Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research

CEARCH focuses on estimating an idea’s cost-effectiveness using quantitative modelling, as detailed in our evaluative framework (link). As part of our research process, we gather evidence through literature reviews, expert interviews, and beneficiary surveys.

We maintain a longlist of around 700 causes (link), have researched at depth perhaps 20 of them, and have identified 3 in particular as highly cost-effective (i.e. more cost-effective than GiveWell top charities, though also much riskier). Please refer to our cause evaluation results spreadsheet for more detail (link).

Global Health and Development: We recommend preventing non-communicable diseases via health policy as highly impactful; particularly promising ideas include: (1) preventing hypertension through salt reduction policy (report) and (2) combating diabetes via soda taxes (report). Our recommendation is based on a number of factors:

• High cost-effectiveness. These causes are highly cost-effective (exceeding even GiveWell top charities), due to (a) non-communicable diseases being a big and growing burden as countries get richer, and (b) policy offering both large scale of impact (since policy has national reach) and low cost per capita (since less impactful government spending is being leveraged).
• Strong scientific evidence that (a) salt/sugar are risk factors for hypertension/diabetes, and that (b) WHO-recommended interventions, such as reformulating food to reduce their salt content or taxing sugary drinks, do successfully reduce salt/sugar intake.
• Consensus recommendation of experts that these disease burdens are large and only growing, and that prevention is the best solution.
• Beneficiary surveys indicating that potential intangible downsides (e.g. reduced freedom of choice) are marginal relative to the health benefits.

Some of our research findings have since been validated by external grantmakers (e.g. GiveWell recently released a report that estimated salt reduction to be 5x the cost-effectiveness of current GiveWell top charities, and GiveWell also made a grant to Resolve to Save Lives, a charity CEARCH previously recommended).

Some top charities within this space, that we have evaluated and are recommending, include:

• ImagineLaw: A Philippines-based nonprofit working on health policy advocacy. We recommend their salt reduction work, given the high cost-effectiveness, and ImagineLaw’s strong track record of advocacy success.
• Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL): A US-based nonprofit operating globally, with a focus on epidemic prevention and cardiovascular health. We recommend their salt reduction work, given the high cost-effectiveness, and RTSL’s impeccable technical expertise.
• INSLA: A Ghana-based nonprofit that works to promote health, particularly via policy advocacy. We recommend their soda tax work, given the high cost-effectiveness, and strong government support for the project.
• HEALA: A South African nonprofit engaged in nutrition advocacy, with its campaign work particularly focused on soda taxes and front-of-pack labelling. We recommend their soda tax work, given the high cost-effectiveness, and the reasonably good chances of advocacy success.

Longtermism: We recommend food security policy to avert famine in the event of nuclear and volcanic winter as highly impactful (report).

• Importance: Nuclear war and large volcanic eruptions have the potential to block incoming sunlight, cooling the earth significantly. The ensuing agricultural shortfall could cause famine, placing millions or billions of lives at risk, especially in food importing countries. Critically, the scientific evidence for this being a real risk is relatively strong for a GCR cause area, unlike more speculative problems.
• Tractability: Our research suggests that a modest country-level advocacy campaign could shift the needle, nudging one or more influential countries towards agricultural resilience in disaster scenarios via fairly mundane policies (e.g. effective food distribution measures, continued trade, and adaptations to the agricultural sector).
• Neglectedness: Global food resilience remains highly neglected, with minimal current work on policy advocacy.
• Cost-effectiveness: Our estimates suggest that this cause is highly cost-effective, though uncertainty is high.

Some top charities within this space, that we have evaluated and are recommending, include:

• Global Shield: Advocacy organization focused on reducing global catastrophic risks in multiple domains through policy. We recommend their catastrophic famine policy work, on the basis of high cost-effectiveness, and Global Shield’s previous success at GCR policy advocacy.
• ALLFED: The leading organization in the area of global catastrophic food security. We recommend their catastrophic famine policy work, on the basis of high cost-effectiveness, and ALLFED’s technical expertise.
• ORCG: A Spanish-speaking global catastrophic risks organization with experience in Latin American policy engagement, particularly in Argentina. We recommend their catastrophic famine policy work, on the basis of high cost-effectiveness, and ORCG’s strong regional knowledge and connections.

Meta: We recommend effective giving in Asia as highly impactful (report). Our recommendation is based on a number of factors:

• High cost-effectiveness: We estimate a giving multiplier of 10x for initiatives that promote effective giving in high-income East Asian countries (i.e. Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan & South Korea), though uncertainty is high.
• The significant value of effective giving in Asia: New pledges generate more donations to highly effective charities, while also directing more talent to high-impact careers. Non-pledge benefits are also accrued, given donations from trial pledges, non-pledge public donations, money directed by advising institutional grantmakers in their giving, donations from company pledges, and the moving of non-pledger talent to high-impact careers.
• Moderate-to-good tractability: CEARCH is cautiously optimistic about the tractability of promoting effective giving in Asia, largely off the strength of Charity Box’s success in promoting the 1% pledge in China, the comparatively low budgetary costs, and the fact that marginal returns are probably near constant at the funding levels we are interested in.
• Talent being a limiting but not fatal factor: The EA community is fairly small in some of our target Asian countries, which will make it hard to recruit the right talent to run local effective giving organizations, though we should also not overstate the problem, insofar as there are existing effective giving initiatives in our target Asian countries.

Mental Health: CEARCH was commissioned by the Flourishing Minds Fund to research mental health as a cause area (report). Our key findings are that:

• Cost is generally the most important variable in assessing mental health interventions, and it can vary widely.
• Interpersonal group therapy is a promising way of improving mental health provision in poor countries, although the scale of the effect of psychotherapy is unclear. Technology may allow psychotherapy to be delivered more cheaply and at scale.
• Tackling risk factors can prevent mental illness. Policy advocacy could be a good lever for doing this.
• Suicide prevention appears to be highly neglected in poor countries.
• Mental illness will increase in relative importance over time, so we should place a premium on any work that increases our understanding of how to mitigate it.

We also have deeper dives on specific issues such as perinatal mental health (report) and suicide prevention (report).

EA Meta Funding Landscape: CEARCH was commissioned by the leadership of the Meta Charity Funders to research the EA meta funding landscape (report). Broadly, this report covers:

• The aggregate amount of EA meta funding from 2021-2023, and how that breaks down by cause, intervention, grantmaker and geography.
• Qualitative insights from CEARCH and other experts on optimal prioritization between meta vs direct, between different causes, and between intervention types; on the priorities of major grantmakers like Open Philanthropy and EA Funds, and concerns about their existing approach; and on key trends and uncertainties shaping the funding landscape.

GWWC Giving Multiplier: CEARCH estimates that that Giving What We Can’s (GWWC’s) marginal 2025 giving multiplier is around 10x – for every additional $1 they spend on promoting pledging, around $10 will be raised for GiveWell top charities. Uncertainty is high and caution in interpreting results is advised (report).