Add new comment

Hi Holden,
I am a big fan of Givewell’s work, but I also recognize that it is not optimal behaviour to focus solely on projects that have already been proven. I think the OPP is great because it allows you guys to consider a wider range of possible actions to find the most effective giving opportunities.
My worry about what I see in the current approach; with hits based giving and providing grants without any way of measuring the impact of the grant is that you maybe are losing the benefits of a scientific approach. If you are not learning by observing the results of your actions - either because the expected probability of success is so low that several failed or disappointing outcomes yield little statistically viable information, or simply because there is no way at all to measure the outcome at all, then you risk becoming ‘no better than the medieval doctors and their leaches’, to quote Esther Duflo.
I’m not arguing against all grants which will not be measurable or high risk. I think you’ve made some good points in the past about why it’s important to be opportunistic, especially when it comes to influencing policy, and cited cases where the right grant at the right time can have a huge impact. My point is simply that you may be undervaluing the cost of uncertainty and therefore focusing too much on these higher risk approaches.
For example, I would love to see a part of the OPP dedicated specifically to finding or founding interventions or charities which could be the next Givewell Top Charity.