transparent, good-faith estimate. (e.g.)
I didn't 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 I've read, in some fairly thematically AI ways - shorter paragraphs, punchier prose, bolded bullets, etc. I don't know if it is better or worse - it 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).
(commenting in a personal capacity, but note that I do work at Malaria Consortium)
Thanks for sharing Michelle! It's 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. It's fab that it gets so much GiveWell and EA support.
But I do think it's plausible that unrestricted funding is higher expected impact than SMC funding. I'm really uncertain about this. However, for donors looking for higher risk, "hits based" opportunities within global health and malaria, I think it's a great option - and also a relatively neglected and funding constrained option.
Some potential high impact work I would highlight, that unrestricted funding could support:
Working towards malaria elimination, rather than just control - thereby removing the need for future work (e.g., accelerating / supporting gene drive rollout)
Runway to continue vital, high impact programs in the event of funding disruption - like 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 / USAID have historically supported SMC)
Happy to discuss with anyone interested - I'll also be at EA Connect next month if anyone wants to chat malaria or about MC in an informal capacity!
I should definitely have clarified that this is only pulling from OpenPhil's 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 "Other" category. (In the main graphs I only have navigating AI, bio / pandemics, and science supporting bio as LTXR from OpenPhil)
Awesome; I'm really glad someone has done this properly! I'm going to add a signpost here to my post.
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 "the work is complex" or "data is difficult to collect" are kinda red flags to me, not because they are untrue, but because:
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.
I didn't 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 I've read, in some fairly thematically AI ways - shorter paragraphs, punchier prose, bolded bullets, etc. I don't know if it is better or worse - it 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, you're right - updated.
Thanks Andreas! I've edited the post to include an additional analysis using this info.
Thanks! I've edited the post to include an additional analysis using this data point.
Thanks Jason! I've 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! It's 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. It's fab that it gets so much GiveWell and EA support.
But I do think it's plausible that unrestricted funding is higher expected impact than SMC funding. I'm really uncertain about this. However, for donors looking for higher risk, "hits based" opportunities within global health and malaria, I think it's a great option - and also a relatively neglected and funding constrained option.
Some potential high impact work I would highlight, that unrestricted funding could support:
Happy to discuss with anyone interested - I'll also be at EA Connect next month if anyone wants to chat malaria or about MC in an informal capacity!
£350+giftaid, so £437.50 total (~$580)
I should definitely have clarified that this is only pulling from OpenPhil's 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 "Other" category. (In the main graphs I only have navigating AI, bio / pandemics, and science supporting bio as LTXR from OpenPhil)