Second replication funded
A partner lab began re-running a widely cited mouse study with a larger sample.
Example data Longevity Research Neglectedness 7/10 · Overlooked (example)
Re-runs promising aging studies to check whether results hold up.
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.
Example team (fictional people, for illustration only).
B Source: Example data - not sourced, as of
| Category | Cents per $1 |
|---|---|
| Reaches the work | 89 |
| Overhead | 7 |
| Advertising | 2 |
| Executive pay | 2 |
How the work budget is spent (example data)
A fictional micro-fund that pays independent labs to replicate published longevity experiments, including null results. Placeholder text for layout and illustration only.
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.
Example updates: fictional news for illustration. Newest first.
A partner lab began re-running a widely cited mouse study with a larger sample.
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.