TL;DR

I am a microbiologist and faculty member aiming to contribute to pandemic preparedness in Africa. Despite rejections from several Effective Altruism opportunities, I am committed to transitioning into vaccine design, specifically focusing on phage-based vaccines. I secured a research visit position at the University of Waterloo but faced funding challenges, with rejections from Open Philanthropy and EA Funds. I seek advice on coping with feelings of inadequacy, understanding what projects funders find impactful, evaluating the potential impact of phage vaccine development, and identifying alternative funding sources for research visits.

I am currently grappling with feelings of inadequacy in my efforts to make a high impact. As a faculty member and microbiologist, I believe pandemic preparedness is critically important for Africa.

To contribute to this field, I applied to various Effective Altruism (EA) opportunities to enhance my understanding and refine my impact. Unfortunately, most of these opportunities did not consider me a "good fit," with the latest rejection being particularly discouraging.

After attending a Bluedot course on Pandemic Preparedness, I was inspired to transition into vaccine design and research. Specifically, I decided to focus on developing a phage-based vaccine to gain the necessary skills for vaccine development. I secured a research visit position at the University of Waterloo but needed funding to attend.

I applied for support through the Open Philanthropy career program and the EA Long-Term Future Fund, believing my goals aligned with their objectives. However, Open Philanthropy declined my application, and although EA Funds initially considered my request, they ultimately rejected it after I asked for a quick response.

I have several questions:

  1. How do you cope with the feeling of not meeting the high expectations associated with making a significant impact?

  2. What types of career activities or projects do these funders typically view as high-impact and worth supporting?

  3. Do you believe pursuing a career in phage vaccine development can truly make a significant impact?

  4. Are there any available funding sources for research visits like mine that you are aware of?

Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences.

25

0
0
7

Reactions

0
0
7
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

It can be really hard to internalize this but I thought it might be worth a quick reminder that your value as a person has nothing to do with how much impact you have. You are clearly an incredible person trying hard to live a good life and you deserve all the happiness in the world for it!

 

Regarding #1, I would remember that orgs giving assistance optimize for avoiding Type 1 rather than Type 2 errors. This means, because of their limited resources, that they are much more interested in making sure their deployment of resources do not go to bad recipients rather than making sure that every potential good recipient is supported by their program (which would be impossible anyway). So while acceptance into a competitive program might be indicative of merit, rejection from many programs might not indicate lack of merit.

I would also listen to Sophia Balderson's (founder of Impactful Animal Advocacy, now Hive) interview on the How I Learned to Love Shrimp podcast.

Basically, keep considering whether the path you are pursuing is the way to go, but rejection is not dispostive of the question as there are lots of rejections of worthy applicants.

[anonymous]2
0
0

On 2) I haven't heard of phage vaccines being particularly neglected compared the the rest of society and haven't heard of it being prioritized in EA spaces. One thing you could do though is get into policy and work with the Africa CDC on biosecurity and biosafety practices. If you really want to do lab work I think talking to the folks formerly at Alvea about potential vaccine directions might be helpful.

A post by the former Alvea folks, in case it helps you get in touch with them.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Science just released an article, with an accompanying technical report, about a neglected source of biological risk. From the abstract of the technical report: > This report describes the technical feasibility of creating mirror bacteria and the potentially serious and wide-ranging risks that they could pose to humans, other animals, plants, and the environment...  > > In a mirror bacterium, all of the chiral molecules of existing bacteria—proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites—are replaced by their mirror images. Mirror bacteria could not evolve from existing life, but their creation will become increasingly feasible as science advances. Interactions between organisms often depend on chirality, and so interactions between natural organisms and mirror bacteria would be profoundly different from those between natural organisms. Most importantly, immune defenses and predation typically rely on interactions between chiral molecules that could often fail to detect or kill mirror bacteria due to their reversed chirality. It therefore appears plausible, even likely, that sufficiently robust mirror bacteria could spread through the environment unchecked by natural biological controls and act as dangerous opportunistic pathogens in an unprecedentedly wide range of other multicellular organisms, including humans. > > This report draws on expertise from synthetic biology, immunology, ecology, and related fields to provide the first comprehensive assessment of the risks from mirror bacteria.  Open Philanthropy helped to support this work and is now supporting the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund (MBDF), along with the Sloan Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Patrick Collison. The Fund will coordinate scientific efforts to evaluate and address risks from mirror bacteria. It was deeply concerning to learn about this risk, but gratifying to see how seriously the scientific community is taking the issue. Given the potential infoha
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
THL UK protestors at the Royal Courts of Justice, Oct 2024. Credit: SammiVegan.  Four years of work has led to his moment. When we started this, we knew it would be big. A battle of David versus Goliath as we took the Government to court. But we also knew that it was the right thing to do, to fight for the millions of Frankenchickens that were suffering because of the way that they had been bred. And on Friday 13th December, we got the result we had been nervously waiting for. Represented by Advocates for Animals, four years ago we started the process to take the Government to court, arguing that fast-growing chicken breeds, known as Frankenchickens, are illegal under current animal welfare laws. After a loss, and an appeal, in October 2024 we entered the courts once more. And the judgment is now in on one of the most important legal cases for animals in history. The judges have ruled in favour on our main argument - that the law says that animals should not be kept in the UK if it means they will suffer because of how they have been bred. This is a huge moment for animals in the UK. A billion Frankenchickens are raised with suffering coded into their DNA each year. They are bred to grow too big, too fast, to make the most profit possible. In light of this ruling, we believe that farmers are breaking the law if they continue to keep these chickens. However, Defra, the Government department responsible for farming, has been let off the hook on a technicality. Because Defra has been silent on fast-growing breeds of chicken, the judges found they had no concrete policy that they could rule against. This means that our case has been dismissed and the judges have not ordered Defra to act. It is clear: by not addressing this major animal welfare crisis, Defra has failed billions of animals - and the farming community. This must change. While this ruling has failed to force the Government to act, it has confirmed our view that farmers are acting criminally by using