Hide table of contents

Introduction

As Chief Strategy Officer at Rethink Priorities, I am sometimes asked to share information with those interested in supporting or collaborating with us, or just wanting to learn more about us, so that they can understand the nature of our work, our motivations, and some of our past projects. This post intends to provide an accessible high-level overview, including some key uncertainties and considerations that help drive our approach, along with some select examples of our work, which overall may serve as a useful reference. 

Fundamentally, Rethink Priorities (RP) works to do good at scale, but we’re not committed to advancing any particular type of good or limited to a specific approach.

In this piece, we will briefly lay out some of the uncertainties people face when trying to do good, which are some of the motivating factors for our approach. Key uncertainties include (a) limited initial evidence, (b) challenges in measuring progress, and (c) difficulty determining the "right" goal in the first place. Next, we highlight several key considerations for our work,  including skepticism, transparency, collaborating with key decision-makers to offer practical guidance, and supporting the development of emerging fields. In doing all that, we will also highlight several examples of projects and some initial results:

  1. Our Worldview Investigations Team has developed frameworks (such as the Cross-Cause Effectiveness Model and the Moral Parliament Tool) to help donors align their giving with their values and better acknowledge the deep uncertainties involved in such decisions.
  2. Our Global Health and Development Department’s modeling and reviews (e.g., on lead exposure) have helped to redirect millions of dollars of grants to more cost-effective options.
  3. Our Moral Weight Project wrestled with the difficult question of how to compare welfare across different species—a task that is arguably as philosophically challenging as it is practically important.
  4. Our Animal Welfare Department has sought to understand the capacity for sentience among invertebrates, such as insects and shrimps, and promote their wellbeing. As these were nascent (sub)fields, we have had the opportunity to make meaningful contributions.

Note: This piece is trying to be an accessible overview, and as a result, it's not fully comprehensive. For instance, it largely does not cover all of our work, which spans a variety of additional areas and approaches, including surveys and data analysis, global catastrophic risks, and fiscally sponsoring promising initiatives.

On the uncertainties

One of the things that motivates me daily to work at RP is the sheer amount of uncertainty around the best way of doing good. RP exists to help address these uncertainties, but we don’t claim to have all the answers. There are still many, many unanswered questions: How much should we invest in solving a particular problem? Which approach should we adopt? How can we be sure we're actually making a positive difference?  

When your aim is making money, it’s relatively straightforward to check if you’re succeeding. Doing good isn’t like that. What might for-profit businesses look like if we didn’t know what it meant to make money and there were no direct metrics like the size of your bank account or share price? This scenario presents a rough approximation of the reality that we in the non-profit world face. It is extremely difficult to decide how to measure progress on goals like improving wellbeing, satisfying preferences, or ensuring justice. 

Even beyond the challenge of gathering evidence or assigning probabilities to claims of effectiveness, it’s difficult to know whether we’re pursuing the "right" goal in the first place—or whether we should focus on just one goal or many. 

All of this fundamental uncertainty is a double-edged sword: it is daunting that there are so many unknowns, and yet, it is highly motivating that there are so many important questions to investigate and so much work still to be done. At RP, we are constantly refining our approach. We are not married to particular approaches or methods. Put simply, our mission is to do good (ideally large amounts), but not some specific kind of good. 

Our approach applied: Some examples of impact

How RP embraces uncertainty

We’re skeptics, open to revising our methods as we learn more. Our focus is not just on deepening our own understanding, but on helping others to navigate their uncertainties. We aim to emulate GiveWell’s high levels of skepticism and transparency toward investigating global health and development interventions, and apply that gold standard across causes areas.

To this end, our Worldview Investigations Team developed free and publicly available tools that rigorously quantify the value of different courses of action, taking into account multiple decision theories. These cause prioritization tools help philanthropists to model uncertainty and better visualize how different assumptions, moral views, and decision-making procedures might affect their choices.    

Example 1: Aligning donors’ decisions with their values while accounting for moral uncertainty 

The Moral Parliament Tool models different worldviews by using delegates to represent a set of normative commitments, including first-order moral theories, values, and attitudes toward risk. It works by allowing users to:

  1. Input their confidence in various worldviews.
  2. Explore methods for reaching decisions about charitable giving. 

The tool models ways that you could consider resource allocation decisions in light of normative uncertainty. It shows the impact of different philosophies and decision-making approaches in philanthropy (see the below image for some reference).

Our team is now looking to further develop this tool and their Portfolio Builder tool for use with a broader set of donors. 

How RP works with decision-makers 

RP also provides value by turning high-quality research on important issues into practical guidance, which we work to share with key stakeholders. Our stakeholders include non-profit organizations, government agencies, policymakers, fellow research institutes, non-profit entrepreneurs, foundations, individual philanthropists, and other decision-makers. Wherever possible, we seek stakeholders’ input on our project planning, seek their feedback on research, and continue engagement with them beyond the publication of the work. 

Below we will highlight two examples: one from our work on global health and development and the other from our worldview investigations.

Example 2: Partnerships and outcomes of our global health and development work

Traditionally, foundations in the global health and development space fund projects based on preferences toward a particular region or type of intervention (they could be described as local optimizers). In contrast, we believe in allocating resources based on cost-effectiveness (which could be described as acting as global optimizers). GiveWell and Open Philanthropy are examples of funders who work as global optimizers. While most of our Global Health and Development Department’s work comes from commissioned projects from such funders, we also work with our networks to broaden the impact of this research and influence other actors.     

