Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by IshaDatar
2 min read 7

107

Animal welfareFarmed animal welfareAnimal product alternativesCultivated meatNew HarvestFunding request (open)Organization updatesAnimal Charity Evaluators
Frontpage

As New Harvest approaches 20 years since our founding, we are in a funding crisis. With five months of runway to survive and experts recommending companies extend runway by 18-24 months, we urgently need at least $2 million by July 31 to fulfill our budget for the year and make it through giving season while keeping impact high. 

I am no longer confident that New Harvest will raise our budgeted total for the year. We have $1,056,228 in the bank and will spend $201,209 every month if we stick to our budgeted expenses. Unless something changes, New Harvest will run out of money October 31, 2022. 

I am usually very optimistic, coming into this field a decade ago when cultured meat was barely more than science fiction. Optimism and a long game approach has pushed our work forward  and enabled New Harvest to literally build the field of cellular agriculture from scratch. But this recent economic downturn has forced our hand. The time has come to shift from a growth mindset to survival mode.

Over the next few weeks, I will have to make several challenging decisions about the future of New Harvest. Unfortunately, staff cuts are unavoidable in order to prioritize impact, supporting our research grantees, and extending our runway beyond October. 

I am hosting an open town hall during our upcoming conference on June 10th at 3:30pm EST to answer questions as best I can and discuss the future of New Harvest. If you can't attend in-person, you can tune in and participate via livestream by registering here. 
 

A bit about New Harvest: 

Like I said, we've literally build the field of cellular agriculture from scratch. New Harvest founded the first companies, funded the first PhDs, laid the groundwork for the National Institute for Cell Ag, and has had our work cited by the world's leading climate scientists in the latest IPCC report. Heck, we coined the term cellular agriculture. 

I am posting here because after sending out an emergency email yesterday, I received a flood of responses asking: What about OPP? Is New Harvest getting any EA funding? 

New Harvest's first supporters were EA and our founder, Jason Matheny, continues to be active in the EA world. Despite being recommended by Animal Charity Evaluators as a standout charity and our donor base swinging EA, we haven't seen enough support come through to really sustain us.

Here's how you can help: 

  • Every dollar counts to make it through Giving Season. You can donate here.
  • Attend our town hall on June 10 at 3:30pm EST (taking place on day two of our upcoming conference in Brooklyn). You can tune in and participate virtually by registering here. 
  • If you're interested in making a major gift, get in touch at stephanie.b@new-harvest.org.
  • Send intros and connections. Impact investors far outnumber those willing to philanthropically support an org building the root system and ecosystem that allow companies in the private sector to flourish. If you have suggestions for how to tap into the investment $$ sloshing around in alt protein, get in touch at isha@new-harvest.org.
  • We’re on the search for new funders and grant opportunities (ideally grants with quick turnaround that we can apply for with an agile and skeleton team).  If you have any leads, please let me know (again: isha@new-harvest.org)


I sincerely believe this will be just one short part of the much longer New Harvest story. New Harvest isn't going anywhere, but we have to make rapid and drastic changes to survive.  

107

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments7


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Nate Crosser43
0
0

I work in the alt protein industry and am a supporter of New Harvest (NH). I previously worked at their chief "competitor" the Good Food Institute (GFI). I donate to NH because they provide an essential counterpart and counterbalance to GFI. NH also seems more nimble and oftentimes more risk-tolerant or creative, though less operationally excellent and globalized. Their budget is routinely small compared to GFI and yet constantly find ways to add value to the industry. It is hard to imagine the cellular agriculture movement, or alt proteins, without NH. I would urge others in this community to support New Harvest. 

Reply
IshaDatar9
0
0

Thanks so much Nate. Couldn't have put it better myself! Really appreciate your support. 

Reply
Morgan10
0
0

Hi, sorry to hear this. Have you gotten in touch with the people at FTX? Their climate fund would probably make a grant (https://www.ftx-climate.com/) considering they support Good Food Institute and one of their values is competition/diversity of EA organizations in the same space.

Reply
IshaDatar7
0
0

Not yet! Would you be able to intro us to someone there? Happy to cold email, but an intro always helps speed things along. 

Reply
Morgan3
0
0

I don’t know anyone at FTX so if someone else reading this on the forum does, please reach out to Isha. That being said, I might be able to help with an intro for an intro :) Look out for an email from me

Reply
Emrik8
0
0

The funding paradox: The more we trust EA fund-managers to make good decisions, the less inclined we are to think anyone publicly asking for money is worth giving money to. After all, the wise fund-managers would have funded them already if they were good.

It's related to the Expert's Paradox: An expert who's able to discern other experts should (on first-order) be more inclined to update on their signals because they have justified confidence in their signals being good. But if experts start updating strongly on each others' signals, now suddenly the signals are worse quality due to information cascades and proportionally watering down the total influence technical evidence (as opposed to testimonial evidence) has on their collective beliefs. Hence the paradox: the more experts are inclined to trust each other (first-order), the less they should be inclined to trust each other (second-order). The more efficient the market is, the more people are going to update on how efficient it is, which leads to the market becoming less efficient.

Additionally, if fund-managers tend to update on each others' signals, it creates perverse incentives for charities to not ask for money. The best a charity can hope for in a world where everyone believes and updates on the efficient market hypothesis is that a fund-manager accidentally receives private information about their funding situation.

The point is that fund-managers should be very reluctant to update on each others' decisions. The harm caused by reinforcing perverse incentives and watering down the epistemic commons just isn't worth it.

Reply
JoyOptimizer0
0
0

What is your budget spent on? I want to help you be run more efficiently.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Animal welfare
23
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
3
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
13
The Humane League UK is hiring a Digital Fundraising Lead
Gavin Chappell-Bates
· · 1m read
0
0
View more