Example data Longevity Research Neglectedness 7/10 · Overlooked (example)

Example: Healthspan Replication Fund

Re-runs promising aging studies to check whether results hold up.

Video placeholder Walkthrough of a replication study from request to report A short fictional tour of how a replication is commissioned and published.

The story

Founded by a former grant reviewer, the fund pays independent labs to repeat experiments that others have built on, and publishes the outcome whether it confirms the original or not.

Each replication is pre-registered, so the plan is public before any result exists.

The team

  • Priya Raman · Fund director
  • Elliot Brandt · Methods reviewer
  • Sunita Aziz · Lab liaison

Example team (fictional people, for illustration only).

Efficiency rating

B Source: Example data - not sourced, as of

89¢ of every $1 reaches the work
  • Reaches the work: 89¢
  • Overhead: 7¢
  • Advertising: 2¢
  • Executive pay: 2¢
Where each dollar goes Where each dollar goes: 89¢ reaches the work, 7¢ overhead, 2¢ advertising, 2¢ executive pay. 89¢ reaches the work
  • Reaches the work: 89¢
  • Overhead: 7¢
  • Advertising: 2¢
  • Executive pay: 2¢
Show data table
Where each dollar goes (Example data)
CategoryCents per $1
Reaches the work89
Overhead7
Advertising2
Executive pay2

How the work budget is spent (example data)

How the work budget is spent How the work budget is spent: 62% direct delivery, 18% materials, 12% volunteer support, 8% reporting.
Direct delivery
62%
Materials
18%
Volunteer support
12%
Reporting
8%
Funding goal
$250,000
Raised
$45,000
Location
Example Town

About this project

A fictional micro-fund that pays independent labs to replicate published longevity experiments, including null results. Placeholder text for layout and illustration only.

Impact / Why it matters

Checking that promising results hold up keeps hope in aging research from outrunning the evidence.

Many exciting findings in biology fail when a second lab tries them. Replication is slow, unglamorous work that traditional funders rarely pay for, so weak results can linger for years and steer later research in the wrong direction.

Paying independent labs to repeat promising experiments, and publishing the outcome either way, saves everyone time. A confirmed result earns real confidence, and a null result stops others from spending money on a dead end.

For donors, this is a way to support longevity science without betting on a single hoped-for breakthrough. The product is reliability.

Study replications delivered per quarter Study replications delivered per quarter: Q2 2025 13, Q3 2025 17, Q4 2025 21, Q1 2026 22, Q2 2026 26. 0 12.5 25 37.5 50 Q2 2025: 13 study replications Q2 2025 Q3 2025: 17 study replications Q3 2025 Q4 2025: 21 study replications Q4 2025 Q1 2026: 22 study replications Q1 2026 Q2 2026: 26 study replications Q2 2026

Study replications delivered per quarter (example data, in study replications)

Show data table
Study replications delivered per quarter (example data)
Quarterstudy replications
Q2 202513
Q3 202517
Q4 202521
Q1 202622
Q2 202626

Project updates

Example updates: fictional news for illustration. Newest first.

  1. Second replication funded

    A partner lab began re-running a widely cited mouse study with a larger sample.

  2. First result published

    The first replication partly held up, and the report explains where it did not.

Example data. This project and its figures are fictional placeholders. See the methodology for how real ratings will be sourced.