Recent outcomes from our partnership-building efforts include:

  • RP’s investigations into health risks from lead exposure influenced an $8M grant toward an intervention that the team believes is a highly cost-effective way to prevent and reduce the effects of lead exposure.
  • A member of our network shared our research findings with an individual philanthropist who subsequently redirected tens of millions of dollars in funding to a more impactful field.
  • We had the opportunity to present RP’s investigation into the value of research in influencing actors at different levels of cost-effectiveness at a private event. A major foundation that advises individual donors requested additional information, and shared that this presentation sparked internal discussions about their advising and a nine-figure grantmaking fund.
Read our full impact update from the Global Health and Development department

Example 3: Broadening moral circles

Decision-makers interested in animal welfare face difficult decisions when allocating their resources. Determining the degree to focus on different species entails making judgments about the overall quality of life that different species can experience (i.e. their capacity for welfare). Historically, animal welfare donors have had to rely on theoretical philosophical or scientific considerations or even their gut instincts, with limited practical guidance on how to approach cross-species grant decisions. 

To address this issue, we conducted a rigorous investigation that resulted in a model that foundations—or even governments—can directly apply when making decisions.

This Moral Weight Project culminated in a welfare range table and a series of influential research posts. Oxford University Press will also publish an upcoming book on the research edited by RP’s Bob Fischer. The Moral Weight Project’s findings have generated significant discussion shared in academic and non-profit circles. For example, Animal Charity Evaluators are now integrating elements of the work into their evaluation criteria. We are also in active conversations with stakeholders in governmental bodies in the US and in the Netherlands about how they can incorporate this model into their work. 

Read more about our moral weight work, our tools and surveys

How RP supports field building 

One of the ways in which RP creates impact is by helping to develop fields or subfields for causes that seem pressing, but have historically been overlooked. This work may entail: searching for niches where new research could lead to large-scale impact, conducting initial research, rallying partners, incubating or supporting new projects in a field, and building the talent pipeline by, for example, offering fellowships.

One example of this type of work is our early research on the sentience of invertebrate animals, which led us to advance the subfields of insect welfare and shrimp welfare

Example 4: Escalating the importance of shrimp welfare within the animal advocacy field

After investigating the evidence that some invertebrates may be sentient, our Animal Welfare Department identified a critical gap in knowledge regarding their welfare. We conducted extensive research to better understand the scale of the issue and found that, at the time of the research, shrimp production affected more individuals alive than insect farming, fish captures, or the farming of any other vertebrates for human consumption. The team also investigated the major welfare threats these animals face. Their findings continue to help bring much-needed clarity, enabling advocates and grantmakers to prioritize welfare issues and tackle the primary sources of suffering for farmed shrimps.

RP’s research opened up new impact pathways, influencing work on policy change, corporate commitments, and strategic shifts within the animal welfare community, alongside legitimizing shrimp welfare as an important concern. See the below graphic for more about how our shrimp welfare work helped contribute to impact in policy, legislation, non-profit entrepreneurship, and industry over time.

Read more about our shrimp welfare work, as well as our efforts to advance farmed animal welfare policy across the EU here.

Read more about our impact for animals

Reflections and looking forward

Through our diverse body of work in different areas, we seek to decrease the uncertainties that people face when trying to improve the world. Moreover, we work to catalyze action on outstanding opportunities by collaborating with decision-makers to help them be more effective and even develop new subfields. In this sense, Rethink Priorities is a think-and-do tank. 

Reflecting on our work, we think that many of our self-generated project ideas—some of which we financed using RP’s unrestricted funding —have been our most innovative or important work resulting in some of the greatest impact over the years. Key examples of self-funded work include invertebrate sentiencemoral weights and welfare rangesthe cross-cause model, and the Causes and Uncertainty: Rethinking Value in Expectation (CURVE) sequence. We have learned many lessons from this work, and remain open to ways in which we can improve. Overall, we believe that RP is currently in a position to keep exploring new avenues for impact as long as we have flexible support to seize opportunities.

We invite interested readers to learn more about RP via our research database and to stay updated on new work by subscribing to our newsletter. Also, please feel free to email us any of your questions or feedback! 

Acknowledgments

Rethink Priorities is a think-and-do tank dedicated to informing decisions made by high-impact organizations and funders across various cause areas. This post is authored by Kieran Greig. Thanks to Marcus A. Davis, Daniela Waldhorn, John Firth, and David Moss, Janique Behman, Hannah Tookey, Whitney Childs, and Henri Thunberg for having made significant contributions leading up to this text. Sherry Yang is to be credited for graphic design. Special thanks go to Rachel Norman for substantial editing. 

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Executive summary: Rethink Priorities aims to do good at scale by addressing key uncertainties in effective altruism through research, tools, and collaboration with decision-makers across various cause areas.

Key points:

  1. RP tackles uncertainties in doing good, including limited evidence, measurement challenges, and goal ambiguity.
  2. The organization develops frameworks and tools to help donors align giving with values and navigate moral uncertainty.
  3. RP's research has influenced millions in charitable giving and policy decisions in global health and development.
  4. The Moral Weight Project provides guidance on comparing welfare across species for animal advocacy.
  5. RP supports field-building in neglected areas, such as invertebrate welfare research.
  6. Self-generated projects using unrestricted funding have led to some of RP's most innovative and impactful work.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o