If you can share, what are some other projects or research that the survey team works on? If you can't give specifics, it would be useful to know broadly what they were related to.  I'm intrigued by the mystery!

Thanks for the clarifying question. I meant larger RP vs RP+ several RP clones (basically new EA research orgs that do cause/intervention/strategy prioritisation). 

The case of larger RP vs RP + several specialist organisations is also interesting though - slightly analogous to the scenario of 80K and Animal Advocacy Careers. I wonder in a hypothetical world where 80K was more focused on animal welfare, would/should they defer all animal interested people to AAC as they have greater domain expertise or should they advise some animal people themselves as they bring a slightly different lens to the issue? The relevant comparison might be RP and Wild Animal Initiative for example.

Any advice for researchers who want to conduct research similar to Rethink Priorities? or useful resources that you point your researchers towards when they join?

Interesting that you've got climate change in your global health and development work rather than with longtermism. What are the research plans for the climate change work at RP?

To what extent do you think a greater number of organisations conducting similar research to RP would be useful to promote healthy dialogue? Compared to having one specialist organisation in a field who is the go-to for certain questions. 

What are some key research directions/topics that are not currently being looked into enough by the EA movement (either at all or in sufficient depth)?

Out of curiosity, what are yours (John's) and Johannes' different views on the absolute climate risk and the main reasons behind these differences?

Thanks for this Johannes - nice to see the agility and thoughtfulness of the FP Climate Fund!

I've got a couple of questions about the tracking the impact of the EEIST report via media uptake:

1. Is the theory of this change for this grant along the lines: produce great research -> media publicity  -> greater public pressure for innovation policy -> policymakers implement innovation policy or more like great research -> media publicity -> policymakers read articles and are convinced -> better innovation policy? 
2. If doing this analysis in greater detail for the latter ToC, would you make some Fermi estimates on the likelihood of key policymakers to read these articles, % likelihood they would be convinced, etc? Or do you think this would be too speculative to be useful and the value of the media attention is evidently valuable yet challenging to quantify confidently?
3. What amount of media mentions (articles, etc) did you expect  before the grant or did you think would be a worthwhile return on your grant?
4. Roughly, what was the number of media mentions or people reached per £ or $ spent? Would be a useful benchmark for protests.
5. What is the analytics tool you use to track total people reached via the media mentions? Asking this out of personal interest again as this would be useful for Animal Rebellion / XR / my research.

I'm curious in general to any other thoughts you have about quantifying impact via media mentions as that is one of the main outputs of activist groups that I'll be researching. It assume it would be more straightforward in this case as there's no sentiment issues to deal with (I imagine?) in terms of negative coverage vs positive coverage hence no backfire effects to include.  The theory of change / path to impact still seems slightly opaque though so any thoughts on that would be helpful.

Also interesting: when I posted my tweet on the 10th (3 days ago) AMF had a listed funding gap of $74m and today (on the 13th) it's $54m! Either crazy coincidence that they got $20m in donations in three days or funding really is coming in that fast (semi-joking..)

I totally agree - I replied something very similar to Ben on Twitter. His reply seems to imply that AMF's DRC program (referenced in the GiveWell room for more funding spreadsheet) meets the bar for cost-effectiveness whereas programs in other countries don't therefore aren't included. I'm somewhat skeptical of this however as GiveWell don't mention anything about this in their review of AMF but really not sure at all. I would also love if someone from GiveWell or AMF could weigh in on this and clear this up!