Research

Table of Contents

Research Methodology
Research Findings

Research Methodology

Research Process

Each cause is subject to an initial shallow research round of one week of desktop research.
If the cause’s estimated cost-effectiveness is at least one magnitude greater than a GiveWell top charity, it passes to the intermediate research round of two weeks of desktop research and expert interviews.
Then, if the cause’s estimated cost-effectiveness is still at least one magnitude greater than a GiveWell top charity, it passes to the deep research round of three weeks of desktop research, expert interviews and commissioning of surveys and quantitative modelling.

Evaluative Framework

CEARCH attempts to identify a cause’s marginal expected value (MEV):

MEV = t * Σ(n = p * m * s * c)

where

t = tractability, or proportion of problem solved per additional unit of resources spent
p = probability of benefit/cost
m = moral weight of benefit/cost accrued per individual
s = scale in terms of number of individuals benefited/harmed at any one point in time
c = persistence of the benefits/costs

This can be viewed as an extension of the ITN framework, for this approach also takes into account the three ITN factors:

Importance: Factored in with p * m * s * c.
Tractability: Factored in with t.
Neglectedness: Factored in with (i) c, since the persistence of the benefits will depends on how long the problem would have lasted and harmed people sans intervention, and that in turn is a function of the extent to which the cause is neglected; and (ii) t, since tractability is a function of neglectedness to the extent that diminishing marginal returns apply.

However, the MEV framework has the additional following advantage:

Through c, it takes into account of not just the decline (i.e. non-persistence) of a problem from active intervention (i.e. the neglectedness issue), but also decline from secular trends (e.g. economic growth reducing disease burden through better sanitation, nutrition, and greater access to healthcare).

In implementing the MEV framework, especial effort is made to brainstorm for what benefits and costs there are – though, in my experience, the health effects tend to swamp the non-health effects.

For more details, refer to this comprehensive write-up on CEARCH’s evaluative framework (link).

Research Findings

No.	Cause	MEV in DALYs	Cost- Effectiveness Relative to GiveWell	Depth of Research
1a	Nuclear War (Abolishment)	248	0.4	Shallow
1b	Nuclear War (Arsenal Limitation)	3,341,695	5000	Shallow
2	Fungal Disease	1,104	2	Shallow
3	Asteroids	1,352	2	Shallow
4	Hypertension	190,927	300	Shallow
5	Access to Mental Health Drugs	28	0.04	Shallow
6	Tinnitus	450	0.7	Shallow
7	Diabetes Mellitus Type 2	634,277	1000	Shallow
8	Shigella	192	0.3	Shallow
9	Productivity	5,582	9	Shallow
10	Coronary Heart Disease	18,503	30	Shallow

Nuclear War (Abolishment)

Taking into account the expected benefits of denuclearization (i.e. fewer deaths and injuries from nuclear war), the expected costs (i.e. more deaths and injuries from conventional war due to weakened deterrence), and the tractability of lobbying for denuclearization, CEARCH finds that the marginal expected value of lobbying for denuclearization to be 248 DALYs per USD 100,000, which is around 40% as cost-effective as giving to a GiveWell top charity.