Hide table of contents

We are excited to announce the launch of Animal Advocacy Careers (AAC). Our mission is to address the career and talent bottlenecks in the effective animal advocacy (EAA) community. The EAA community is the overlap of the animal advocacy and effective altruism communities, focused on how we can most effectively help animals. AAC has been incubated through the Charity Entrepreneurship programme.

The problem

Among other bottlenecks, it seems likely that the impact of organisations in the EAA community is limited by a lack of expertise in particular areas and that the community’s expertise could be more efficiently allocated.

AAC’s survey and interviews with 10 CEO’s and hiring professionals from some of the “top” or “standout” charities currently or formerly recommended by Animal Charity Evaluators and a short survey of 9 attendees of Effective Altruism Global show that this perception is shared more widely in the EAA community. A lack of leadership and management expertise seems to be a common concern; this issue has also been highlighted in the wider effective altruism community.

There is a lack of high-quality research into these career and talent bottlenecks, making it difficult to assess the size of the problem and the extent of its impact on the community. Examples of the likely consequences of these existing bottlenecks include that:

  • Organisations may grow more slowly. High impact animal organisations often have roles open for a number of months while they look for candidates, leaving important work not done.
  • Organisations may make lower quality hires, leading to inefficiencies.
  • High-impact programmes may be deprioritised. For example, organisations may choose to focus on areas where they can identify promising candidates over high-priority areas like China and India.

Neglectedness

Animal Charity Evaluators estimated that the US farmed animal movement spends only 2.5% of its resources on capacity building. Capacity building also seems to be neglected in the EAA community more specifically; EAA organisations have so far engaged in fairly specific sorts of capacity building work, and wider EA organisations such as 80,000 Hours and the Centre for Effective Altruism do not prioritise EAA as much as some other cause areas.

Tractability

Current members of the EAA community seem optimistic about the implementation of training programmes targeted at specific talent bottlenecks. Initial research (forthcoming) by AAC also suggests that this sort of intervention may be effective. A meta-analysis found significant, medium effect sizes of training on behavioural outcomes in organisations. More broadly, 80,000 hours seems to have had success in addressing career and talent bottlenecks in the effective altruism community; similar interventions focusing specifically on the EAA community seem tractable.

However, there has been little research on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the context of the farmed animal and wild animal welfare movements, which are the main focuses of the EAA community.

Initial priorities

Existing research does not provide strong evidence of which interventions will be most cost-effective for addressing the talent and careers bottlenecks in the EAA community. Therefore, AAC’s initial priority is to better understand the costs and effects of various intervention types.

Between January and October 2020, we plan to test three different intervention types:

  1. Training programmes for the employees of organisations in the EAA community,
  2. Training programmes for individuals not currently employed by animal advocacy organisations, to support them to secure and excel in EAA roles, and
  3. The publication of resources that aggregate evidence and advice on how to enter and excel in roles in animal advocacy.

These interventions will be run on a small scale, with our priority being high-quality monitoring and impact evaluation. We will focus our initial tests on addressing the gaps in management and leadership expertise that organisations in the EAA community are currently facing. This seems to be one of the most urgent bottlenecks (see “The problem” above) and we hope that this narrow focus will improve the internal reliability of our findings. We will publish research and evaluation results in the hope that this might be able to support those seeking to implement similar interventions in other contexts.

Future plans

Depending on the results of these initial tests, later in 2020, we expect that we will switch our focus to one or more of the following:

  • Improving and scaling up any interventions that we expect to be cost-effective,
  • Evaluating the costs and effects of these interventions for addressing other talent bottlenecks in the EAA community, or
  • Evaluating the costs and effects of other intervention types for addressing gaps in management and leadership expertise.

Follow our work

You can stay up to date with the services that AAC plans to offer, as well as our research findings, by signing up to our newsletter.

Comments8


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hi Lauren, this is Niel from 80,000 Hours. We've already discussed this over email, but I'm excited that new organisations are being set up in this space. 80,000 Hours has limited resources and is not planning on increasing the amount we invest in improving our advice for animal advocates in the near term. I'm hopeful that Animal Advocacy Careers will be able to better serve the animal advocacy community than we can. Best of luck with the project!

This is such a nice welcoming! Great that 80K is supporting this project, it is very much needed in the animal space.

[anonymous]8
0
0

Hi Lauren, This sounds like important work. I was wondering if you have plans to expand your focus beyond explicitly EAA organizations. Mainly I have in mind government and policy roles but this may also include corporate roles involved in expanding plant based food options or organizations that deal with wildlife research and management but don't have an EEA mission. Thanks for your work on this and good luck!

Yep, some of these areas are on our radar, but the specifics of many of our programmes are yet to be decided.

I'm not sure if this applies to you, but if people have strong jnterest or expertise in topics and interventions related to animal advocacy careers but are not sure whether Animal Advocacy Careers will be working on this, I'd encourage them to email us directly, especially if you have considered working in this area yourself!

[anonymous]1
0
0

Sounds good, I'll email you.

I'm currently a Ph.D. student in philosophy (ethics). Is there anything I can do in my studies to prepare for this kind of career? Can this sort of work be done remotely or mostly in offices in major cities?

Hey Kyle, sorry for the delay.

It's great that you are considering this career and i hope we can support you more on this journey, part of the problem at the moment is we aren't confident in knowing how people should prepare for this career most effectively. This is why we are trialling a number of things this year to make better informed decisions in the future.

We should be offering some form of assistance to individuals later this year in regards to research and advise on what skills could be useful to develop or also training so i would advise you signed up for our newsletter and up to date with what we are doing in case you find it useful in future. In regards to remotely this is unknown at this point but we aim to be as accessible as possible.

Lauren, I'd like to echo Niel's sentiment here. Concerted efforts at cultivating EA-aligned talent (via training and launching projects) has always been something Rethink Charity has advocated for. Great to see you taking real strides in addressing this. Please reach out if RC and I can be of any help

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
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while
Max Taylor
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Many thanks to Constance Li, Rachel Mason, Ronen Bar, Sam Tucker-Davis, and Yip Fai Tse for providing valuable feedback. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. Artificial General Intelligence (basically, ‘AI that is as good as, or better than, humans at most intellectual tasks’) seems increasingly likely to be developed in the next 5-10 years. As others have written, this has major implications for EA priorities, including animal advocacy, but it’s hard to know how this should shape our strategy. This post sets out a few starting points and I’m really interested in hearing others’ ideas, even if they’re very uncertain and half-baked. Is AGI coming in the next 5-10 years? This is very well covered elsewhere but basically it looks increasingly likely, e.g.: * The Metaculus and Manifold forecasting platforms predict we’ll see AGI in 2030 and 2031, respectively. * The heads of Anthropic and OpenAI think we’ll see it by 2027 and 2035, respectively. * A 2024 survey of AI researchers put a 50% chance of AGI by 2047, but this is 13 years earlier than predicted in the 2023 version of the survey. * These predictions seem feasible given the explosive rate of change we’ve been seeing in computing power available to models, algorithmic efficiencies, and actual model performance (e.g., look at how far Large Language Models and AI image generators have come just in the last three years). * Based on this, organisations (both new ones, like Forethought, and existing ones, like 80,000 Hours) are taking the prospect of near-term AGI increasingly seriously. What could AGI mean for animals? AGI’s implications for animals depend heavily on who controls the AGI models. For example: * AGI might be controlled by a handful of AI companies and/or governments, either in alliance or in competition. * For example, maybe two government-owned companies separately develop AGI then restrict others from developing it. * These actors’ use of AGI might be dr