The problem
Animal welfare funders—including Animal Charity Evaluators, Open Philanthropy, and others—must decide how to allocate resources across different approaches to reducing animal suffering. Corporate campaigns for cage-free commitments have clear, measurable impacts. Cultivated meat development is more speculative: potentially transformative if it achieves cost parity with conventional meat, but highly uncertain.
The core question is deceptively simple: What will cultivated meat cost to produce? If costs fall dramatically, CM could displace a substantial share of conventional meat production and spare billions of animals. If costs remain high, funding CM development may have been a poor use of limited animal welfare resources compared to proven interventions.
This is part of The Unjournal's Pivotal Questions initiative: working with impact-focused organizations to identify their highest-value research questions, connect them to evidence, and commission expert evaluations that can inform real decisions.
What sparked this workshop
We recently completed an evaluation of Rethink Priorities' forecasting work on cultured meat production. The evaluators noted that while the original forecasts (from 2022) were valuable, the field has evolved: new TEAs have been published, some claiming dramatically lower costs (e.g., Pasitka et al. 2024 at ~$6/lb), while others remain pessimistic.
We're now commissioning evaluations of key TEAs, including the optimistic Pasitka et al. paper and comparative analyses like the Goodwin 2024 scoping review. This workshop brings together TEA authors, evaluators, and funders to synthesize what the evidence tells us and what it means for funding decisions.
What we want to achieve
This workshop brings together TEA researchers, evaluators, and animal welfare stakeholders. We're organizing the discussion around four key questions:
1. What does the TEA evidence tell us?
Optimistic TEAs (Pasitka et al.) vs pessimistic ones (Humbird). What explains the differences? Which assumptions are most contested? What have we learned since the Rethink Priorities forecasts?
2. What will CM cost in 2031, 2036, 2051?
Elicit expert beliefs on CM_01 (average production cost per kg). Explore key uncertainties: media costs, hydrolysate adoption, bioreactor scale, food-grade vs pharmaceutical-grade inputs.
3. How does CM compare to proven interventions?
CM_10/11: Would $100K for CM development yield more animal welfare benefit than the same amount for The Humane League's corporate campaigns? What's the expected value calculation?
4. What should funders do now?
Given current evidence and uncertainty, how should animal welfare funders think about CM? What evidence would change the calculus? What research would have highest value of information?
How the workshop is structured
Note: This agenda is preliminary and subject to change based on participant availability and feedback.
The workshop is fully online, with approximately 2 hours of live sessions scheduled in segments so you can join only the parts you're interested in. We also support asynchronous participation—you can submit beliefs and comments before or after the live event.
Proposed structure:
- Stakeholder Context (~15 min): Why CM cost matters for animal welfare funding
- TEA Evidence Review (~30 min): Overview of TEA landscape, evaluator findings, key disagreements
- Cost Trajectory Discussion + Beliefs (~35 min): Expert discussion on CM_01 and subquestions, beliefs elicitation
- Animal Welfare ROI & Practitioner Panel (~30 min): CM_10/11, funder perspectives, open Q&A
We plan to record the workshop and make it publicly available by default, with an AI-queryable transcript. Participants can opt out of recording for specific segments if needed.
Pivotal Questions & Beliefs
We've developed specific, operationalized questions (codes CM_01–CM_20) designed so that experts can state their beliefs quantitatively—and so that answers can directly inform funding decisions. Key questions include:
- CM_01: Average production cost (per edible kg) of cultured chicken in 2031, 2036, 2051
- CM_03: Predict-experts aggregation of cost beliefs
- CM_10/11: Animal welfare benefit of CM funding vs corporate campaigns
- CM_12–20: Subquestions on hydrolysates, growth factors, media costs, bioreactor design
Several questions are live on our Metaculus forecasting page. See key questions and share your beliefs →