Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 9:52 AM


  • The content of the piece, form factor aside, is solid and convincing. I'm curious as to why this isn't a bigger target for EA funders.
  • I like the mix of graphs and charts and tables; this piece deftly avoids becoming a wall of text.
  • I really wanted the table of contents to be linked to various sections, so that I could click to the areas I most wanted to read about.
  • The page looks much longer than it is, because nearly half of it is taken up by white space under the article. The same is true for the site's other writeup, "Why Fund Research?"
  • Some of the links seem to be broken (e.g. citation #2). I'm taken to another page on the same website telling me I'll be redirected, but I don't actually get redirected, and even clicking the link directly opens an un-viewable PDF on the same page rather than talking me to PLOS.
  • For any field of research with such enormous potential impact, I'm enthusiastic about new projects. But I'd have liked to see a section on how we reached this point. Why did it take so long for these problems to get public attention? Why is the field still under-funded? Why are journals not fighting among themselves over who can establish the toughest standards?
    • I'd guess that the answer to all of this is something like "incentives point at impressive results, not true results", but if that's the incentive, how important is doing more research relative to changing incentives?

Nice article

Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities