More from the researcher…

“If everything went perfectly, from this early stage research to clinical trials to broad deployment, we’d treat about 5% of the current causes of death (most but not all of the 7% chronic respiratory disease category, not pneumonia). It could theoretically be higher if there are e.g. positive effects on cardiovascular disease from healthy lungs, but those kinds of nebulous benefits are hard to predict.

To be clear though I'm sure you know, like all preclinical research it is many millions of dollars and very high chance of failure away from hitting that 5%.”

MRNA lung researcher replied:

“… my lead indication is not one of those 3 (Pneumonia, COPD, Asthma), but the further indications I'm testing with my approach does include one of those!”

So this may eventually lead to something to help with a like 2.5%-4.4% cause of death disease.

So I don’t know if it really passes a GiveWell All Grants cost effectiveness threshold at this point without more strong commitment to target something significant like Pneumonia.

I’m very skeptical 90% of these options are better than GiveWell All Grants & EA Animal Welfare Fund, but the following two seem like they could be significantly better:

Screwworm Elimination Advocacy

https://manifund.org/projects/anti-screwworm-gene-drive-advocacy
On a per animal basis screwworms are likely much much worse than factory farming as animals are essentially being tortured to death so it may have extra importance. Also elimination could mean a lot of counterfactual suffering averted at lower costs. And given agriculture/rancher interests align with animal welfare here it is more tractable.

MRNA For Lung Diseases

https://manifund.org/projects/mrna-for-pulmonary-fibrosis
The importance of this one is highly dependent on if this intervention could also help in causes of death (CopD/Asthma/Pneumonia/Other-Lung-Diseases 11% of deaths) more common than other neglected diseases like malaria 1.1% deaths, HIV 1.5% deaths, TB 2% deaths. And given lung diseases are also relatively more common in rich countries than other neglected diseases, it may be more tractable to get more funding once it has been pushed past a couple hurdles.

Here’s an even better write-up of this & similar ideas

https://michaelgris.com/posts/charity-tax/

Here’s an even better write-up of this & similar ideas

https://michaelgris.com/posts/charity-tax/

Here’s an even better write-up of this & similar ideas

https://michaelgris.com/posts/charity-tax/

See this piece for more on optimizing tax deductions with charitable giving

https://michaelgris.com/posts/charity-tax/ 

Thanks for writing this, I’ve been somewhat skeptical of arguments for patient philanthropy. But at the same time mildly patient philanthropy has lead me to some more easy/sustainable ways to donate over time.

As a US citizen, instead of donating $5000 every year I can donate $1000 every year & invest $4000 every year. Starting in 2026 we can do a tax write off up to $1000 per year in donations even if we take the standard deduction. Then every like 4-7 years when the $4000 per year investment fund reaches around $30,000 (or whatever 30% of my annual income is as that’s the max one can stock transfer donate), I can do a direct stock transfer to GiveWell/EA programs, avoid capital gains, & itemize my taxes so I can get a better $30,000 write off than what the standard deduction offers. All that can make for an extra like $4500 in tax write-offs on net.

In some senses I really couldn’t blame them for spreading out donations with that kind of windfall. I’d personally just donate the maximum amount per year that I could still write off on taxes which is 60% of annual money income or 30% equivalent income if doing direct stock transfers.

On the margin I’d expect more AI safety donations, from them. But any guess to how much the cost effectiveness may change for health & biosecurity areas? 

I’d initially think there is a lot of room to absorb more funding with…

-Malaria vaccines

-Near HIV vaccine

-Chronic diseases (https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death)

-Sentinel / biosecurity global disease monitoring system

-Advanced Market Commitments for various vaccines & tests (https://blog.jacobtrefethen.com/10-technologies-that-wont-exist-in-5-yrs/)

Also promotion of more free trade always got a much higher cost effectiveness score than even any health intervention in the Copenhagen Consensus estimates. Maybe with building negative sentiments around tariffs EA could start pushing for more trade agreements with lower income countries. (https://copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus)