[This is the fourth post in a brief series explaining the current GiveWell top charities. You can get all the information in this post on GiveWell’s website, but my blog post is both shorter and less boring. In order to reward you for reading a whole blog post about a charity you already know about, I have included at the end the Most Interesting AMF Fact.]
The Against Malaria Foundation is one of the most iconic effective altruist charities. “Bednets”, to many people, are synonymous with “effective altruism.” With one year’s exception, AMF has consistently been a GiveWell top charity since 2009– not long after the term “effective altruism” was coined.
The Against Malaria Foundation provides long-lasting insecticide-treated bednets to partner organizations, which distribute the nets. Randomized controlled trials of insecticide-treated bednets find that insecticide-treated bednet distribution has the following benefits:
- Reduces the rate of malaria and severe malaria episodes.
- Reduces the rate of common complications of malaria, such as anemia, enlarged spleen, low birthweight, and placental malaria.
- Improves the nutritional status of children.
- Averts 5.53 deaths among children under 5 per 1000 children under 5 protected.
- Prevents miscarriages.
The last bullet point is not included in GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness analysis. Preliminary results from a friend of mine suggest that it costs about a thousand dollars to prevent a fetal loss by donating to the Against Malaria Foundation.
it is believed that bednet distributions also reduce mortality among people over the age of five, mostly because it would be really weird if they didn’t. However, no RCTs have addressed this question.
It is believed based on studies of previous malaria eradication programs that reducing the prevalence of malaria in a country increases the income of people in that country, which means that people are less likely to go hungry, can get medical treatment when they’re sick, can buy televisions, and so on.
The studies were conducted of insecticide-treated bednet distribution programs, not of bednets specifically. Some people were in the treatment group of the study but didn’t put up bednets, and they were still counted as part of the statistics. That makes us think the research is more likely to apply to a program like AMF. However, it’s often much easier to have a really, really good bednet distribution program in a small study than it is to have a really, really good bednet distribution program that gives millions of people bednets. If fewer people use AMF’s bednets than used the bednets in the study, the effects will be smaller.
The bednet usage rates that AMF finds in its surveys are comparable to the bednet usage rates in the small-scale studies, and AMF similarly works in places with high rates of malaria. In general, AMF is a well-run charity. However, to the best of my knowledge, no research has been conducted on the health effects of AMF’s program specifically. It is conceivable that AMF is making some error that we don’t understand and does not have effects as large as the effects found in large-scale surveys.
There is one fact that is very commonly believed about the Against Malaria Foundation. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that this fact is incorrect. For this reason, I will set the record straight.
AMF’s malaria nets are not usually used for fishing. AMF’s malaria nets are not usually used for fishing. AMF’s malaria nets are not usually used for fishing.
- AMF’s malaria nets are not usually used for fishing.
- AMF’s malaria nets are not usually used for fishing.
AMF’S MALARIA NETS ARE NOT USUALLY USED FOR FISHING.
Tell your friends and family. Shout it in the streetcorners. Educate your children about it. Tie it as symbols on your hands and bind it to your foreheads. Write it on the doorframes of your houses and on the gates. AMF’s malaria nets are generally not used for fishing.
How do we know this? AMF requires all its partner organizations to do followup surveys every six to nine months for two and a half years after the malaria nets are distributed. Outside of the Congo, after one year of use, about 80% to 90% of nets are properly hung. (In the Congo, nets decayed more quickly than expected.) Of course, over time, nets are more likely to break, so the usage rates two and a half years are lower– but that’s because they’re broken, not because they are used for fishing. The cost-effectiveness analyses for AMF incorporate the fact that not all nets are properly hung, and have done so long before anyone thought of the “what if malaria nets are used for fishing?” issue.
Of the ten to twenty percent of nets that are not hung up, many are not going to be used for fishing: they’re sold, or thrown out, or left in a corner because people can’t get it together to hang them up, or perhaps used for some other purpose. But it is possible some of them are, in fact, used for fishing. On this subject, Kelsey Piper writes for Vox:
What about harm to fisheries from people fishing with nets? Researchers have only recently started looking into this. No one has measured detrimental effects yet, though they could emerge later…
The insecticide in anti-malarial bednets also does not have negative effects on humans, because the dosages involved are so low. It’s unclear whether there are any harmful effects from fishing with nets. (And, it’s worth noting, there is one oft-forgotten positive effect from the use of bednets for fishing: People are fed.)
The insecticide-treated bednets issue shows the importance of the effective altruist approach to charities. AMF proactively checks whether the bednets are used as expected instead of assuming that they are. Therefore, if malaria nets were commonly used as fishing nets, we’d be able to find that out right away and account for it in our cost-effectiveness models. If we didn’t monitor bednet usage, it would be easy not to notice that. The “but AMF’s malaria nets are used for fishing!” argument– commonly deployed as a gotcha for effective altruists– actually shows why effective altruism is important.
AMF distributes nets for free. Some people object to distributing nets for free, because it puts local net salespeople out of business and it teaches people that they should get bednets for free. However, way more people will take a free bednet than a bednet that they have to pay even a little bit of money for, and GiveWell thinks that outweighs the effects on local net markets.
