1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 cialis canada

Feedback on future research - February 2013

Print
Email
   

This survey is designed to gather feedback on your preferences about GiveWell's future research.

Below, please select the option that most accurately reflects what your reaction would be to GiveWell's investigating and making recommendations in the listed areas.

The options, which are at the top of the table, correspond to the following statements:
1 = This area appeals to me as an area for GiveWell to do research and make recommendations.
2 = I don't have a strong view on this area; how much it appeals to me would depend primarily on the arguments GiveWell published.
3 = This area doesn't appeal to me, but it wouldn't bother me if GiveWell recommended projects in this category as long as its arguments were reasonably sound.
4 = This area strongly doesn't appeal to me, to the point where if GiveWell recommended projects in this category; I'd have a lower opinion of GiveWell and be less likely to consider its recommendations in general
5 = It would greatly bother me if GiveWell recommended projects in this category; I wouldn't take GiveWell seriously anymore in this case
NA = I don't understand enough about what this work would look like to register an opinion on it
Other = Other reaction (you may add comments at the end of the survey)

12345NAOther
Unrestricted funding for charities that directly distribute proven health interventions (e.g., insecticide-treated nets):
Restricted funding for large groups such as UNICEF, earmarked for directly distributing proven health interventions:
Funding research aiming to determine which direct-aid interventions are most cost-effective in terms of metrics such as "lives/DALYs saved per dollar spent" (for example, a potential replication of this study on the developmental effects of deworming):
Funding projects to build the health infrastructure of the developing world, with the caveat that the evidence for these projects would not be nearly as strong as the evidence base for current top charities' interventions, and GiveWell would be using a greater degree of intuition and judgment calls in determining what projects were likely to result in humanitarian benefits:
Funding research aiming to find new technologies for curing/treating/preventing cancers (same caveat as above):
Funding research aiming to find new technologies for curing/treating/preventing diseases that disproportionately affect the poorest of the poor in the developing world (same caveat):
Funding efforts to improve the value of academic research through e.g. data-sharing and preregistration (same caveat) (more):
Funding efforts to analyze, plan around, and avoid/mitigate "global catastrophic risks" such as climate change, bioterrorism, and asteroid impacts (same caveat):
Funding political advocacy to increase the U.S. budget for foreign aid funding proven health interventions (same caveat):
Funding political advocacy to increase the number of people who are allowed to immigrate to the U.S. (same caveat):
Funding political advocacy for changes we've identified as being supported by a broad consensus of people who are focused on humanitarian goals and well-informed about the relevant issues (same caveat):
12345
Updates on continuing progress of past recommended charities
In-depth investigations of possible concerns around top charities - for example, insecticide resistance and the strength of the case for developmental impacts of deworming
Investigating interventions that are unlikely to be as evidence-supported as current top charities' interventions, but may be reasonably strong (for example, water & sanitation interventions)
Searching for more charities that focus on evidence-backed interventions
Creating better, more thorough writeups on non-recommended charities and revisiting them more thoroughly and frequently
CAPTCHA
This question is just to make sure you're not an automated robot spamming us.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Clicky Web Analytics