Great question, Michael. Short answer: there are bound to be lots of valuable research projects after these three; so, we'd hold the funds until we found a lab that's willing and able to take on a sufficiently impactful project. One long-term goal is to support the many foundational research projects that need to be done on insect welfare. When we consider the sheer number of species (1M described; probably 5.5M in total) and the range of ways humans affect insects, it's clear that we need a wide set of validated welfare indicators to make judgments about how best to help these animals. 

Thanks for your question, Oscar. We have some applications outstanding but don't know how much funding they'll generate. In general, animal welfare funding is quite tight, with lots of worthy projects going unsupported. So, we're almost certain to have more opportunities than resources. And given how new the field of insect welfare science is, we anticipate this problem continuing, as there are bound to be many other high-value projects like these in the coming year(s).

OP funded several scientists working on insect sentience and welfare. Arthropoda Foundation was formed to centralize and assist in the funding situation for those scientists. However, we've not yet replaced all the funding from GVF. For more on our funding priorities, see our post for Marginal Funding Week.

I really appreciate your work, Richard, and over the last few years, I've loved the opportunity to work on some foundational problems myself. Increasingly, though, I'd like to see more philosophers ignore foundational issues and focus on what I think of as "translational philosophy." Is anyone going to give a new argument for utilitarianism that significantly changes the credences of key decision-makers (in whatever context)? No, probably not. But there are a million hard questions about how to make existing policies and decision-making tools more sensitive to the requirements of impartial beneficence. I think the model should be projects like Chimpanzee Rights vs., say, the kinds of things that are likely to be published in top philosophy journals.

I don't have the bandwidth to organize it myself right now, but I'd love there to be something like a "Society for Translational Philosophy" that brings like-minded philosophers together to work on more practical problems. There's a ton of volunteer labor in philosophy that could be marshaled toward good ends; instead, it's mostly frittered away on passion projects (which I say as someone who has frittered an enormous amount of time away on passion projects; my CV is chaos). A society like that could be a very high-leverage opportunity for a funder, as a small amount spent on infrastructure could produce a lot of value in terms of applicable research.

We wrote about that possibility here and here.

Thank you, Maya!

Really appreciate this, Aaron! Very good of you!

Thanks so much!

Thanks for asking, Nick! Although we tried to make it as accessible as possible, it's still pitched to academics first and foremost. For those who just want the big picture, this podcast episode is probably the best option right now. We're also working on an article-length overview, but it may be a few months before that's available. I'll share it here when it is!