If you're hoping for a precise breakdown, such as "X% to vertebrates, Y% to invertebrates," our grants program history shows $4.9M allocated to vertebrates (including fish/rodents) and $0.46M allocated to invertebrates. That said, over the past two years, our support for invertebrate projects has nearly doubled compared to our first two years (1.85x). We've started seeing more strong proposals focused on invertebrates and fish, with researchers telling us they heard about us as a group keen on invertebrate welfare, which is a genuinely encouraging sign that our field-building efforts are working.
However, those numbers don't fully capture what we're actually trying to achieve. Many of our grants and internal research projects develop methods, data, and tools that serve wild animals broadly, rather than focusing on a single specific taxon. Many projects start with a particular species but have much broader applications as the science develops. Many of our grants are meta-projects (e.g., modeling frameworks or welfare measurement tools) with potential that extends beyond vertebrates alone.
Our goal is to establish a research ecosystem that benefits all wild animals, including invertebrates, while striking a balance between pushing new research areas and keeping people excited to contribute. Species-type tracking misses how resources multiply and ripple through the field.
We want to be mindful of how we spend our time, so unless there are significant updates or developments, we won't be posting more on this thread. We are always happy to reconnect down the line if there's something meaningful to add.
Thanks for the question, Vasco. I apologize for the delay in my response. I somehow missed this question when you first posted it.
It's a bit tough to answer because our research isn't just about generating findings for the specific animals we study- it's about building foundational knowledge and tools that can be applied much more broadly, across taxa. We're committed to ensuring that the field of wild animal welfare science meaningfully includes invertebrates because we believe the field won't progress adequately if their welfare isn't seriously considered.
Rather than thinking of a donation as being split between vertebrates and invertebrates, it might be more accurate to think of the "invertebrate impact" of a donation as reflecting your confidence that our field-building work will help ensure invertebrate welfare is taken seriously as the science advances.
Hi @Vasco Grilo🔸
If you're hoping for a precise breakdown, such as "X% to vertebrates, Y% to invertebrates," our grants program history shows $4.9M allocated to vertebrates (including fish/rodents) and $0.46M allocated to invertebrates. That said, over the past two years, our support for invertebrate projects has nearly doubled compared to our first two years (1.85x). We've started seeing more strong proposals focused on invertebrates and fish, with researchers telling us they heard about us as a group keen on invertebrate welfare, which is a genuinely encouraging sign that our field-building efforts are working.
However, those numbers don't fully capture what we're actually trying to achieve. Many of our grants and internal research projects develop methods, data, and tools that serve wild animals broadly, rather than focusing on a single specific taxon. Many projects start with a particular species but have much broader applications as the science develops. Many of our grants are meta-projects (e.g., modeling frameworks or welfare measurement tools) with potential that extends beyond vertebrates alone.
Our goal is to establish a research ecosystem that benefits all wild animals, including invertebrates, while striking a balance between pushing new research areas and keeping people excited to contribute. Species-type tracking misses how resources multiply and ripple through the field.
We want to be mindful of how we spend our time, so unless there are significant updates or developments, we won't be posting more on this thread. We are always happy to reconnect down the line if there's something meaningful to add.
Nice job, @Andres Jimenez Zorrilla 🔸! Just curious if you've seen an increase in donations after this video was posted?
Thanks for the question, Vasco. I apologize for the delay in my response. I somehow missed this question when you first posted it.
It's a bit tough to answer because our research isn't just about generating findings for the specific animals we study- it's about building foundational knowledge and tools that can be applied much more broadly, across taxa. We're committed to ensuring that the field of wild animal welfare science meaningfully includes invertebrates because we believe the field won't progress adequately if their welfare isn't seriously considered.
When someone donates $100 to WAI today, that gift is allocated to our general operating budget, not separate funds for invertebrate or vertebrate projects. Because we don't receive much restricted funding, every dollar supports the full range of WAW field-building activities, encompassing both vertebrates and invertebrates. Some of our research does directly focus on insects (Field tests of bee welfare, Measuring health and frailty in wild insects, Improving the welfare of wild and captive animals with integrated in-situ and ex-situ behavioural monitoring, Improving the welfare of farmland invertebrates), while other work, such as our general outreach and research, includes invertebrates as part of a broader focus. For example, Michael Beaulieu's recent research article on oxidative status included insects but was not focused exclusively on them.
Rather than thinking of a donation as being split between vertebrates and invertebrates, it might be more accurate to think of the "invertebrate impact" of a donation as reflecting your confidence that our field-building work will help ensure invertebrate welfare is taken seriously as the science advances.