Neither fishing nor the fact that the nets are free is a real concern. However, there is a real concern about AMF: insecticide resistance. Insecticide resistance is very hard to quantify, but GiveWell’s best guess is that insecticide-treated bed nets are about a third less effective than they would be in the absence of resistance; this is still very very cost-effective. AMF is going to begin distributing nets that use a different chemical to which mosquitos have yet to develop resistance. GiveWell has not addressed the role of insecticide-treated bed nets in causing insecticide resistance.
Sometimes, AMF has talked to partner organizations about funding a distribution, but ultimately not done it. When they haven’t done so, another organization has usually stepped in to buy nets eventually, but it usually takes at least six months. In the intervening time, people aren’t covered. GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness model accounts for the fact that at least sometimes a different funder will buy the nets if AMF doesn’t.
It is very very unclear what the Against Malaria Foundation’s room for more funding is. However, AMF has a good track record for scaling up and productively spending large amounts of money, and it would cost hundreds of millions more than anyone is spending on malaria nets to buy everyone who needs a malaria net a malaria net. So probably they will be able to use any sum of money that we can expect people would give them.
In conclusion, as promised, here is the best AMF fact. AMF’s CEO does not take a salary; they receive other pro bono work from volunteers. GiveWell’s model of the costs of an AMF net distribution includes the amount the CEO and other volunteers would be paid if they were paid. AMF, however, has apparently requested that GiveWell include the following caveat:
Comment from AMF: AMF would like all donors reading this to know that the costs included for the CEO and pro bono services are not actually incurred. Each of them is very happy to provide their services for free.
Why might you donate to the Against Malaria Foundation?
- You care a lot about the deaths of children under five.
- You think the deaths of fetuses matter as much as the deaths of children under five.
- You want a program that is robustly good on a bunch of different axes: it makes people less sick and less likely to die and increases their income.
- You want a program that definitely works and has very few negative side effects, even if it might be less cost-effective than other programs.
- You grew up in a place with mosquitoes and have sworn eternal vengeance on the tiny blood-sucking monstrosities.
RFS-81 said:
What’s the basis of the bednets-for-fishing claim? I remember reading a news article about it somewhere (I forgot where), and being immensely frustrated that they didn’t bother with boring details like When? Where? How much?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fisher said:
Why would anyone think this was even plausible? Fishing nets and mosquito nets aren’t the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aapje said:
The CEO not taking a salary restricts this job to the independently wealthy, which may not be a good thing. Should be non-independently wealthy be excluded from jobs that have significant power?
One of the ways in which many were excluded from politics in the past was that the politicians did not get a salary. For some probably completely unrelated reason, these same politicians were mostly rentier nobility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ozymandias said:
The CEO is a single person who has never taken a salary (or, equivalently, has donated 100% of his salary to his organization). I assume if AMF hires a new CEO they might end up taking a salary.
(Unless your objection is to the practice of the CEO not accepting pay in general, and that he should accept pay regardless of his preferences to avoid creating pressure on other charities’ CEOs not to accept a salary.)
LikeLike
Aapje said:
If they get a new CEO, they are incentivized to again hire an independently wealthy person over a potentially more capable candidate. A culture where it is commonly accepted or even lauded to do this, strengthens class-based divisions. Note that research suggests that some or perhaps even a lot of negative outcomes that are often attributed to racism seem to actually be class-based (for example, analysis of why the famous resume discrimination studies didn’t replicate with different lists of white and black names strongly suggest that the original lists accidentally indicated a higher class for the white names and when correcting for this, the discrimination by gender disappeared).
Of course, black people more often being lower-class than white people, this probably also results in more hindrances for black people to achieve top positions.
Note that I’m also opposed to huge salaries, as it drives the classes apart, so I advocate more moderation in both directions.
Anyway, in my view the most ethical choice would be for the CEO to be chosen for his ability to run the charity well and given a salary that a non-independently wealthy person can reasonably live on. Then if the CEOs independent choice is to donate his salary, donating it to a different charity would greatly reduce conflicts of interest.
I also think that this CEO should have no more or less obligation to donate to charity than any other other person with equal relevant circumstances (income, wealth, expenses, etc).
LikeLike
Pingback: Rational Feed – deluks917
A1987dM said:
https://xkcd.com/2071/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rachael said:
Typo: this one isn’t the first either.
LikeLike
wfenza said:
I’m very disappointed that your discussion of free bednets outweighing negative effects on local markets included zero “net effect” puns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sophia Kovaleva said:
It seems to me that AMF is orthogonal to my eternal vengeance on the tiny blood-sucking monstrosities, because unlike DDT or infertile gene drives, it doesn’t actually exterminate them, and malaria isn’t my personal beef with them. Like, by the time I was born, malaria wasn’t the issue around me, but do very much take an issue with the fact that mosquito coils (or electrical equivalents thereof) were necessary at all times, and going into a forest would instantly result in having like one mosquito per square inch of skin not covered by clothes or repellent spray. It’s an unbelievable privilege to be able to go for a walk without it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
YellowSign8128 said:
Can anyone give me a more direct comparison of the relative merits of the AMF and the Malaria consortium, please?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Evan Þ said:
I would love to read that too. I’ve been donating to AMF for years; I’ve considered reevaluating now that Givewell is recommending another malaria charity too, but I’ve never gotten things together to actually run the numbers.
(Though, Ozy’s wonderful point about bednets also preventing miscarriages makes me more confident that AMF is the better place to donate after all.)
LikeLiked by 1 person