In my current field – biomedical research – there’s a tendency for the best researchers to be drawn towards important problem areas, but to then detour towards interesting problems instead of important ones when choosing a specific research topic. I think this is especially true for generalists, who often have a wider perspective on why the Really Cool problem is Really Cool. I’m guessing similar things happen in most fields. Does the Open Philanthropy Project try to combat this? As a Research Analyst, will the aim always be Important over Interesting?
We're certainly not using the same standards as academia! In general, we aim to base assignments on a combination of 1. How we judge what's most important to do (in terms of accomplishing as much good as possible) 2. What the employees themselves are motivated and interested to work on (including their own judgments of how to do as much good as possible).
In my current field – biomedical research – there’s a tendency for the best researchers to be drawn towards important problem areas, but to then detour towards interesting problems instead of important ones when choosing a specific research topic. I think this is especially true for generalists, who often have a wider perspective on why the Really Cool problem is Really Cool. I’m guessing similar things happen in most fields. Does the Open Philanthropy Project try to combat this? As a Research Analyst, will the aim always be Important over Interesting?
Thanks! :)