If this will make SENS research faster and more efficient, I'm all for it!

I've long had a preference for direct SENS research over the MPrize, though I wish them both success.

[Posted by: Michael G.R. at April 10, 2009 2:14 PM]

Interesting perspective. Its good to see that somebody thought generally the same way about this as I did.

I hope that they dont fall prey to the work on B instead of A thing too. I think thats a great part of the reason for CAR.

It seems the Immortality Institute might be headed down that, 'do for B in hopes of A' thing more than MF. We have a great supplements outreach, but maybe we should have that go the way of CAR like MF has done.

Im not sure about the bridge4life thing either but I feel the same way. If they can make it work then great, and we all have great confidence in them.

[Posted by: brokenportal at April 10, 2009 6:08 PM]

Your estimate as to the reasons for the change are quite correct. The needs of a research panel that has 7 different major strands that ultimately requires many years of 9 figure funding are quite distinct from a prize program that leverages funding at least 16:1. They are entirely different animals with differing needs and imperatives.

The Mprize grew from nothing to $1.5 million within just 2 years from 2003 to 2005. Since 2005, the prize corpus grew only by another 250k, while SENS, starting in 2005 grew by several million. It thus became very clear during this time in the light of the dramitically slowed growth of Mprize that both projects need distinct and dedicated fundraising efforts, and it was for this reason that the change was made.

As to deviation/diversion of purpose, events that transpire will make it clear that Mfoundation has zero intention of following the path of many organizations that deviate from effectiveness. Specifically, I and the other volunteers at both the Mfoundation and Sens.org have not spent the last 8 years of our lives of devoted effort and risking of our reputations just to squander those efforts into useless wheel spinning. Far from it. Methuselah Foundation will remain a "Type A" organization.

[Posted by: David Gobel at April 11, 2009 6:13 PM]

I forgot to comment on the rationale for My Bridge 4 Life. While many have been working to educate the public on the merits of healthy life extention, the vast majority of the donating public are still committed to Foundations that say they are pursuing cures for point diseases such as Cancer, Alzheimers, Heart Disease et al. In order for the mission to succeed as early as possible, it absolutely must appeal to and reach these mainstream donors so that they either increase their donations and include us in the mix (which is unlikely in the current financal climate) or, we must help them in two ways - give them useful life saving/extending benefits now that are mission aligned, and then leverage their involvement and appreciation such that they redirect all or part of their donor capacity to our mission. As one sage long time life extensionist put it - "WE'VE GOT TO STOP TRADING COCONUTS ON OUR LITTLE ISLAND"

The simple fact is that most people start donating due to a close brush with or direct experience with one of the point diseases of aging - we cannot ignore this fact - we must address what is and channel this donor energy to more productive ends. The theory behind MB4L is that if we attract and materially help those who have severe life threatening needs (and their friends and family) today using web 2.0 approaches then they will be vastly more inclined to go the rest of the intellectual distance and support the mission.

The leap to go from donating to the American Cancer Society or March of Dimes to donating to our mission is as high as the Cliffs of Dover - we must lower the intellectual hurdle for them while keeping faith with the actual mission. It is our hope and expectation that MB4L will do just that.

[Posted by: David Gobel at April 11, 2009 6:46 PM]