CCDD is a research group at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health that works on modelling all aspects of infectious disease, from detection and prevalence estimation, to understanding how a disease spreads, to designing vaccine trials.
CCDD dedicates its efforts towards pandemic preparedness and biosecurity. Preparing for future pandemics, especially those that pose a risk to humanity's survival or long-term potential, is one of the best ways to create a better future.
CCDD takes a diverse range of approaches to the problem of enhancing pandemic preparedness and improving biosecurity. Among these are:
CCDD's director, Marc Lipsitch, is a key part of this work. He splits his time between directing CCDD and serving as the Senior Advisor for the CDC's Centre for Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics. Lipsitch is also a nuanced contributor to important debates, such as around which dual-use biomedical research (like gain-of-function research) is worthwhile.
The impact-focused evaluator Longview recommended that the Longtermism Fund provide a grant to help support CCDD’s work by partially funding the salary of a Director of Research and Administration. In addition to evaluating the case for this specific grant, Longview has conducted several reviews of CCDD’s work since 2020 and found this work to be a cost-effective way to improve biosecurity, prepare for pandemics, and thereby create a better future.
Please note that GWWC does not evaluate individual charities. Our recommendations are based on the research of third-party, impact-focused charity evaluators our research team has found to be particularly well-suited to help donors do the most good per dollar, according to their recent evaluator investigations. Our other supported programs are those that align with our charitable purpose — they are working on a high-impact problem and take a reasonably promising approach (based on publicly-available information).
At Giving What We Can, we focus on the effectiveness of an organisation's work -- what the organisation is actually doing and whether their programs are making a big difference. Some others in the charity recommendation space focus instead on the ratio of admin costs to program spending, part of what we’ve termed the “overhead myth.” See why overhead isn’t the full story and learn more about our approach to charity evaluation.